I never fail to be astounded whenever I hear this.amokk1 said:I think the current one day cricket is getting boring and very predictable in most occasions.
i'm assuming you read about as much as the title.marc71178 said:I can't see it working - splitting an innings in a one innings match makes no sense and will only serve to confuse.
Well, I wasn't actually refering to other people's idea, but how I felt about the one day game.Richard said:The more innovations you bring in the less something becomes credible as cricket.
I never fail to be astounded whenever I hear this.
Am I imagining this notion of ODIs being sell-outs or close-to almost every game, then?
That only serves to make the whole game disjointed and unstructured.J.Coney said:My game creates end points by deviding the game up into smaller segments which are goverend by the fall of the 3rd and 6th wicket (a true simurality to test cricket which is the 2nd and 4th innings).
Yep - and plenty do still argue that 50-over (or 60-over as then) cricket is less credible than the First-Class game. Personally I just argue that they're two different games which share some similarities and are equally credible.J.Coney said:that's what the purist said when the first odi was played in 1971.
Wonderful stereotypes - amazing how often it doesn't conform at all.Black Thunder said:the thing with 50-over cricket is team's have figured out how to play it.
When you go out to bat pick a likely target (say it's 250)
They've come to the conclusions, bash for the first 15-over's while the field is up. You want a run rate a little bit higher than your overall target (about 80)
Continue to play agressive cricket (although be wary of outfielders) until your 3 or 4 down at which point you want to settle it down a bit. You want to go about 75% of your target RR till you lose those 3 or 4 wkts, then you slow it down to about 66% of your target RR (so around about 110 runs for these 25 overs making it 3 or 4 for 190 from 40 overs).
Last 10 overs basically just tee off. The more wickets in hand the more you can throw the bat. Pretty much pot luck what you get here - could end up all out for 220, or could go on to 290.
If the pitch is better than a 250 pitch (around 280-290 pitch) then you just adjust those figures as slightly higher.
Of course things don't always go to plan, but basically every team goes into a 50-over match with the above blue print should they bat first.
If you bowl first, basically the plan is to bowl in the block hole for 50 overs. Have a thid man and fine leg in for first 15 overs. From 15-40 overs put a man back at sweeper on the off side and a deep mid off in place, and put a man back to deep mid wicket/cow-corner position. For the last 10 overs move deep mid wicket around towards square leg a bit, and move the off side sweeper to deep mid on. Try and get a few early wickets, and if unsuccesful try and cut down the runs so much that they get so far behind their target RR that not even wickets in hand can save them.
Unlike test cricket where everything is different. If you get throw in on a wicket with a bit of moisture, you might juts have to concede runs are going to be hard on the first day and try and survive till stumps without losing many wickets, so on the next day you can take advantage of a good pitch.
My main grap with 50-over cricket is the lack of original thinking and tactics. The next gripe is the lack of support for the bowler - there basically just cannon fodder to try and allow the batsmen to hit as many sixes as he can.