My plans for the ODI game

[Cric123]

I think they need to be changed to 40 overs a side. The 50 over game, which is 100 overs if it goes the distance, is too long for the modern day. I would like to see it changed to 40 overs and the need to speed up the game in terms of overs bowled per hour. We need less downtime between deliveries. We are currently seeing around 13-14 an hour and that is equal to well over 4 minutes per over. I absolutely see why we cant bowl 16 overs per hour (even if only fast bowlers are operating) which will speed things up between balls measurably, making it better viewing for viewers at home.

• 40 overs per side
• Keep 10 overs per bowler. This will result in better bowlers blwwing most of the overs
• Remove field restrictions other than a single 5-over block when a team can only have four fielders outisde the circle, to be chosen by team batting. Any other time up to six fielders should be allowed outside the circle
• Proper sized boundaries. Micky mouse boundaries should be done away with. Mistimed hits will have far higher chance of getting caught in the deep.
• Bats need to be restricted in size. The thickness in the moddle and sides (edges) need to have maximmum regulations. Ideall they would be similar to how they were a few years ago.
• We should be aiming to get the entire ODI done inside five hours (inlcuding a 15 minutes innings break)

Other possible ideas that could be adopted

• We know a large cricket oval field is difficult to protect. We can see this by how many soft runs are scored in ODIS where sometimes a simpe touch with the bat races away to the boundary. It might be a good idea to have one or two designated fielders. So even though only 11 could bat and field, we have either one or two designated fielders (who will only field). This will plug areas like edges that regularly go for fours and also, for example, a soft straight drive. It will allow the fielding team to better protect the field and batsmen will have to ensure they hit the ball hard to beat the field, or a combination of hitting hard and great placement to earn boundaries.
• Since sixes are now tracked for distance, why not offer eight 8 runs for a six when the ball travels over 100 metres or 110 metres? This will add a tactical element to a match. If a team falls behind on run rate, hitting a few 100 metre plus sixes could bring them back into contention. Also, people love watching massive sixes as opposed to ones going for 65-70 metres.

 

[Red]

Warne was talking about no bowling restrictions in one day cricket, meaning bowlers could potentially bowl up to twenty five overs each. I think it would be interesting to see how team selections would change if this was the case, and what tactics would be used to rotate bowlers etc.. I'd imagine teams would still want three front-liners, plus at least one other good bowler in the mix.

 

[Cric123]

Shane Warne can come up with silly ideas sometimes. Twenty five overs a bowler too many. Spinners would hardly play a role for some teams while for others too much. Australia would have Johnson, Starc and Hazlewood do all the bowling. You can go in with three frontline bowlers and the rest all batsmen. I think increasing it to 12 would be a good idea but that would be the absolute tops. You want to see variety in a game.

I would definitely increase it to 6 overs in T20s. Four overs isn't enough for a bowler to build any sort of rhythm because at the moment they are bowling at most two overs a spell. You want four overs in a spell sometimes so aggressive fast bowlers can build up rhythm, hostility and put pressure on the batting team. You want the likes of Steyn, Morkel and other quality bowlers to have greater influence on the outcome of matches. And there is absolutely no need for field restrictions in T20 games. It's not like batsmen need encouragement to go after the bowling in this format.

 

[Red]

Australia would have Johnson, Starc and Hazlewood do all the bowling.

So?

 

[cnerd123]

Feels like the same debate keeps occurring over and over in different threads.

Bowling restrictions are good. It's brings a unique tactical aspect to limited overs cricket to help differentiate them from Tests. I enjoy them.

As for the other ideas...

1) Agree with bat restrictions and longer boundaries

2) Disagree with making it shorter - 50 overs is a good length IMO. The shorter you make the format, the harder you make it for a team to fight back. We already see that in T20s. Once a team gets on top with a good 5-10 overs passage, it's game over. And that's not so hard to do, even for really weak teams. One inspired spell or one hour of inspired batting can win a game.
50 overs - 3.5 hours per innings - means you need to have a more sustained period of dominance, or several sharp bursts, in order to win a game. It rewards the better team basically - you often won't be able to win an ODI off the back of one brilliant cameo or one hour of excellent. 50 overs also gives enough time to have several twists and turns in a game, allowing for more dramatic finishes and overall more entertaining matches - see the NZ vs SA semi-final.
I am against changing the length one way or another. Its not needed IMO.

3) No to 8 runs. It's a massive change to one of the fundamental rules of the game, and will lead to huge ramifications in terms of statistics and analysis and comparisons vs players of different eras (I can imagine all the future threads debating Tendulkar was better than modern cricketers and would have averaged 80 if he could score 8s back in his time and how Afridi would be averaging in the mid 30s with a higher SR if he played modern cricket...)

4) I don't get your designated fielder point. Are they like sub fielders? Or are teams going to field with 11 men instead of 9?