• 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.

I feel like the only person who likes the new ODI format...

Flem274*

123/5
Lots of criticism about how high scoring it is, but imo it has only been ridiculous when the teams leading the way come up against the sides stuck in 2005.

The two new rule ball is awesome. It encourages aggressive bowling tactics, especially since those balls are nice to hit at the death because they're still hard. More swing for longer.

Wickets in hand are rewarded, but it's still possible to hit out early in the innings if you're good enough. The four semi finalists make batting look impossible when they bowl and bowling look impossible when they bat because they know what they're doing and they have the team structure and plan to do it.

The only area where the game is a bit unbalanced is you know if a side gets through to the 35th with wickets in hand, the bowlers are going to cop it. On one hand, I think so they bloody well should be smoked for not taking wickets but I see that you need the fielding side to have a chance to come back at any point.

Death bowling has fallen behind a bit because of that nice hard ball and the fielder rule. Starc is the best death bowler in the world because 150kph swinging yorkers transcend rule changes. Pakistan found some reverse at times (let's face it, it was bottle caps. 20 over old balls don't reverse in Oceania).

For your every day 130-140kph swing or seam bowler though death bowling is something they need to rethink and they will. They will cotton on to it. A lot of it will probably be just outthinking the batsman and sensing what he's going to do.

I do love though how good cricket (conservation of wickets being rewarded, excellent early overs hitting against the moving ball, aggressive new ball bowling, picking five proper bowlers) gets rewarded in the new format.

These days you need four or five cakes in the top five, five bowlers resembling bowlers and not paul collingwood or nathan astle, strike bowlers and a proper spinner. Rank sloggers get owned if they bat too high in the order. Fielding is getting better and better all the time.

We've had 300 v 300 and 250 v 250 and 220 or whatever it was v 180 at this WC alone. A lot of the whinging about ODIs has come whenever a lesser team has run into SA, Aussie, NZ or India and been pulverised.

I love modern ODI cricket. Haters can suck it.
 
Last edited:

Dick Rockett

International Vice-Captain
I think they've got it mostly right. More than anything else I'd like to see bats regulated. I don't mind the power game that exists now, but it really pisses me off when a mistake like an ugly top edge is rewarded with a six. It's not right.
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
It's better in NZ though. We generally see more swing early which keeps the bowlers in the game. In some places the new ball doesn't swing and with no chance of reverse later it's all pretty easy for the batsman.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
how on earth is that a contradiction?
I seriously need to point out that you saying NZ bowling badly at the death might result in jammy wickets in the death overs is contradictory to another post saying "ODI cricket rewards good batting and bowling"? Really?
 
Last edited:

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
I seriously need to point out that you saying NZ bowling badly at the death might result in jammy wickets in the death overs is contradictory to another post saying "ODI cricket rewards good batting and bowling"? Really?
because you have to bat well to actually get to that point?
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
because you have to bat well to actually get to that point?
Of course you do. But hendrix said: "you don't really have to bowl all that well to get wickets if the batsmen are swinging for the fences in the last 15". That's contradictory to him saying that the ODI format rewards good cricket . Plain and simple.
 
Last edited:

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Basically he's agreeing with me that the death overs reward hackish jammy cricket very often but simultaneously says that modern ODI cricket rewards good play. That doesn't make sense to me.
 

kiwiviktor81

International Debutant
Great analysis.

I was against the two new ball rule at first because I thought it would take spinners out of the game and encourage pacemen who just bowled filth at top speed all innings.

Instead, spinners like Vettori and Tahir have just adapted to bowling with a hard ball and are, if anything, more dangerous than ever.

If anything, it's taken some of the luck factor out of the game because batsmen have to protect their wickets better and for longer and bowling sides can't just rely on dibbly dobblers to go for 4 an over in the middle/late stages because the ball is too old to hit hard and the death hasn't started yet.

This removal of some of the luck factor has, naturally, expanded the gap between the good sides and the poor ones. I note that both the NZ-Aus and NZ-SA games were exceptionally close, and that many of the games against lesser sides turned into true hidings.

Tl;dr: I agree that the new format rewards good cricket.
 

kiwiviktor81

International Debutant
Moreover, I'm yet to see filthy sloggers really make an increased impact at the death. The batsmen who have utterly ruined sides in the last 10, like Maxwell, AB, Ronchi, Anderson, Miller et al. are all excellent batsmen mostly playing good shots. Sloggers like Afridi don't appear to have benefitted much, if at all.
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
Basically he's agreeing with me that the death overs reward hackish jammy cricket very often but simultaneously says that modern ODI cricket rewards good play. That doesn't make sense to me.
Under the old rules teams could basically just go into a holding pattern in the mid overs with ****ty part timers and trundlers and allow the opposition to nurdle it around, because it was far easier to defend in the last 10 and try to wait for the batsmen to do something stupid. Under the new rules, this kind of ****ty, boring cricket has the severe consequence of allowing teams swing from the hip and consistently score over 10rpo for the last 10. So you have to take wickets early (IE good bowling) or you're ****ed. From a batting perspective you have to be sensible and keep wickets in hand against threatening bowling (IE good batting).
 

Xuhaib

International Coach
I am not against 2 new ball rule in subcont and England ball will reverse more in last 10 overs then what we have seen here however 4 fielders outisde the circle is dumb and it should be back to old rule of 5 outside the circle.
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think however that on pitches where there isn't generally swing on offer the game seems a bit too weighted towards batsmen - I think in this tournament the games have been far more competitive in New Zealand than Australia.
 

Top