• 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.

Does anyone wish, odi cricket was back?

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Funny how in this example both teams had batsmen as their sub. Clearly the plan was to win toss, bowl first and then sub in your batsman for the Number 11. Whoever won that toss was going to have an advantage…
It's like talking to a wall

That was what they chose to do. It became literally the toss of a coin as to who got the extra player because of those choices. But that's not the rule, it was the choice that did that.

It's like saying DRS is bad because someone used up all their reviews and when the umpire made a bad decision they couldn't review it so it's the fault of DRS. No, it was the way they used it
 
Last edited:

Molehill

International Captain
It's like talking to a wall

That was what they chose to do. It became literally the toss of a coin as to who got the extra player because of those choices. But that's not the rule, it was the choice that did that.

It's like saying DRS is bad because someone used up all their reviews and when the umpire made a bad decision they couldn't review it so it's the fault of DRS. No, it was the way they used it
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that a terrible idea that got binned almost immediately would have you as its number 1 fan.

The only way a team losing the toss could make it vaguely work for them was by picking an all rounder. But even then you’d likely lose half of their skill set, so teams just stuck them in their 11 anyway and took a punt on the extra bat.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The only way a team losing the toss could make it vaguely work for them was by picking an all rounder. But even then you’d likely lose half of their skill set, so teams just stuck them in their 11 anyway and took a punt on the extra bat.
Mate I literally explained all this already a few posts back, in one that you quoted so I assumed you would have read, my mistake

As to being it's number 1 fan, again in a post of mine that you quoted that was contradicted. If you actually read it
 
Last edited:

duffer

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Like it's been mentioned many times already in the thread but the annual Tri Series here was soo gun and most people I know loved it. Unfortunately CA didn't make money out of it so it's canned and probably ain't coming back. Even if they broke even from it I reckon they'd happily do it again but alas.
 

Molehill

International Captain
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad it didn't become a permanent fixture because that would be a bit much and classical ODI structure is still the best. But it was a very interesting dynamic, and entertaining for those of us who understood it.
I've decided this is the key line in our discussion.

It was not an interesting dynamic at all, it patently gave the winner of the toss an extra advantage. It was not remotely entertaining for those who understood it, but seemingly it was for those who didn't.

It was largely pointless picking extra bowlers because they're limited to 10 overs anyway, but an extra bat is always handy and as the IPL is currently showing, increasing the average score. It was obvious after a while that the right strategy was to go with the bat and hope you win the toss. Worth noting in that 2005 Series that each game was won comfortably with the toss and each team fielded first. Given how close the previous series had been without this rule, it became very obvious what was going on here.
 

Yeoman

U19 Cricketer
For me, the interesting question is why tri series ceased to be as financially successful as they were in the 80s and 90s. Were the non-host matches better attended in the early years? If so, was this because there was a greater scarcity of cricket so people were more likely to turn up or watch even if their team wasn’t playing, or declining interest in the ODI format generally?
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I've decided this is the key line in our discussion.

It was not an interesting dynamic at all, it patently gave the winner of the toss an extra advantage.
Why do u keep repeating this overly simplified and wrong statement. I actually can't respond to it without just saying word for word what I've already been over 3 times
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It was largely pointless picking extra bowlers because they're limited to 10 overs anyway, but an extra bat is always handy and as the IPL is currently showing, increasing the average score. It was obvious after a while that the right strategy was to go with the bat and hope you win the toss. Worth noting in that 2005 Series that each game was won comfortably with the toss and each team fielded first. Given how close the previous series had been without this rule, it became very obvious what was going on here.
And this is just all blatantly wrong. First of all picking an extra bowler as the sub and batting first gives exactly the same advantage as picking the extra bat and batting second. There's effectively no difference. Being limited to 10 overs is irrelevant when you just switch subs at the change of innings.

Also none of results of the games in the 2005 series was affected by the sub at all. They were all won by the team that won the toss but you're implying that the sub had something to do with it, which even a quick glance at the scorecard would prove wrong.
 

Molehill

International Captain
Why do u keep repeating this overly simplified and wrong statement. I actually can't respond to it without just saying word for word what I've already been over 3 times
I guess I was hoping that at some point a lucky strike might get through your thick skull.

You've literally given no example of how a team that loses the toss could get an advantage from this situation.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I guess I was hoping that at some point a lucky strike might get through your thick skull.

You've literally given no example of how a team that loses the toss could get an advantage from this situation.
Here mate:
The rule did not favour either team, or have anything to do with the toss. The choices and tactics made by some teams taking the 50/50 risk did that.
It's like saying DRS is bad because someone used up all their reviews and when the umpire made a bad decision they couldn't review it so it's the fault of DRS. No, it was the way they used it
 

Molehill

International Captain
And this is just all blatantly wrong. First of all picking an extra bowler as the sub and batting first gives exactly the same advantage as picking the extra bat and batting second. There's effectively no difference. Being limited to 10 overs is irrelevant when you just switch subs at the change of innings.
But what if you've gone with that strategy, lose the toss and have to bowl first?

Your strategies are correct, but you're not thinking about the toss factor.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
You've literally given no example of how a team that loses the toss could get an advantage from this situation.
Here:
Most teams chose an all-rounder for the sub. But a lot of teams chose to take a punt by having a specialist as the sub which meant if you lost the toss you basically forfeited a player. Win the toss though and you get an extra batsman. But that was part of the gamble.
If you take the gamble and lose the toss that's not just bad luck, or the fault of the rule. It's the consequences of the choice you made.
 

Molehill

International Captain
See my post above. That's called the consequences of your actions. No one forced anyone to go with that strategy.
But there was no strategy that fully evaded the toss factor. Even if you go with an all rounder, you're still likely to lose 50% of that person's skill set. Teams realised they were better off going full in on the batter and hoping they won the toss. If not, they just played it as a conventional ODI with 11 players (1 less than the team which won the toss).
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
But there was no strategy that fully evaded the toss factor. Even if you go with an all rounder, you're still likely to lose 50% of that person's skill set. Teams realised they were better off going full in on the batter and hoping they won the toss. If not, they just played it as a conventional ODI with 11 players (1 less than the team which won the toss).
Yes! That's literally the point. If every team could just use an extra player then you might as well have just make it 12 v 12 and there's no tactics involved in that. The whole point is the player you pick and how you use them adds intrigue. Not just "each team gets an extra batsman".

Anyway I would argue that picking an all-rounder evades the "toss factor" as much as anything in cricket does. The toss is usually a factor to some extent.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
You've literally given no example of how a team that loses the toss could get an advantage from this situation.
Now I'll address this directly even though I don't think it's relevant, as no team is entitled to get an advantage when they chose a strategy that relies on winning the toss, and they lost the toss. BUT:

This basically happened in the very game you brought up as an example. England lost the toss and batted first, with a batsman as their super sub (technically Solanki was doing a bit of part-time bowling but not enough to really matter) and it helped them stay in the game better than if they didn't have him. It was never going to give them advantage because they were so far behind in the game but without him they probably don't make anywhere near as much as they did and even though they lost, 230 was a much more defendable total than the likely 180-190
 

Molehill

International Captain
Anyway I would argue that picking an all-rounder evades the "toss factor" as much as anything in cricket does. The toss is usually a factor to some extent.
The toss always provides a slight advantage, that's cricket and we all accept that. But to then effectively allow an extra player for this was just daft.

This basically happened in the very game you brought up as an example. England lost the toss and batted first, with a batsman as their super sub (technically Solanki was doing a bit of part-time bowling but not enough to really matter) and it helped them stay in the game better than if they didn't have him. It was never going to give them advantage because they were so far behind in the game but without him they probably don't make anywhere near as much as they did and even though they lost, 230 was a much more defendable total than the likely 180-190
In this example, England did benefit slightly in that they scored an extra 40 or so runs. But at what cost? They lost a strike bowler for the Aussie innings (I think this is the bit you're missing - they only had 4 bowlers for the 2nd innings). Meanwhile, Aus subbed out their number 11 for a bat at no cost at all. So even though you could argue Eng benefitted from their sub (it could be they may have had more chance trying to roll out Aus for 40 less with Jones available), Aus still benefitted more because they won the toss.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The toss always provides a slight advantage, that's cricket and we all accept that. But to then effectively allow an extra player for this was just daft.
It only did that if you choose to make that decision. That wasn't the rule. Bro.

In this example, England did benefit slightly in that they scored an extra 40 or so runs. But at what cost? They lost a strike bowler for the Aussie innings (I think this is the bit you're missing - they only had 4 bowlers for the 2nd innings). Meanwhile, Aus subbed out their number 11 for a bat at no cost at all. So even though you could argue Eng benefitted from their sub (it could be they may have had more chance trying to roll out Aus for 40 less with Jones available), Aus still benefitted more because they won the toss.
No they didn't. They won by 9 wickets and only 3 of them batted, Australia got absolutely nothing out of it. It's an objective fact that England benefited from the sub more than Australia did.
 

Molehill

International Captain
It only did that if you choose to make that decision. That wasn't the rule. Bro.


No they didn't. They won by 9 wickets and only 3 of them batted, Australia got absolutely nothing out of it. It's an objective fact that England benefited from the sub more than Australia did.
Whether he played or not doesn't make a difference. Aus still had an extra specialist bat available to them which cost them nothing. England had to swap their's for a bowler who hadn't yet bowled.

Also, you could argue that having that extra bat in the line up allows the top order to play with more freedom.
 

Top