ICC looking at four 25-over innings in ODIs

[Zinzan]

The essence of the matter, though, is that 50-over cricket isn't the ideal product. 60-over cricket was always better. What ODIs need is to become less like Twenty20. If something new was tried, that has never been tried before, in making the 60-over ODI universal (there have only ever been 60-over ODIs in the 1975, 79 and 83 World Cups - never anywhere else), I reckon that'd have great potential. But it's not remotely likely, for several reasons.

Of course after those 60 overs games in WC's, I'm pretty sure England intially reduced their home ODI's to 55 overs for quite a few years (even when NZ toured in 1990 & maybe later) before finally merging with the rest of the world onto the 50 over version.

 

[Richard]

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.

Which is why good captaincy will see the most accurate bowlers bowling with 5-6 in the circle.

 

[Richard]

Of course after those 60 overs games in WC's, I'm pretty sure England intially reduced their home ODI's to 55 overs for quite a few years (even when NZ toured in 1990 & maybe later) before finally merging with the rest of the world onto the 50 over version.

All of England's home ODIs outside the 1975, 1979 and 1983 World Cups were 55-over matches, right from the very first ones in 1972. The first time they conformed with West Indies, Australia, New Zealand, India and Sri Lanka and played 50-over matches was 1996. Pakistan first played 50-over games at home as late as 1994/95 (or a year or so around then, can't remember exactly and CBA to check - I'm drunk) and South Africa and Zimbabwe of course didn't play any home ODIs at all until 1992/93.

I was really surprised when I first checked how late it actually was that the 50-over ODI became completely universal. Was well into the 1990s; I'd presumed until then that it was ~1987-1988-1989.