• 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.

3 innings cricket

amokk1

U19 12th Man
I read a bit of it. But the thing, will there be a market for it? I mean, the twenty20 stuff has been a success. They already having problems fitting that into schedules. Do they really need another cricket format?
 

J.Coney

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
it's not another format or game. It is the new system that a 50 over match will be played.
 

amokk1

U19 12th Man
Good idea perhaps show it to the ICC. I think the current one day cricket is getting boring and very predictable in most occasions. I think a change will be good, but don't replace it with twenty20 cricket. I want to sit on my bum for 9 hours and watch cricket.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
J.Coney said:
it's not another format or game. It is the new system that a 50 over match will be played.
I can't see it working - splitting an innings in a one innings match makes no sense and will only serve to confuse.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
The more innovations you bring in the less something becomes credible as cricket.
amokk1 said:
I think the current one day cricket is getting boring and very predictable in most occasions.
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?
 

J.Coney

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Richard said:
The more innovations you bring in the less something becomes credible as cricket.
that's what the purist said when the first odi was played in 1971.
 

J.Coney

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
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.
i'm assuming you read about as much as the title.

furthermore I spent over 3 months analysing games and the way an odi is played, basically i worked out the game rely's on the end point for excitement and climax this end point is approx 30 minutes long (last 10 overs) and on most occasions 5 and half hours away from the first ball bowled. a test match has 2 end points, all i did was reduce a test match formular to fit into an odi structure also finding a way to implement the follow on rule.

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).

but if you had read my web page you would know this and wouldnt make flakey statements that are based on what a spectator can handel.
 
Last edited:

amokk1

U19 12th Man
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?
Well, I wasn't actually refering to other people's idea, but how I felt about the one day game.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
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).
That only serves to make the whole game disjointed and unstructured.

It will also make the game much harder for batsmen, continually having to start an innings over.

It won't work.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
amokk1 said:
Well, I wasn't actually refering to other people's idea, but how I felt about the one day game.
Well OK.
I'm just really surprised anyone can find 50-over cricket boring.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
J.Coney said:
that's what the purist said when the first odi was played in 1971.
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.
However I do think we are in danger of going too far in the innovations in 50-over cricket - two sets of field-restrictions are fine (indeed I'd argue that the 15-50-over ones are neccessary), slightly shorter boundaries than in First-Class cricket are acceptible, but once you start messing-around too much it goes over the line.
 

Sir Redman

State Vice-Captain
I dont think 50 over cricket is boring (I dont think any cricket is boring for that matter) I think its merely become quite predictable and formulaic.
I think if any changes need to be made they should be to do with fielding restrictions and a second new ball instead of splitting the game up
 

Kiwi

State Vice-Captain
ODI cricket and Test Cricket can stay exactly as they are. I don't have a problem with the occasional 20/20 game being played as long as it just 1 a series. Anything else is NOT CRICKET. Name it something else and not bring it into cricket at all. We are ruining the game
 

Black Thunder

School Boy/Girl Captain
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.

Something like 3 innings cricket is at least original. It add's some tactics into the game, and IMO that can only be a good thing. I don't know if it's the answer but it's something.

Some things i'd like to see is change restrictions on the bowlers. Either 1) have a maximum of 12 overs, or 1 over less than 25% percent of the innings (if a game's reduced to 32 overs, the maximum would be 7), or 2) Maximum of 10 overs, but give the bowler an extra over for each wicket taken (if he has 3-for after 10 overs, he gets 3 more overs and he'll get an additional over for each wicket taken in his extra overs. Once the amount of overs a bowler has bowled, minus the amount of wickets he has taken, equals 10, he has then bowled he's maximum amount of overs).
 

J.Coney

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
finally some one gave my idea a postive view and black thunder is correct. the game 3ic add's tactics back to the game with both teams dancing around ech other trying to win at the same time. (theroricattly). not just a straight set a score then chase score. and both teams working from the same blue print. :sleep:

sorry about the spelling
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
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.
Wonderful stereotypes - amazing how often it doesn't conform at all.
And amazing that, even when it does, crowds still flock to see almost every one.
And WRT bowlers - not true at all about 1) bowling in the blockhole all innings (for the first 40 overs your aim is good-length) and 2) bowlers just being cannon-fodder, the problem is that there aren't enough good bowlers around at present.
 

Top