-
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.
ODI cricket - T20 without the excitement?
- Thread starter greg
- Start date
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Didn't see it live - but don't think WI came anywhere close to chasing the target successfully. That match is famous only for Guptill's double ton AFAIR.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
The semifinal between SA and NZ is a good example of what T20 could never achieve. Did you ever get as excited watching a T20 match? (or take 1999 semifinal between Aus and SA)
I think the one close match that can be compared to an intense T20 was the one where SA chased 400+ against Aus. And that match is probably not in my list of best 10 ODI matches I've watched....didn't have the ebbs and flows, the subplots like those semifinals for example..
I think the one close match that can be compared to an intense T20 was the one where SA chased 400+ against Aus. And that match is probably not in my list of best 10 ODI matches I've watched....didn't have the ebbs and flows, the subplots like those semifinals for example..
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
More-than-20 > 20
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah they didn't show fight imo, it was more like "well we're sure as **** not going to get there trying to build a proper innings so **** it lets go all out"
Frankly this is completely missing the point of the argument i was trying to make. Which was about the rules as they are now. What a semi-final from 1999 has to do with it is precisely nothing at all. The point i was trying to make is that the current ludicrous fielding regulations are making bowlers near defenseless in trying to restrict batsmen from scoring. On flat pitches this is destroying the traditional "ebb and flow" of ODI matches. Teams are increasingly taking the view that when batting first they have to target the maximum possible score or get bowled out doing so. This is creating far more one sided matches where one side posts a significantly substandard score or a score which is way out of reach. You see far less of teams simply aiming to set a "competitive"/"par" score and rely on the traditional pressure created by runs on the board.
The point of the comparison with T20 wasn't to say that T20 was necessarily a superior game - simply that in a game deliberately designed as batting runfests they at least have the virtue that they more often deliver a close finish. And they don't have as harsh fielding rules as ODIs.
England are currently getting some praise for their "new, exciting, agressive brand of ODI cricket". Frankly all this shows is how clueless we were that we are getting praised for doing something that is basically mandatory under current rules. You can't restrict runs so you have to try and bowl the opposition out. No score is out of reach so you have to get as many runs as possible. It would be much more impressive if they were playing this brand of cricket when it was a genuine choice. A captain prepared at the right time to put in a slip or two, or an extra man in the circle under the old regulations was what distinguished the good captains from the poor formulaic ones. To attack when they needed, to sit in when they needed. But they had a choice.
Last edited:
1) Remove field restrictions (very artificial) and let teams put fielders wherever they want, whenever they want.
2) Use the same ball for entire innings (use an extra layer of paint on the ball to avoid discoloration).
3) Reduce bat thickness. There is more wood in modern bats but at the same time, lighter, meaning the bat is generating more of the power in the shots than it was previously. Signficantly more power.
4) Remove the boundary rope. Use advertsing boards made with soft foam type material and set these as the boundary (positioned all the way back). This will give fielding team greater chance to catch bastmen out on the boundary.
These measures will create a more balanced game between bat and ball, but we should also be mindful that development of T20s has changed the mindset of the limited over batsman a great deal, so while the measures will help create a fairer game, I don't think they will bring the scores down to levels previously. Instead of threatening 400 plus scores regularly, I think we will get more 300-320 scores, but still not the 250. And to be honest, I think that is a good thing. The whole point of limited overs cricket is for people to be entertained. If you have too many games where the ball dominates the bat and we get scores of 230-250, it will lead to a loss of appeal on the part of the average fan.
Above all, people wnat to see batsmen scoring runs (not the bats), people want to see genuine sixes (not 50-60 metre ones), people wnat to see good bowlers have a say and not merely become fodder for batsmen. The pitches should offer something for both the bat and the ball.
We could also allow two bowlers 15 overs each. Too often, teams go in with a weak fifth bowler because they don't want to weaken the batting, which in turn usually leads to others making up the overs. And these contrived overs release pressure off the batting teams (even if they don't always cost huge runs).They can keep wickets in hand for the last 10-12 overs.
2) Use the same ball for entire innings (use an extra layer of paint on the ball to avoid discoloration).
3) Reduce bat thickness. There is more wood in modern bats but at the same time, lighter, meaning the bat is generating more of the power in the shots than it was previously. Signficantly more power.
4) Remove the boundary rope. Use advertsing boards made with soft foam type material and set these as the boundary (positioned all the way back). This will give fielding team greater chance to catch bastmen out on the boundary.
These measures will create a more balanced game between bat and ball, but we should also be mindful that development of T20s has changed the mindset of the limited over batsman a great deal, so while the measures will help create a fairer game, I don't think they will bring the scores down to levels previously. Instead of threatening 400 plus scores regularly, I think we will get more 300-320 scores, but still not the 250. And to be honest, I think that is a good thing. The whole point of limited overs cricket is for people to be entertained. If you have too many games where the ball dominates the bat and we get scores of 230-250, it will lead to a loss of appeal on the part of the average fan.
Above all, people wnat to see batsmen scoring runs (not the bats), people want to see genuine sixes (not 50-60 metre ones), people wnat to see good bowlers have a say and not merely become fodder for batsmen. The pitches should offer something for both the bat and the ball.
We could also allow two bowlers 15 overs each. Too often, teams go in with a weak fifth bowler because they don't want to weaken the batting, which in turn usually leads to others making up the overs. And these contrived overs release pressure off the batting teams (even if they don't always cost huge runs).They can keep wickets in hand for the last 10-12 overs.
Last edited: