South Africa switches to 40-over domestic cricket

[Naumaan]

South Africa switches to 40-over domestic cricket
Just Read This topic on cricinfo
is it a good thing? i mean Champions trophy has been excellent, can 40 overs can bring same quality as 50 overs ODI??
i doubt it, cuz it allows more & more Hitting & quality of cricket can be ruined, we have 20-20 for this type of cricket, so why ODI's are being reduced to 40 overs?

 

[popepouri]

South Africa switches to 40-over domestic cricket
Just Read This topic on cricinfo
is it a good thing? i mean Champions trophy has been excellent, can 40 overs can bring same quality as 50 overs ODI??
i doubt it, cuz it allows more & more Hitting & quality of cricket can be ruined, we have 20-20 for this type of cricket, so why ODI's are being reduced to 40 overs?

Not much of a change really. They were playing 45 over cricket before.

 

[Arjun]

Pro40 is boring. Neither here nor there. T20 is more extreme, while conventional OD cricket has more twists, even in ten overs.

 

[Naumaan]

Pro40 is boring. Neither here nor there. T20 is more extreme, while conventional OD cricket has more twists, even in ten overs.

100% agreed

 

[Richard]

Bit worrying to see both my favourite sides basically deciding they don't care how good they are at ODIs any more. Because that's what stopping playing 50-over domestic cricket is doing.

BTW 50-over and 45-over cricket isn't really very different. But there's a massive change between 50 and 40.

 

[Streetwise]

Is this to stop players cramping from batting to long.

 

[Autobahn]

BTW 50-over and 45-over cricket isn't really very different. But there's a massive change between 50 and 40.

Why do those five overs make such a difference?

 

[Richard]

He's back!

You've watched 40-over, 45-over and 50-over cricket, surely? You must be able to see that 40-over stuff is often treated like an extended Twenty20 - 5-an-over is a quite acceptable economy-rate and if you bowl 8 overs for, say, 36 you can be quite satisfied with that.

There's next to no chance of 3-4 bowlers all conceding less than 4-an-over if they all bowl very well, which there certainly is in a 50-over and 45-over game, because the instinctive mindset is just different.

 

[Pothas]

Personally have no preferance for 50 overs above 40 overs, in fact in some ways I might prefer 40 overs which has a long enough innings to avoid the failures of twenty20 cricket while it might serve to reduce the tedious middle over syndrome present in 50 over cricket. Would like to think that maybe 40 over international cricket would be able to fuse the good elements of 50 over and 20 over cricket and become the limited overs format for interntational teams.

 

[Richard]

If so you can kiss ODIs goodbye - there's a reason the 40-over format's never caught on apart from as a vaguely useful counterpoint to a sunbathe on a Sunday in the UK.

As I've said before, the middle overs of a 50-over game are the only thing that keep the format credible as cricket. Without them - and that is, without them being conducted seriously by teams who actually try to defend properly rather than just gifting an easy 4.7-5-an-over to the opposition - then one-day cricket just becomes a Twenty20-style -hitfest.

 

[Pothas]

It is not particularly creditable when no one is really trying to take a wicket or making any real atempt to up the scoring. All limited overs matches are by their very nature very artificial and in this way they have none of the credibilaty that you crave. I feel that 40 over would encourage batsman to play sustained innings of true agression, something that is great to watch and happens occasionally in 50 over cricket. At the same time it is long enough to stop the hitfest of 20twenty cricket.

 

[Hurricane]

BTW 50-over and 45-over cricket isn't really very different. But there's a massive change between 50 and 40.

Why do those five overs make such a difference?

Just from playing club cricket which isn't the best comparison point. I find there is a difference between 50 overs and 45 overs. And a much bigger difference between 40 overs and 50 overs.

With 50 overs you can afford to see off the first few overs and then go from there. With 40 overs you have to start scoring at 4 an over from the first over if you can.
You also run out of time in a 40 over game if you are personally trying to get a century. You need those extra ten overs to notch up a ton most of the time.

I find 45 over games to be a confusing cross between the two options (40 vs 50) - you have a little bit more time to settle in than a 40 over game but not too much more.

In club cricket the lower the division the lower the number of overs because they figure the teams won't last as long batting.

I am not sure how relevant my comments are as we are talking about First Class players here but wanted to give my two cents.

 

[Autobahn]

He's back!

You've watched 40-over, 45-over and 50-over cricket, surely? You must be able to see that 40-over stuff is often treated like an extended Twenty20 - 5-an-over is a quite acceptable economy-rate and if you bowl 8 overs for, say, 36 you can be quite satisfied with that.

There's next to no chance of 3-4 bowlers all conceding less than 4-an-over if they all bowl very well, which there certainly is in a 50-over and 45-over game, because the instinctive mindset is just different.

No i've seen plenty of teams treat 40 over cricket completely differently than 20/20 matches and acceptable economy rates depend on more factors than just the number of overs (pitch, size of boundaries etc) which is why i can't understand your last point about the extra 5-10 overs effecting economy rates.

 

[Richard]

It is not particularly creditable when no one is really trying to take a wicket or making any real atempt to up the scoring. All limited overs matches are by their very nature very artificial and in this way they have none of the credibilaty that you crave. I feel that 40 over would encourage batsman to play sustained innings of true agression, something that is great to watch and happens occasionally in 50 over cricket. At the same time it is long enough to stop the hitfest of 20twenty cricket.

I have absolutely no interest in a game that's all about aggression, that's the main reason I find Twenty20 so inendurably boring. I want to see a game that's about a mix of aggression and defence - high-quality defensive bowling in the middle overs of a 50-over game (high-quality attacking bowling at that stage is basically impossible because a white ball of that sort of age does not do enough - so it's an unrealistic expectation to expect attacking bowling in the middle overs) will produce what I consider fascintating play, with batsmen having to balance attack and defence and work-out when to do what.

If you want sustained aggression, watch a Twenty20. If you want a balance between attack and defence, watch a ODI with two good accurate bowling attacks on a non-runway surface. I know which one I prefer, and it's not even close.

 

[Richard]

No i've seen plenty of teams treat 40 over cricket completely differently than 20/20 matches and acceptable economy rates depend on more factors than just the number of overs (pitch, size of boundaries etc) which is why i can't understand your last point about the extra 5-10 overs effecting economy rates.

In the 40-over game maintaining an economy-rate of <4-an-over over any extended period is virtually impossible. Whereas in 50-over cricket, the very best bowlers can do this (on grounds which are not rank postage-stamps and non-runway pitches). Likewise, they can in 45-over stuff.

The difference, as I say, between 45-over and 50-over is not much. The difference between 50-over and 40-over is considerable. Premeditated mindset of batsmen plays the biggest part in this. Same way it played a big part in the massive change in scoring-rates from ODIs of the 1970s and 1980s compared to the 1990s.