• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

20-20 Saves ODI

archie mac

International Coach
I think people started to get bored with ODI because it was predictable during the middle overs, but now that players can score so quickly in the 20 over game, it will start costing teams ODI matches if they take their foot of the accelerator (spelling) even just for five overs it may cost them the game.

Do you think scores of around 350+ will become the norm in ODI?

And will it once again take over as the most popular form of the game?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I've always said I'm highly sceptical of all this talk of Twenty20s increasing the ODI pace.

You still get plenty of ODIs now, as you did 15 years ago, where the bowling is good, the pitch is a non-road and 250 is a good score.

300-350 being not-out-of-reach dates back a good few years before Twenty20 started being played in one country, never mind everywhere.
 

archie mac

International Coach
I've always said I'm highly sceptical of all this talk of Twenty20s increasing the ODI pace.

You still get plenty of ODIs now, as you did 15 years ago, where the bowling is good, the pitch is a non-road and 250 is a good score.

300-350 being not-out-of-reach dates back a good few years before Twenty20 started being played in one country, never mind everywhere.
True, but if you score 350+ you would expect to win most times, I am suggesting that it will be more of a normal score

When ODI first started 220 was considered a good score, then it became 250 and now 280 would be considered a par score. I have no doubt (well not much) that 20-20 will quickly jump it up even higher:)
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
True, but if you score 350+ you would expect to win most times, I am suggesting that it will be more of a normal score

When ODI first started 220 was considered a good score, then it became 250 and now 280 would be considered a par score. I have no doubt (well not much) that 20-20 will quickly jump it up even higher:)
Yeah that's probably true, these things happen. "Giving the batsman width" was an almost non-existent sin some time ago, now a commentators cliche is, "one thing you must not do to player x is give him width!", largely as a result of ODI batting. There'll be advances in T20 that influence ODIs too, and probably also in batting. But i don't know that it'll necessarily save the game.
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
It's far more difficult to sustain the T20 style of scoring over 50 overs.. I hope it neither replaces nor influences 50 over cricket..
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's far more difficult to sustain the T20 style of scoring over 50 overs.. I hope it neither replaces nor influences 50 over cricket..
Yeah, but they don't need to for it to have an influence. Shots like the paddle-sweep over short fine leg which became a popular improvisation in T20 recently are already becoming more common in the death overs of ODIs, so the influence has already begun.
 

_Ed_

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's far more difficult to sustain the T20 style of scoring over 50 overs.. I hope it neither replaces nor influences 50 over cricket..
Yeah, me too.

My favourite ODIs are the ones with scores between 200 and 250.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
"Giving the batsman width" was an almost non-existent sin some time ago
I'm really not sure about that. There've always been batsmen you don't want to be straying too far outside off to, same way there've always been those you particularly want to stay away from the pads (there are precious few weak there, some are just particularly strong rather than relatively strong), some you don't want to bowl anything short to, some you want to keep it back of driveable length, etc. There might be a few more at the current time with the flatness of the pitches, but that wouldn't last with some more sporting and\or slightly slower decks.
 

andruid

Cricketer Of The Year
Merhinks it is the other way round. ODIs made t20s, which were supposed to be new and improved ODIs, possible
 

Precambrian

Banned
Although ODIs have become more of runfests than ever, I tihnk its only a matter of time before they are relegated from the International scene forever by T20s which I think is a good move.
 

Redbacks

International Captain
True, but if you score 350+ you would expect to win most times, I am suggesting that it will be more of a normal score

When ODI first started 220 was considered a good score, then it became 250 and now 280 would be considered a par score. I have no doubt (well not much) that 20-20 will quickly jump it up even higher:)
which would indicate scoring rates were improving regardless of T20's introduction. Yet to see a T20 innings on a decent sized oval any more aggressive than a few Gilly and others have played consistantly in ODI's. Only difference is in T20 it's not as exciting to watch for me as the reward to risk ratio is completely ridiculous.
 

archie mac

International Coach
which would indicate scoring rates were improving regardless of T20's introduction. Yet to see a T20 innings on a decent sized oval any more aggressive than a few Gilly and others have played consistantly in ODI's. Only difference is in T20 it's not as exciting to watch for me as the reward to risk ratio is completely ridiculous.
No doubt it was on the way up, I think it will increase it much faster

I don't watch 20/20, and don't care too much about ODI, was just wondering what people thought:)
 

KiWiNiNjA

International Coach
Nah, I think higher scores in ODI's can be attributed more to the longer powerplays more than influence of 20-20.

I certainly hope 20-20 doesnt take over from ODI's as I find ODI's much more enjoyable to watch compared to 20-20.
 

pup11

International Coach
I think people started to get bored with ODI because it was predictable during the middle overs, but now that players can score so quickly in the 20 over game, it will start costing teams ODI matches if they take their foot of the accelerator (spelling) even just for five overs it may cost them the game.

Do you think scores of around 350+ will become the norm in ODI?

And will it once again take over as the most popular form of the game?
I hope that' not the case because atleast for me that would become pretty boring then, i would like to see a good contest between bat and ball in ODI' and if 350 becomes the norm then that would hardly be case, T20 would bring in more inovative and aggressive stroke-play in ODI cricket which might result in 300+ scores being posted on flat pitches for a while, but i think the good bowlers would also find a way to negate the batsmen as they have done over the period of time, so i can't see any dramatic change taking place in ODI cricket in terms of the scoring rate, but the batting Power-play certainly is something that could help the batting sides make those extra 20-30 runs.
 

Precambrian

Banned
I hope that' not the case because atleast for me that would become pretty boring then, i would like to see a good contest between bat and ball in ODI' and if 350 becomes the norm then that would hardly be case, T20 would bring in more inovative and aggressive stroke-play in ODI cricket which might result in 300+ scores being posted on flat pitches for a while, but i think the good bowlers would also find a way to negate the batsmen as they have done over the period of time, so i can't see any dramatic change taking place in ODI cricket in terms of the scoring rate, but the batting Power-play certainly is something that could help the batting sides make those extra 20-30 runs.
Every real cricket lover would prefer 250 play 240 kind of matches than 350+ borefests. Sadly, we hardly make up 10% of the audience (or rather market) out there.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Nah, I think higher scores in ODI's can be attributed more to the longer powerplays more than influence of 20-20.
It started to happen before that even. The 20 rather than 15 overs of Powerplay was introduced in 2005, and the start of the thing was 2001 sort of time.
 

Top