Has odi cricket gone boring?

[WICFan]

I can barely pay attention to a T20, have always preferred ODIs. I like it when there is enough time for a match to breathe. Batsmen can get their eyes in properly, bowlers can find their rhythm, teams have time to adapt and respond to a poor start. Strategies and gameplans get enough time to unfold.

I'd be the same. Didn't watch any of the T/20s between England/India and West Indies/Sri Lanka but watched the Tests of the former and ODI's of the latter.

 

[thierry henry]

I don't find them boring at the time they're being played. But there's just so many that I find they don't linger for long in the memory. The Eng/Aus series tagged onto the autumn in England last year was a decent, if a bit low key, series but I struggle to remember much detail.

So many? Aren’t there significantly less now than there used to be?

It may just be that everyone else is playing less but England since 2015 have played more

 

[Daemon]

The thing that cheapens most white ball cricket series is, as PEWS said, that the teams themselves aren't really invested in the outcome. It's used as a platform to test new players and combinations ahead of a World Cup. So it's interesting in that regard, but you can then also just check the scorecards after. No real need to watch it.

Not trying to do a GAS here but how do you know if the new guys are any good if you don’t watch?

 

[TheJediBrah]

If all you had to do was look at scorecards you wouldn't need selectors. Just let a computer do it.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Shouldn’t the ODI league change everything now?

 

[cnerd123]

General question:
Who prepares pitches for WC ? ICC or Home team ? Because I have read at many places that pitches were made flat after England's loss to AUS in 2019 WC to suit England team. Is there any truth in this allegation?

As far as I understand, every ground prepares their pitches by themselves. There may be guidelines from ICC/local cricket board, but the final decision is on the curators.

Not trying to do a GAS here but how do you know if the new guys are any good if you don’t watch?

Doesn't really matter unless you're a year out from a WC tbh. If they're worth paying attention to you'll get to see them there.

I do wish full match highlights existed tho, so you could watch an entire spell or innings in its entirety and in the context of what's happening around it. There is so much cricket happening these days that's impossible to watch it all.

 

[karan_fromthestands]

Scoring runs in ODIs was not as easy before ICC started playing around with the rules. Since only one ball was used in the match, reverse swing would come into play in death overs, spinners got a lot of turn in the middle overs and an ODI century(or any quality ODI innings) meant a lot more in the 90s and early 00s. Plus the constant changes in the power play rules for make batting easy for the batsmen hasn't helped.

I don't think the exaggerated stats of current crop of batsmen are comparable to what guys like Lara, Ponting or Sachin had achieved in the format.

ODIs are just an extended version of T20s. Instead of experimenting with the format, ICC should have reduced the number of ODIs per series. Other option was to only have ICC tournaments for 50 over cricket, no bilateral series.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

The ball used to be in such a damaged state by the 35th over that they had to change it often. That was one of the reasons why they changed to two balls. Instead of changing the quality of the ball, the changed the quantity.

 

[karan_fromthestands]

The ball used to be in such a damaged state by the 35th over that they had to change it often. That was one of the reasons why they changed to two balls. Instead of changing the quality of the ball, the changed the quantity.

Exactly, this changes so much in the game along with the field restrictions.

 

[SteveNZ]

The ball used to be in such a damaged state by the 35th over that they had to change it often. That was one of the reasons why they changed to two balls. Instead of changing the quality of the ball, the changed the quantity.

I remember the rhetoric being around allowing the bowling side more opportunity to swing it. Ignoring the fact that the balls are now harder and easier to hit further in the latter overs (and earlier ones when it's not swinging), lack of reverse swing, spinners potentially find them harder to get grip with etc.

 

[karan_fromthestands]

I remember the rhetoric being around allowing the bowling side more opportunity to swing it. Ignoring the fact that the balls are now harder and easier to hit further in the latter overs (and earlier ones when it's not swinging), lack of reverse swing, spinners potentially find them harder to get grip with etc.

Exactly.

Nothing can match test cricket, but ODIs had its place and there were some genuinely good ODI performances that are now not even talked about because these days every Tom, Dickwella and de Kock can smash the bowlers around the park.

Before it was Test Cricket >>>>>>>> ODIs >>>>>>>>>>> T20s,
and now it's Test Cricket >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ODIs/T20s.

 

[SteveNZ]

Yeah I must admit it has that feel about it, although hopefully I only feel that way because my team has played basically none over the last 12 months. Kane Williamson has played two of them since the World Cup final in July 2019.

 

[Woodster]

I’m going to say I still love the ODI format, I just have very little feelings either way about a T20 series win or lose and would much prefer to see us perform well in ODI’s.

So much more depth to the game, more strategies and it has the entertainment of a T20 but it lasts longer.....what’s not to like!!

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah in the 90s making an ODI hundred was kind of a big deal

Exactly.

Nothing can match test cricket, but ODIs had its place and there were some genuinely good ODI performances that are now not even talked about because these days every Tom, Dickwella and de Kock can smash the bowlers around the park.

Before it was Test Cricket >>>>>>>> ODIs >>>>>>>>>>> T20s,
and now it's Test Cricket >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ODIs/T20s.

IMO ODIs had already gone a long way toward being just long T20s before T20Is existed. The big change happened around 2003-2005.

 

[Jack1]

All formats are good in their own way. Odi cricket has changed but the challenges and battle between bat and ball are still interesting although different. I think it would be interesting to see more odis and t20is on raging turners and green pitches to make the ball dominate more games. I guess some rather than more would be more accurate because right now bat dominates most matches It surprises me more sides don’t prepare more bowler friendly pitches. I do like high scoring games too but it would be good to have more pitch variety to provide different types of contests.

Two balls has been complained about here but having two stops annoying tactics like trying to rough and soften the ball the whole game as a fielding side. And the issue with one ball was when and if the umpires should change the ball (and making this fair was almost impossible) so two balls is a better and fairer in that sense so I’m happier with it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

All formats are good in their own way. Odi cricket has changed but the challenges and battle between bat and ball are still interesting although different. I think it would be interesting to see more odis and t20is on raging turners and green pitches to make the ball dominate more games. I guess some rather than more would be more accurate because right now bat dominates most matches It surprises me more sides don’t prepare more bowler friendly pitches. I do like high scoring games too but it would be good to have more pitch variety to provide different types of contests.

Two balls has been complained about here but having two stops annoying tactics like trying to rough and soften the ball the whole game as a fielding side. And the issue with one ball was when and if the umpires should change the ball (and making this fair was almost impossible) so two balls is a better and fairer in that sense so I’m happier with it.

It shouldn't. They see limited overs as wide-appeal entertainment and equate that with high scores and lots of boundaries, hence flatter pitches.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Some wise people say that the game is all about runs and not about wickets.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Actually who did come up with that "high scores=more fun" myth

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Actually who did come up with that "high scores=more fun" myth

The South Africans.
They put on that 438 game as a Christmas tradition now?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Actually who did come up with that "high scores=more fun" myth

All cricket boards everywhere seem to subscribe to it. Probably not wrong when considering most casual fans tbf