300-300 ODI matches are boring? I disagree

[Burgey]

Yet people do a load when they get a 120-140 scoreline (not saying you do btw). How's that a contest between bat and ball either? I don't want to see a road-a-thon, but by the same token I wouldn't want to see ODIs where they don't need to turn the lights on.

It's like with tests. Aside from idiots who think rank turners from day one are great (and those people wouldn't know their arse from a Bruno Cuccinelli unstructured linen blazer) everyone thinks an ideal test wicket is greenish day one, flattens out days two and three, turns days four and five - because it has something in it for everyone. And yeah, that is ideal. But you get it about once every four years. It's not like 359 plays 360 ODIs are standard, and as far as ODIs go, 280-300 is the new 240-260 anyway, with the power plays, smaller and faster outfields and bats like cannons.

 

[hendrix]

I think 300 up to even 330 is pretty acceptable as being on the high side, and are extremely good run chases. But 360 being chased in the 43rd over...that's actual quite far removed from 330 in my opinion. To get 330, teams need to get a good start and then completely maraud during the death overs.

360 chased in the 43rd over they need to be pretty much marauding the whole way through. Now I know it's different for chasing teams in that they generally try to keep their run-rate above what the setting team maintained, but still.

Basically, there needs to be some point where you feel that pressure is being applied to the batsmen. Usually this is in the middle overs. This is why I don't understand people's gripe with the "boring" middle overs. To me, it's the most fascinating feature of ODI cricket and it's unique to the format.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Yet people do a load when they get a 120-140 scoreline (not saying you do btw). How's that a contest between bat and ball either? I don't want to see a road-a-thon, but by the same token I wouldn't want to see ODIs where they don't need to turn the lights on.

It's like with tests. Aside from idiots who think rank turners from day one are great (and those people wouldn't know their arse from a Bruno Cuccinelli unstructured linen blazer) everyone thinks an ideal test wicket is greenish day one, flattens out days two and three, turns days four and five - because it has something in it for everyone. And yeah, that is ideal. But you get it about once every four years. It's not like 359 plays 360 ODIs are standard, and as far as ODIs go, 280-300 is the new 240-260 anyway, with the power plays, smaller and faster outfields and bats like cannons.

Well, exactly. I want to see bowlers rewarded when they bowl well, but pinged if they bowl loose. At it's best, you have a good contest between bat and ball - the bowler can dismiss the set batsman, but only through good bowling (or, I guess, more shot selection/batsmanship) but you still end up with a close contest. I never want to see LokoCricket and whilst I quite enjoy watching cricket when it's tough for the batsman - I wouldn't want every game to be that way round either.

I guess, in theory, you could have a 350 vs. 350 match where excellent batting has outperformed good bowling, but by and large these type of scores are made on boring pitches and tend to make boring games until the last couple of overs.

And as for the part in bold, I definitely don't think that's a good thing. Those changes have all skewed the ODI format in favour of the batsman.

 

[Maximas]

It doesn't help that in ODIs the kind of bowlers who get picked are often ****ty second string bowlers.

The other thing is that 350-350 can be a very good game if it comes as a break from the rest of the series or tournament. Everyone talks about a 'balance between ball and bat', however I don't believe this should be within the same game necessarily. Over the course of the series you ideally want a variety of pitches and conditions that produce a variety of games. I hate seeing a series when every game is pushing 300 plus.

 

[Burgey]

Well, exactly. I want to see bowlers rewarded when they bowl well, but pinged if they bowl loose. At it's best, you have a good contest between bat and ball - the bowler can dismiss the set batsman, but only through good bowling (or, I guess, more shot selection/batsmanship) but you still end up with a close contest. I never want to see LokoCricket and whilst I quite enjoy watching cricket when it's tough for the batsman - I wouldn't want every game to be that way round either.

I guess, in theory, you could have a 350 vs. 350 match where excellent batting has outperformed good bowling, but by and large these type of scores are made on boring pitches and tend to make boring games until the last couple of overs.

And as for the part in bold, I definitely don't think that's a good thing. Those changes have all skewed the ODI format in favour of the batsman.

Fair points. I think that games like last night will still most often be pretty rare though, simply because such a big total means you really have to go hard from ball one. Most of the time you'll lose wickets and there'll be a comfy enough win for the side which batted first. It's pretty rare even for really good international batsmen to go that hard in such a big chase and win it so easily.

But by far my biggest disappointment so far this series is the lack of response to my Dew as an insult comment.

 

[SteveNZ]

I'm sure we can all agree it's subjective. The last Chappell-Hadlee series threw up a 10-wicket win and two 320+ plays 321+ and it was an absolute belter of a series, where bowlers who got it right got justice and those who didn't suffered accordingly. And from what I saw of last night, that chase was cannon fodder. Sport is best enjoyed as a contest. 360-1 with 39 balls to go is not a contest.

7-match ODI series....now that is boring. Real easy way to devalue your product.

 

[JontyPanesar]

You can overplay how regular these types of games are though. It's the second biggest chase ever, and in terms of the wickets lost and the overs remaining, there's never quite been a chase like it. Australia scored 304 in the first game and India didn't get near after all.

I'm of a strong opinion that ODI batting has improved immensely over the years. The fact that they can hit certain deliveries in so many areas now just completely increases scoring options. Added to that the strength and audacity that people play with and scores are always going to be higher. So overall I don't mind high scoring games particularly. What annoys me perhaps more than the pitches though - how regularly do we see non flat pitches for ODI's anyway? - is small grounds and fast outfields. With only four players allowed at maximum at all stages, it gets to the point where players can mi**** boundaries over the infield and even hit sixes without getting that much of it. That slightly undermines the batting in itself IMO, as it merges the guys who can just swing at everything and the proper quality players like Kohli.

I don't hate 350 v. 350 but I would love to see more ODIs played on minefields. If only there was a way to keep tough pitch conditions relatively constant for both teams....

 

[ankitj]

I think when one says they don't like seeing 350 being chased down comfortably (as opposed to it being a close contest), it is important to qualify that the chase was made easy because of poor bowling and not very good batting. If not, then it sounds like people will rather watch batting being poorer so as to get a close game. Just looking at the scoreline of yesterday's game for example and scorning at it is not right. In the interest of cricket, you can't wish that Kohli had not played those breathtaking cover drives and pulls just so that India got over the line limping rather than like a jog in the park

 

[CricAddict]

I think when one says they don't like seeing 350 being chased down comfortably (as opposed to it being a close contest), it is important to qualify that the chase was made easy because of poor bowling and not very good batting. If not, then it sounds like people will rather watch batting being poorer so as to get a close game. Just looking at the scoreline of yesterday's game for example and scorning at it is not right. In the interest of cricket, you can't wish that Kohli had not played those breathtaking cover drives and pulls just so that India got over the line limping rather than like a jog in the park

My main point for being against 350-350 is what was said above by HDS. Batsmen hitting sixes off mi****s in small grounds and pitches with nothing for the bowlers, and fast outfields giving fielders no chance takes out 2 out of the three aspects of cricket (bowling and fielding). Cricket is about all three, not just batting alone..

 

[smash84]

this is so funny....the word mis-hit gets censored halfway through

 

[ankitj]

My main point for being against 350-350 is what was said above by HDS. Batsmen hitting sixes off mi****s in small grounds and pitches with nothing for the bowlers, and fast outfields giving fielders no chance takes out 2 out of the three aspects of cricket (bowling and fielding). Cricket is about all three, not just batting alone..

I fully agree with you and others on the points about the rules and playing conditions that distort the balance between bat and ball. I have different view regarding:

1. 300-300 matches. If first team scores 300, a better situation is one where second batting team has higher probability of scoring 300, rather than getting choked up on the scoreboard pressure
2. Close matches being better. Not part of my opening post, but I think one can't apply that argument uniformly. A comfortable win is bad when it is result of **** performance by one team or individual(s). But it can be memorable if it is result of brilliant, once in a blue moon performances by some individuals.

 

[Cabinet96]

I don't hate 350 v. 350 but I would love to see more ODIs played on minefields. If only there was a way to keep tough pitch conditions relatively constant for both teams....

Yeah, I think that'll always be a problem. Pitches with grass on them get easier for batting, dust bowls get harder. The only real way a pitch can stay **** throughout is if it's just slow and low, and that makes really boring and turgid cricket as well.

I guess they could produce dust bowls in day/night games, as the lights coming on and dew will counteract against the pitch breaking up further. But that would probably favour the side batting second too much.

 

[Furball]

What annoys me most is tiny boundaries.

Fair enough if the batsman gets all of it and sticks it 20 rows back but it bugs me when batsmen get nowhere near it and still stick it over the rope.

Finch did it loads in the first T20.

 

[Furball]

Yeah, I think that'll always be a problem. Pitches with grass on them get easier for batting, dust bowls get harder. The only real way a pitch can stay **** throughout is if it's just slow and low, and that makes really boring and turgid cricket as well.

I guess they could produce dust bowls in day/night games, as the lights coming on and dew will counteract against the pitch breaking up further. But that would probably favour the side batting second too much.

Why not prepare two wickets and use 1 per innings?

 

[Cabinet96]

Why not prepare two wickets and use 1 per innings?

I'm not really sure using different pitches brilliantly satisfies the "conditions should be similar for both sides".

Besides a lot of it is to do with time of day/weather conditions. A green top flattens out because it dries. A dustbowl becomes harder to bat on because it gets drier, as does the outfield making reverse swing easier. Using different pitches wouldn't prevent that really.

 

[Jarquis]

Yeah, you'd have to leave the second pitch covered after the start of play and there's no way to prevent fielders running on it in the first innings. Just a nonsensical suggestion.

 

[JontyPanesar]

Why not prepare two wickets and use 1 per innings?

Unless you know of a way to properly drop in a pitch during the innings break, that's pretty much impossible

 

[benchmark00]

Lokomotiv board.