ICC looking at four 25-over innings in ODIs

[Richard]

I'm guessing you desire for the return of 60 overs is to make teams preserve wickets for the long road to the end of the innings, maybe a larger degree of defence mixed with attacking cricket.

I would suggest you don't need to extend the game back out to 60 overs to generate such play, but it would be easier just to reduce the amount of wickets available to team maybe only 8, 7 wickets equals all out. this leaves you to play specialist bowlers who are not going to be needed to bat. therefore you have no need for part timers or bits and pieces players..

Given your propensity for preferring elaborate, needless over-complication changes over simple ones, I'm not surprised you prefer to advocate the reduction in the number of players allowed to bat. However, I think that of the two options the best way to encourage more defence and less attack in batting (and simualtaneously more attack and less defence in bowling) in ODIs would be to move from 50 to 60 overs.

Cricket has always been a game of eleven players can bat, eleven field and can bowl. I see absolutely no good reason whatsoever to change that when a simple change would have a similar effect.

 

[Richard]

Why is 60 overs better?

Because it encourages more in the way of defensive batting, and that in turn makes attacking bowling more likely (as bowlers have less need to worry about defence). IE, it makes the game less Twenty20-like, which is exactly what ODIs need in my book. It also happens to be how I like them best. And it gives more scope for the individual achievement which is so vital to cricket - batsmen have the chance to make bigger scores, bowlers have more overs to take massive hauls. The result should be higher batting averages, lower bowling averages, lower bowling economy-rates and lower batting strike-rates. All of which is what ODIs need in my book, because there's too much in the way of monotonous quick-scoring games at the current time. And also the prospect remains open of collossal team scores once in a while when all goes well.

What's more, if 120 overs was the target rather than 100 there'd be good reason to enforce a faster over-rate. And the result is you get more cricket for your money.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

England is the only Country with enough daylight for 60 over ODI's and even then only for a limited time in June and July. In the three World Cups they had lunch and tea breaks at the normal times instead of one break between innings. It's seems amazing now to think back to batsman playing for an interval when it was often around 30 overs of the first teams innings or 25 overs of the second.

 

[Richard]

England is the only Country with enough daylight for 60 over ODI's and even then only for a limited time in June and July.

Which is why they weren't remotely possible pre-floodlights. Now that more major international grounds than not have such things, it's a prospect with more going for it.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

We all know there's no chance of 60 overs coming back anyway. I wouldn't be surprised to see a best of three 20/Twenty played on the same day (with enough prize money at stake to make a potential "dead rubber" still meaningful.)

 

[Richard]

We all know there's no chance of 60 overs coming back anyway.

I'm well aware that it's about as likely me finding Roman gold of the value of £6,700 buried at the bottom of my garden tomorrow and finding a way to sell it for £9,500, thus not only bartering for inflated value but skirting the Treasure Trove laws. Nonetheless, the point is, 60-over ODIs would be an ideal way to make ODIs exactly what they need to be, which is less Twenty20-like.

 

[Penguinissimo]

One other thing I liked from the Chappell Cricinfo article was this:

The requirement should be that five bowlers have to deliver a minimum of five overs each. Apart from that the captain can utilise his bowlers how he sees fit. The more overs available to the better bowlers, the more likely a captain will attack rather than defend with stop-gap trundlers

The bane of England's ODI side has often been their propensity to play too many bit-part players, who can bat a bit and get through a few overs. You'd realistically need three frontline bowlers who could bowl 40 between them, and then a couple of batting all-rounders who could bowl five tidy overs in the middle somewhere (KP, for example, could easily do this for England).

That way we see more of top bowlers bowling to good batsmen, rather than the relentless mediocrity that currently characterises a lot of ODIs.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I'm well aware that it's about as likely me finding Roman gold of the value of £6,700 buried at the bottom of my garden tomorrow and finding a way to sell it for £9,500, thus not only bartering for inflated value but skirting the Treasure Trove laws.

Anyone else would have settled for saying it's as likely as Caster Semenya growing breasts.

 

[Furball]

One other thing I liked from the Chappell Cricinfo article was this:



The bane of England's ODI side has often been their propensity to play too many bit-part players, who can bat a bit and get through a few overs. You'd realistically need three frontline bowlers who could bowl 40 between them, and then a couple of batting all-rounders who could bowl five tidy overs in the middle somewhere (KP, for example, could easily do this for England).

That way we see more of top bowlers bowling to good batsmen, rather than the relentless mediocrity that currently characterises a lot of ODIs.

I liked that idea as well - one of the things that turns me off ODIs currently is that bowlers like James Hopes, who get smashed in T20 and wouldn't get near the Test side, can be reasonably successful in 50 over cricket.

 

[Richard]

One other thing I liked from the Chappell Cricinfo article was this:



The bane of England's ODI side has often been their propensity to play too many bit-part players, who can bat a bit and get through a few overs. You'd realistically need three frontline bowlers who could bowl 40 between them, and then a couple of batting all-rounders who could bowl five tidy overs in the middle somewhere (KP, for example, could easily do this for England).

That way we see more of top bowlers bowling to good batsmen, rather than the relentless mediocrity that currently characterises a lot of ODIs.

KP bowling a few tidy overs is extremely unlikely. By-and-large, part-time bowlers in ODIs tend to be far more expensive than front-liners.

I always prefer to see five bowlers play who can bowl 10 overs for reasonable cost. England playing the large number of nothing players they've played in ODIs in recent years is a result of a) the lack of quality one-day players in the country; b) the selectorial ineptitude that means ODI players are often judged on their performances in First-Class cricket rather than one-day; and c) the fact that selectors too often pick "attacking" bowlers who are in reality neither attacking nor defensive, when they'd be best-served either going for actual wicket-takers or (more ideally) picking bowlers who can bowl with good accuracy.

 

[Penguinissimo]

But don't you find the accurate, economical but unthreatening bowlers tedious to watch? Particularly because of the sort of batting that they induce?

Or at least see why the majority of the cricket-watching population finds it tedious?

 

[Furball]

I still say Saj Mahmood should have been given a chance in this series. He'd have more than likely been absolutely mullered, but in 14 List A games this season he's taken 22 wickets at an average of 21.72, SR 29.5, econ 4.42.

Good enough to merit another chance internationally IMO, especially when you consider Graham Onions has been called up - who doesn't get a game for Durham.

 

[Richard]

But don't you find the accurate, economical but unthreatening bowlers tedious to watch? Particularly because of the sort of batting that they induce?

Or at least see why the majority of the cricket-watching population finds it tedious?

Yes, I find it fascinating to watch really accurate medium-fast (~80mph) bowling with the wicketkeeper up to the stumps and five-six fielders in the circle, and batsmen trying to find ways to score. I find it infinitely more watchable than popgun bowlers being smashed for 7-8-an-over with batsmen barely breaking sweat, or less-than-mediocre part-timers being milked for 5-6-an-over with four fielders in the circle with, again, batsmen barely breaking sweat. And also far more watchable than seeing the ball seam\turn all over the place and bowlers, even if they get whacked for 5-6-an-over, being allowed by the conditions to knock batsmen over.

The best ODIs for me are where batting units work hard to post 220-230, managing only occasional breakout periods of seriously quick scoring (maybe in a Powerplay, or in the last 5 overs), batting out 50 overs, then the opposition batting being made to fight right to the 50th over before securing victory. I much prefer this to a side whacking 330-7 off 50 overs then another side either making it with 4 overs left or being reduced to 110-5 in the 22nd thus meaning game-over. And I also prefer it to a side being bowled-out for 160 in the 43rd over and the opposition chasing it down in the 29th.

I like competetive, middle-of-the-road-scoring ODIs. And yes, I think that if most genuine cricket fans see enough of them, then they too will do. Maybe the average pleb who doesn't really like cricket might prefer the 330-plays-210-if-their-team-wins formula. But stuff 'em - they can have Twenty20.

 

[Richard]

I still say Saj Mahmood should have been given a chance in this series. He'd have more than likely been absolutely mullered, but in 14 List A games this season he's taken 22 wickets at an average of 21.72, SR 29.5, econ 4.42.

Good enough to merit another chance internationally IMO, especially when you consider Graham Onions has been called up - who doesn't get a game for Durham.

You know full well why Onions has been picked, it's because he was reasonably successful in the Tests. In most places, England especially, this is given far more weight than domestic OD success. This is completely the wrong way to go about selection and England have got the ODI team they've deserved for a decade and more because of it. But it's as inevitable now as it was in 2001, because the reasons for mistaken beliefs are ingrained in generations.

 

[Furball]

I find it infinitely more watchable than...less-than-mediocre part-timers being milked for 5-6-an-over with four fielders in the circle with, again, batsmen barely breaking sweat.

This is hands down the most unwatchable thing about ODIs.

 

[Furball]

You know full well why Onions has been picked, it's because he was reasonably successful in the Tests. In most places, England especially, this is given far more weight than domestic OD success. This is completely the wrong way to go about selection and England have got the ODI team they've deserved for a decade and more because of it. But it's as inevitable now as it was in 2001, because the reasons for mistaken are ingrained in generations.

True, which is why I can't for the life of me understand why Jonathan Trott hasn't been picked this series - because the wrong criteria for picking players has actually been met.

 

[Penguinissimo]

This is hands down the most unwatchable thing about ODIs.

Which is why it would be better to have Brett Lee and Mitchell Johnson bowling 4 each of James Hopes' and Shane Watson's overs, for example. Better bowlers = better cricket.

 

[Richard]

But better =| wicket-taking. Really, really good tight bowling is, to my mind, every bit as watchable as - in fact far more so than - expensive-but-threatening bowling (which Lee and Johnson sometimes are; sometimes they're expensive-and-innocuous as well, let's remember) in a game where the batsmen are limited in their overs and must try to find a way to break the shackles.

Accurate-but-unthreatening bowling isn't very interesting in Tests, but in ODIs it's fascinating IMO.

 

[Furball]

But better =| wicket-taking. Really, really good tight bowling is, to my mind, every bit as watchable as - in fact far more so than - expensive-but-threatening bowling (which Lee and Johnson sometimes are; sometimes they're expensive-and-innocuous as well, let's remember) in a game where the batsmen are limited in their overs and must try to find a way to break the shackles.

Accurate-but-unthreatening bowling isn't very interesting in Tests, but in ODIs it's fascinating IMO.

There's got to be some degree of threat IMO. Regardless of how accurate a bowler is, if he offers zero wicket-taking threat then it should be fairly easy to milk 4-5 runs an over with 4 in the circle.

 

[slugger]

The best ODIs for me are where batting units work hard to post 220-230, managing only occasional breakout periods of seriously quick scoring (maybe in a Powerplay, or in the last 5 overs), batting out 50 overs, then the opposition batting being made to fight right to the 50th over before securing victory..

this looks like late 80's and early 90's odi...

before fielding improved, before the keeper also had to bat well, before players took maximum advantage of field restrictions, before anyone had even realised what a strike -rate was.

It was a romantic time.... the 1992 world cup was the pinnacle of that period. M.Crowe = innovation, M Greatbatch = Smash n Bash J Rhodes = fielding Inzy = Young/unknown match winner.