Will ODI's die a slow death?

[Craig]

Sri Lanka wouldn't make any money from hosting India, England or even Australia in a Test series. Whereas they will make up their losses and make some money from the following ODI series or Twenty20 series. We aren't the only country in this sitaution either.

Not even when the Barmy Army comes along? But if Test cricket is a non rater in Sri Lanka, it is a non rater I guess.

 

[chaminda_00]

Not even when the Barmy Army comes along? But if Test cricket is a non rater in Sri Lanka, it is a non rater I guess.

The thing is only a small number of Barmy Army come to Sri Lanka in general, compared to other tours. So it does make enough of a difference to make a profit, at most you will cover your costs. When it comes down to it you need your local fans to watch the matches to really gain money. Overseas fans, even in large number don't always make much difference, if you got no local fans.

Test Cricket used to rate in Sri Lanka, but after the success of ODI team and increase in 2-Test match series. Where basically only Colombo get regular Tests it doesn't rate much. You get more local fans in Kandy and Galle. But with only Two Tests per series and Galle and Kandy being out of action until recently. They never really get enough Tests to keep interest going. Colombo also has quite a few ODI grounds in the main city and the out skirts, so they have been flooded with ODIs.

If there was more Tests and especially Test in smaller regions, Test cricket will rate again. But with the current format, it only going downhill.

 

[SJS]

Frankly, the predictability depends on the length of the format.

Tests are least predictable because the length of the format allows time to recover from the most disastrous of situations.

ODI's are more predictable only because a disastrous response of the team batting second or a great reply after a disastrous performance by the team batting first, makes a recovery virtually impossible. The same should theoretically apply to still shorter versions. 220 runs by the team batting first and 60 for 7 in reply in the first ten overs, kills the game, and thats a fact as does 110 by the team batting first and 80 for 2 in 10 overs in response.

We have just not seen enough of T20 matches yet for all possible scenarios to play out and repetitions of matches that have gone before start hitting us in the face.

That is why the non-cricketing aspects viz cheer-leaders, orange caps, awards for most sixes, length of hits, number of sixes. and general emphasis on the boundary and over the boundary hit being what constitutes entertainment rather than the cricket per se is stressed so much.

Also the hype of city loyalties and fans versus fans (most IPL ads are based on this) is expected to keep the fans interested by sheer strength of their loyalties and the emotions attached.

The jury, I believe is still out on whether this will, in the long term sustain interest even if the cricket is not great, is still out.

Otherwise, if you just realise that a run a ball chase of the odi's is the same as a 9 runs per over in the T-20 format (with 180 runs in T20 being like 300 in odi's) you can extrapolate most scenarios and what constitutes economical bowling or a good strike rate.

Batsmen and bowlers have still not settled down with the 'strategies' of how to 'structure' an innings which is what led to the so called middle-overs-boredom of the 50 over format. Once this has been worked out over the next couple of years, T20 matches will also follow a "repetitive-model."

This is built into the 'shortness' of the game where maximising run rate (which may lead to risk taking' has to be balanced against early loss of wickets which leads to prudence.

The only way that can be avoided is where one of them, say loss of wickets, becomes irrelevant. To put it in a ridiculously exaggerated way (just to put the point across), it would not matter if ten balls or less constituted an innings. Then every ball could be hit (tried to be hit) for a six.

The problems of odi's middle overs are partly self created by the field restrictions of the initial overs which meant that hitting was reserved for the beginning and the death. They tried to overcome this by the flexibility of the power play but most captains refused to make much use of this flexibility and tried to get this 'risky' period out of the way and done with at the earliest so as to be able to focus on the more traditional 'strategies' while leading a fielding side.

As in the economy, so in every other sphere, too much interference without rectifying the basic flaws never leads to long term solutions that work.

Test cricket (and first class cricket) was having problems of spectator indifference primarily due to the boring draws of the fifties and sixties. Instead of modifying these longer games to ensure more results at that time, MCC came up with the one day tournaments at the county level and after the initial success these became international too. But it hasn't worked in the long run because the original issue was NOT tackled.

What it did, however, was to introduce a form of the game which took much less time BESIDES bringing assured results, and it has become that much more difficult to bring the crowds back to the longer version now because the spectators are just not used to watching cricket for 'days on end'

 

[honestbharani]

Frankly, the predictability depends on the length of the format.

Tests are least predictable because the length of the format allows time to recover from the most disastrous of situations.

ODI's are more predictable only because a disastrous response of the team batting second or a great reply after a disastrous performance by the team batting first, makes a recovery virtually impossible. The same should theoretically apply to still shorter versions. 220 runs by the team batting first and 60 for 7 in reply in the first ten overs, kills the game, and thats a fact as does 110 by the team batting first and 80 for 2 in 10 overs in response.

We have just not seen enough of T20 matches yet for all possible scenarios to play out and repetitions of matches that have gone before start hitting us in the face.

That is why the non-cricketing aspects viz cheer-leaders, orange caps, awards for most sixes, length of hits, number of sixes. and general emphasis on the boundary and over the boundary hit being what constitutes entertainment rather than the cricket per se is stressed so much.

Also the hype of city loyalties and fans versus fans (most IPL ads are based on this) is expected to keep the fans interested by sheer strength of their loyalties and the emotions attached.

The jury, I believe is still out on whether this will, in the long term sustain interest even if the cricket is not great, is still out.

Otherwise, if you just realise that a run a ball chase of the odi's is the same as a 9 runs per over in the T-20 format (with 180 runs in T20 being like 300 in odi's) you can extrapolate most scenarios and what constitutes economical bowling or a good strike rate.

Batsmen and bowlers have still not settled down with the 'strategies' of how to 'structure' an innings which is what led to the so called middle-overs-boredom of the 50 over format. Once this has been worked out over the next couple of years, T20 matches will also follow a "repetitive-model."

This is built into the 'shortness' of the game where maximising run rate (which may lead to risk taking' has to be balanced against early loss of wickets which leads to prudence.

The only way that can be avoided is where one of them, say loss of wickets, becomes irrelevant. To put it in a ridiculously exaggerated way (just to put the point across), it would not matter if ten balls or less constituted an innings. Then every ball could be hit (tried to be hit) for a six.

The problems of odi's middle overs are partly self created by the field restrictions of the initial overs which meant that hitting was reserved for the beginning and the death. They tried to overcome this by the flexibility of the power play but most captains refused to make much use of this flexibility and tried to get this 'risky' period out of the way and done with at the earliest so as to be able to focus on the more traditional 'strategies' while leading a fielding side.

As in the economy, so in every other sphere, too much interference without rectifying the basic flaws never leads to long term solutions that work.

Test cricket (and first class cricket) was having problems of spectator indifference primarily due to the boring draws of the fifties and sixties. Instead of modifying these longer games to ensure more results at that time, MCC came up with the one day tournaments at the county level and after the initial success these became international too. But it hasn't worked in the long run because the original issue was NOT tackled.

What it did, however, was to introduce a form of the game which took much less time BESIDES bringing assured results, and it has become that much more difficult to bring the crowds back to the longer version now because the spectators are just not used to watching cricket for 'days on end'

Excellent points as usual, SJS.



The one thing I will add to this is that in the mid 90s, the ODIs were at their best. And I think the reasons were:


a. No team were head and shoulders above the rest. Personally, I felt circa 95-early 99 RSA were the best, but even they didn't stand out from the crowd. There was a group of 4-5 teams who were all capable of beating each other any day around the top and some other teams like India were more than capable of defeating others on their day too...


b. There weren't such ridiculously flat tracks and even if there was, teams were not so bold in attacking all the time and so 300+ were still really good scores and made matches interesting. Fielding captains weren't so intent on going back to 5 out and 4 in theory in the middle overs as they have been since then.


c. The biggest reason for all that, I believe, was that pitches always had something for the bowlers... Juz a 20% most of the time but it was good enough. It kept captains interested in taking wickets and it kept batsmen interested in trying to see out bowlers and it kept bowlers interested in trying to attack the batsmen. Unless and until we get such pitches again, ODIs will continue to be boring and predicatable in the middle overs. T20s will get predictable too with time, but it lasts for a lesser time and you can deal with it. It is honestly asking too much from fans to sit through the repetitive bore of the middle overs for 3 hours every game in a 7 hour game.... It has started to get to me and I am as die hard as they come as a cricket fan.

 

[Bahnz]

I really hope not. T20 matches are so boring and repetitive, it really is difficult to enjoy watching a prolonged series like IPL. It takes all the excitement out of boundary hitting and values gimmicks and part-timers other truely talented players.

ODI's have their flaws, including the majority matches lacking an exciting finish, and the increasing dominance of sides that choose to field first. But it still feels like it has a lot more substance, and the extra time involved allows a lot more of the ebb and flow that makes Test Cricket the best sport there is. In T20's on the other hand, one poor 5 over period is usually all it takes to cost you the match.

 

[Richard]

It's funny to hate ODI cricket yet it was invented to stop Test cricket from dying as it nearly did in England in the 50's (and 60's I think) as football (soccer) was getting more and more popular.

Biggest myth. Test cricket was never dying, and hopefully never will. Football (soccer) has always been more popular than cricket in this country. It was brought in because domestic crowds (after a brief post-WWII boom) had died down again and people were trying to get domestic attendances up. Both the knockout Cup (sponsord in turn by Gillette, NatWest, C&G, FP) and the Sunday (later CGU and toteSport) League were initially successful. But like so much (including Twenty20 at the current time) the sheen was rubbed off by over-use (before long the League had too many games and the B&H Cup should never have been started) and international cricket muscling in. And matters weren't helped by the fact that a superior format (60 overs) was reduced over time to an inferior one (50 overs).

ODIs happened by accident (though had the first not done so, it would've happened eventually anyway) and the ODI World Cup was a splendid idea. And it continues to be so - just unfortunately the last two have been shockers.

And if you want to keep the ODI World Cup, which I'd imagine most people do, then you need to keep playing regular ODI series. I'm not a massive fan of the seven-match ODI series, but I'm even less a fan of the three-match one.

Personally, I think it'd be fascinating to test-out a return to 60-over ODIs. Rather than this supersub crap, try something that has worked in the past. There are now enough grounds with floodlights to make the 60-over format possible outside England, which there weren't in previous times, and more overs would further emphasise the fact that one-day cricket is vastly different from Twenty20 (and IMO vastly superior too). I don't think it's very likely, but as I say - given some of the stupid changes that have been put in place in ODIs in recent times, I don't think it's an outrageous suggestion.

 

[_Ed_]

I really hope not. T20 matches are so boring and repetitive, it really is difficult to enjoy watching a prolonged series like IPL. It takes all the excitement out of boundary hitting and values gimmicks and part-timers other truely talented players.

Agreed.

 

[Craig]

The thing is only a small number of Barmy Army come to Sri Lanka in general, compared to other tours. So it does make enough of a difference to make a profit, at most you will cover your costs. When it comes down to it you need your local fans to watch the matches to really gain money. Overseas fans, even in large number don't always make much difference, if you got no local fans.

Test Cricket used to rate in Sri Lanka, but after the success of ODI team and increase in 2-Test match series. Where basically only Colombo get regular Tests it doesn't rate much. You get more local fans in Kandy and Galle. But with only Two Tests per series and Galle and Kandy being out of action until recently. They never really get enough Tests to keep interest going. Colombo also has quite a few ODI grounds in the main city and the out skirts, so they have been flooded with ODIs.

If there was more Tests and especially Test in smaller regions, Test cricket will rate again. But with the current format, it only going downhill.

Fair enough with Galle and Kandy being out of action, but now that they are, why not go back to three Test series? Whatever happened to Moratuwa?

 

[Craig]

Frankly, the predictability depends on the length of the format.

Tests are least predictable because the length of the format allows time to recover from the most disastrous of situations.

ODI's are more predictable only because a disastrous response of the team batting second or a great reply after a disastrous performance by the team batting first, makes a recovery virtually impossible. The same should theoretically apply to still shorter versions. 220 runs by the team batting first and 60 for 7 in reply in the first ten overs, kills the game, and thats a fact as does 110 by the team batting first and 80 for 2 in 10 overs in response.

We have just not seen enough of T20 matches yet for all possible scenarios to play out and repetitions of matches that have gone before start hitting us in the face.

That is why the non-cricketing aspects viz cheer-leaders, orange caps, awards for most sixes, length of hits, number of sixes. and general emphasis on the boundary and over the boundary hit being what constitutes entertainment rather than the cricket per se is stressed so much.

Also the hype of city loyalties and fans versus fans (most IPL ads are based on this) is expected to keep the fans interested by sheer strength of their loyalties and the emotions attached.

The jury, I believe is still out on whether this will, in the long term sustain interest even if the cricket is not great, is still out.

Otherwise, if you just realise that a run a ball chase of the odi's is the same as a 9 runs per over in the T-20 format (with 180 runs in T20 being like 300 in odi's) you can extrapolate most scenarios and what constitutes economical bowling or a good strike rate.

Batsmen and bowlers have still not settled down with the 'strategies' of how to 'structure' an innings which is what led to the so called middle-overs-boredom of the 50 over format. Once this has been worked out over the next couple of years, T20 matches will also follow a "repetitive-model."

This is built into the 'shortness' of the game where maximising run rate (which may lead to risk taking' has to be balanced against early loss of wickets which leads to prudence.

The only way that can be avoided is where one of them, say loss of wickets, becomes irrelevant. To put it in a ridiculously exaggerated way (just to put the point across), it would not matter if ten balls or less constituted an innings. Then every ball could be hit (tried to be hit) for a six.

The problems of odi's middle overs are partly self created by the field restrictions of the initial overs which meant that hitting was reserved for the beginning and the death. They tried to overcome this by the flexibility of the power play but most captains refused to make much use of this flexibility and tried to get this 'risky' period out of the way and done with at the earliest so as to be able to focus on the more traditional 'strategies' while leading a fielding side.

As in the economy, so in every other sphere, too much interference without rectifying the basic flaws never leads to long term solutions that work.

Test cricket (and first class cricket) was having problems of spectator indifference primarily due to the boring draws of the fifties and sixties. Instead of modifying these longer games to ensure more results at that time, MCC came up with the one day tournaments at the county level and after the initial success these became international too. But it hasn't worked in the long run because the original issue was NOT tackled.

What it did, however, was to introduce a form of the game which took much less time BESIDES bringing assured results, and it has become that much more difficult to bring the crowds back to the longer version now because the spectators are just not used to watching cricket for 'days on end'

What they did in Australia in the Ford Ranger Cup where batting side got to pick when they could their alloted power play and so could the bowling captain take his 5 when he wanted. And I liked it as well since there was plenty of pro's and con's to when to take it. Sure you could have wickets in hand (10-7 left) and save it for the 36th-40 over mark, but what happens you lost some wickets and your 'hitters' so to speak were out? Or do you take it early and try and get some momentum going, but it could not work as well, or what happens if you have a bad start in the first 10-15 overs and you lose two or three wickets quickly? There is no right or wrong IMO and why the ICC haven't brought it in yet, I'm not sure (then again the bonus point was done in Australia first and then it was adopted by the ICC).

 

[chaminda_00]

Fair enough with Galle and Kandy being out of action, but now that they are, why not go back to three Test series? Whatever happened to Moratuwa?

Moratuwa was never up to International standard, pretty sure it on the outskirts of Colombo as well. There are a couple other grounds on outshirts of Colombo that have been built and are being built. So we might see more matches outside the main part of Colombo atleast. But most of these grounds are being built in dry areas for off season cricket. So it probably wont make much of difference, as most of those series are not on average Sri Lankans radar.

They wont go back to three match Test series, as most countries don't really want to play more then two tests against Sri Lanka. Mainly cus they can't fit it in with the massive ODI schedules. Also Sri Lanka don't make any money to really push for it. Most 3-Test match series for Sri Lanka have occured cus the other board wants it.

 

[chaminda_00]

What they did in Australia in the Ford Ranger Cup where batting side got to pick when they could their alloted power play and so could the bowling captain take his 5 when he wanted. And I liked it as well since there was plenty of pro's and con's to when to take it. Sure you could have wickets in hand (10-7 left) and save it for the 36th-40 over mark, but what happens you lost some wickets and your 'hitters' so to speak were out? Or do you take it early and try and get some momentum going, but it could not work as well, or what happens if you have a bad start in the first 10-15 overs and you lose two or three wickets quickly? There is no right or wrong IMO and why the ICC haven't brought it in yet, I'm not sure (then again the bonus point was done in Australia first and then it was adopted by the ICC).

It going to be looked at being brought in this year at the AGM or whatever they call it. Needed to be trailed for a season before being brought in. But like most innovations they all get trailed as domestic level and look good. Then never seem to work out at International level, due poor changes in the innovation. Or you don't notice some major issues until it used on a regular basic on the International scene. I think these innovations should be trailled for atleast two seaons before being brought in, rather then just one season. You never really see its full effect until the 2nd season, when teams get used to them.

 

[GIMH]

There is still a place for ODI cricket, much rather a 50-over World Cup, then a the Twenty20 World Championship. But really hope we see the end of pointless OD only tours, seven match series and even tri series (especially really long ones like the CB series). If ODIs are kept to just a 2-3 games a tour then I think cricket will be better off.

But the sad fact is that Test cricket brings no money to cricket. Apart from Ashes series and now Border/Gavaskar most Test series countries loss money holding them. With this in mind we probably more likely to see more 2-Test series, 7 ODIs and 5 Twenty20. Now that is what your call dire.

Personally though I think if you reduced ODIs and Twenty20 Internationals, more people will go watch Test cricket. The problem is with Test cricket is not the format, it excess of International. Your average cricket fan just wants to see the national team play, but with so many ODIs, it is easier to watch them over a Test match. If there was a limit to ODIs and Twenty20 Internationals. I think you will find there will be more people watching Test Cricket.

Really the ICC need to make a hard decision here and cut the number of ODIs, or Test cricket might be the one that dies a slow death. There isn't enough time for all three formats, plus cash based domestic competitions.

I am pretty sure we make profits out of all the Tests we host tbh, they are usually sold out or at least 3/4 full.

I don't think ODIs will die because there is still enough demand amongst the fans, I am not sure whether T20s will become more popular though and therefore more prominent, we'll have to wait and see I guess

 

[slugger]

the game has to move with the times.. and the irony is ..the lenght of time the game took to complete became its down fall (in a matter of speaking) hense the introduction of 20/20 a 3 hour game..

20/20 cricket could have been moulded to fit and look like a compacted 50 ovr game.. if they had made it bowlers vs batsmen as a batting team you only have 7 wickets..rather than the 10 .. as per usual..

that could ve been one idea but its abit late now..

if they broke up the 50 over game in quaters.. or made it a 40 over game in quaters.. you will have those cruisy middle overs seprated by blocks of big hitting overs..

 

[GIMH]

40 over games are a bit crap tbh

 

[Langeveldt]

T20 isn't even cricket, but I fear it will be the downfall of both ODI and Test cricket in the long run.. After all, there is so much more money in T20, and the uneducated masses will obviously lap it up to breaking point..

 

[Craig]

40 over games are a bit crap tbh

STT.

I always find it odd that there are 45 over games in England but they play 50 everywhere else, why?

 

[Debris]

T20 is a bit dire at the moment and not a lot of fun to watch (in my opinion anyway).

But it is a very new format so I have not completely given it away yet. Tactics will improve over time and there will not doubt be a few rule changes to improve the game. Plus they will hopefully stop talking to the players during the game.

 

[SJS]

What they did in Australia in the Ford Ranger Cup where batting side got to pick when they could their alloted power play and so could the bowling captain take his 5 when he wanted. And I liked it as well since there was plenty of pro's and con's to when to take it. Sure you could have wickets in hand (10-7 left) and save it for the 36th-40 over mark, but what happens you lost some wickets and your 'hitters' so to speak were out? Or do you take it early and try and get some momentum going, but it could not work as well, or what happens if you have a bad start in the first 10-15 overs and you lose two or three wickets quickly? There is no right or wrong IMO and why the ICC haven't brought it in yet, I'm not sure (then again the bonus point was done in Australia first and then it was adopted by the ICC).

I have heard of that and I think its an interesting concept. One will have to see how it worked in practice though.

Tell me do the overs still have to be taken as a block of five - I mean they are five consecutive overs.

It could give a lot of interesting options like using the power play when your best hitter is batting, or maybe when someone who is not such a big hitter and needs the extra 'prop' of fewer outfielders to help hi m get a decent strike rate.

It could also mean that if a side takes a power play when Afridi comes into bat, they get into trouble if Afridi, as is quite likely, gets out first ball

 

[Craig]

I have heard of that and I think its an interesting concept. One will have to see how it worked in practice though.

Tell me do the overs still have to be taken as a block of five - I mean they are five consecutive overs.

It could give a lot of interesting options like using the power play when your best hitter is batting, or maybe when someone who is not such a big hitter and needs the extra 'prop' of fewer outfielders to help hi m get a decent strike rate.

It could also mean that if a side takes a power play when Afridi comes into bat, they get into trouble if Afridi, as is quite likely, gets out first ball

Yes.

 

[Richard]

40 over games are a bit crap tbh

Just a little.