50 Over Cricket

[Andyhere]

This tournament (and esp the last three days) has reminded by how compelling 50 over cricket can be and how much better it is than crap t20s. That’s all. The administrators had better not screw this up.

Agreed T20s are crap from skills stand points. Basically you slap and slog like tail enders, 0 patience or temperament needed.
It is money maker though, therefore unfortunately will always be preferred over other formats.

 

[Owzat]

I wouldn't say T20s are crap, plenty of scope for the better side and set of players with better skills to win, just more scope for a side to win that isn't the better side because of the shorter timeframe and less time to implement much in the way of tactics

I mean for starters the balances of your side are more important in 50 overs than in 20 or a Test, the latter as you can have two very good bowlers and just bowl them as much as needed, in 20 overs a side it's crash, bang, wallop so good or bad bowlers alike can get tonked and as you can only really bat one pace as there's not enough time to build an innings you need to bat quite deep or risk being neck deep in it rapido

the mere fact you get 50 overs a side with restrictions in bowler over and fielding is the control, makes it about as even as you can hope for whilst having time for a game to develop. I'd like to see a 100 overs a side contest, enough time to play an innings but also introduce a factor not seen or needed so much in Tests, balancing batting your overs with speed needed ie you could go all out at 5-6 rpo for first 40 overs but lose 3-4 wickets and have to slow down, or be bowled out, bat slowly at say 3rpo for too long, say same duration, and you keep down target potential.

20 overs a bowler, or maybe even make it 15 max so sides have to tap into other bowling options, adapt the balance of the side, or even play just 4-5 main bowlers and try to bowl your opponents out or get them so you can turn to a Root or Malan say in the middle of the innings if you get early wickets. Or play regular bowlers but more all-rounders, far trickier, might even suggest it instead of run of the mill county championship games, long enough to develop both patience and defensive skills and attacking ones for acceleration, bowlers looking to take wickets and keep runs down.

 

[Rob22888]

As a result of the T20 influence, teams regularly scoring well in excess of 300 when batting first has meant a lot of games end up in a long meander to an inevitable conclusion.

If Team A score 350, then Team B *have* to get a good start and perform well in the first powerplay. If they don't, it's pretty much good night vienna 9 times out 10 and the game just peters out for the next 40 overs (2-3hrs). Not good to watch. In the olden days, when the par score was 250, you felt although teams were in the game for longer.

I'd agree with what Chin Music said above, that there needs to be some jeopardy brought into the games between ICC events. Lets face it, nobody gives a fig about the "Metrobank Trophy" and there are far too many dead rubbers in bilateral series. A big part of the battle is getting the top players on board, and giving them a reason not to opt to sit them out amongst a packed cricketing schedule.

 

[centurymaker]

Having followed this world cup thoroughly, I have realised that Oneday cricket is here to stay and will not cease to exist that easily. The one change that could really happen is that by 2035 ODI world cup (or possibly even 2031 wc), the number of overs could be reduced to 40 overs a side. This way the 'boring phase' would be minimised and we would see closer games and more aggressive batting, which is what the audiences and broadcasters would probably want by then, having even less patience for boring plays.

Decade down the line with games being 40 overs a side, it will likely rejuvenate ODI cricket and somewhat feel like a refreshing new format. And it will be more in line with the modern future times. Games will last 6 hours instead of being drawn out for 8 hours, so broadcasters can have games starting later, better for TV audiences as well as spectators wanting to go watch live. We can expect the matches to be less one-sided than the 50 over matches. So it will definitely be a success.

I am just not sure when it will happen, 2031 WC could be it as its in Subcontinent, especially if 2027 WC doesn't go well, or it might happen by 2035 WC or beyond. But this is something the governing body will almost definitely do some time down the line.

Slightly shorter games will bring the weaker sides back into the contest and make games closer and more exiting. In some countries List A matches are already 40-45 overs a side. Only a matter of time I feel.

 

[ataraxia]

In some countries List A matches are already 40-45 overs a side.

hmm? Apart from the Pro40's brief interlude of an existence, I don't think there've been any non-50-over List A games since the 80s.

 

[Ali TT]

Agreed T20s are crap from skills stand points. Basically you slap and slog like tail enders, 0 patience or temperament needed.
It is money maker though, therefore unfortunately will always be preferred over other formats.

T20 has been going twenty years. Probably about time your view of cricket entered the 21st century.