Swann - scrap ODIs
- Thread starter barmyarmy
- Start date
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
Haha, to which nationality, back then you could pretty much take your pick!
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
Drastic times called for drastic measures hey Colin 
Careful Shravi, BCCI might hunt you down and silence your dissenting voice
Don't worry dude, we'll smuggle you out and find you a safehouse.
Careful Shravi, BCCI might hunt you down and silence your dissenting voice
Don't worry dude, we'll smuggle you out and find you a safehouse.
formula1man
International Cricketer
I was thinking about ODIs, and I think they really need to be deregulated. If you have the two new balls coming from each end, you need to get rid of over limits on bowlers, a captain would naturally play at least 3 bowlers anyway, so its no big deal, then get rid of the field restrictions, except for one, you must have two catching men for the whole innings, this would prevent capains putting all men on the rope, as you can easily pick up two runs a ball and there will be a gap in the field somewhere, so they will bring the field up and give options over the top in some places.
Either that or just get rid of over limits and have two 10 over powerplays, 1-10 and 20-30.
Either that or just get rid of over limits and have two 10 over powerplays, 1-10 and 20-30.
They were talking about that on TMS. Saying let two bowlers bowl 15 then you only need 4 really. Would mean teams didn't pack the side with mediocre all rounders.
Also an interesting conversation about Swann is a far better captain than Cook is.
Also an interesting conversation about Swann is a far better captain than Cook is.
The results of the series are probably meaningless, but they are a good ground to blood players and refine the team/squad. Otherwise I'd hate to think how naff the World Cup would be.
Disagree with BA/f1m, you can't scrap the limits on overs otherwise it isn't a Limited Overs International, and of course it takes away part of the tactics - getting the balance right.
If you allow sides to bowl who they like then sides will pack the side with batting and there won't be any balance. And what if two of the bowlers happen to be like a McGrath and Warne? The side they play will not have the RESPITE of facing other bowlers, in fact it would become tactically carp as the sides wouldn't have the decisions of whether to take on the main bowlers or wait for the back up, when to take powerplays (not that I'm a fan of those) etc
How did England win the Test series against windies in 2000? By seeing off Walsh and Ambrose and picking off the other mediocre bowlers. It's part of the game, it would be a joke to do away with bowler restrictions.
formula1man
International Cricketer
but surely they wouldnt be able to bowl 25 overs in a row. at least say you must use minimum 4 bowlers.
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
It's just a matter of proportion. Even in Tests, it's useful to have a guy bowl a spell here and there. He just doesn't bowl as much as the proper bowlers. The Ryobi Cup restriction at the moment is simply 13 overs per bowler. Teams could in theory be working with 4 bowlers, but with the exception of games where the innings is completed early, they're not. Someone else still gets overs as a variation.
formula1man
International Cricketer
yeah I like that rule, but I just feel OD cricket has too many restrictions and regulations and it doesnt feel as "natural" as it should.
ODI's should always stay. Yes, scrap those meaningless 5 and 7 match series and replace them with some fun multi-team tournaments. I for one would want them to bring back the quadrangular tournaments. Those were super duper fun. Having a quadrangular ODI tournament featuring India, Australia, Pakistan and South Africa in the subcontinent (or even in Australia or South Africa) would be a mouth watering spectacle.
formula1man
International Cricketer
yes it would, T20s are best for Domestic Leagues, Tests are best for long 2 team series where it is a real dog fight over a a summer, and ODIs are best for multi team tournaments no doubt, how can the World Cup and even a Tri series be so much fun yet a 5 match series is so incredibly boring I dont get it haha.
Do you not see the tactical balance that having to use at least five bowlers gives? If England only had to use four bowlers they could just play six batsmen, keeper plus say Broad, Swann, Bresnan and Anderson.
What the five bowler requirement does is means sides have several options, play an all-rounder who can bat and bowl, play a batsman who can bowl and hope they score enough runs that any lack of bowling is compensated in batting, or play five bowlers and hope they have enough batting.
It adds to the game, what makes it eminently different to Test cricket. What you're proposing is nothing short of, well short Test cricket.
And while two pace bowlers might not be able to bowl through, I'm guessing in a lot of games Sri Lanka might have had Murali on one end throughout. If a side has one or two good bowlers it works in their favour with no bowling allocations.
The real test, and what makes ODIs arguably the best format, is that sides with the strongest links in the batting order and no weak links in their bowling will be the best. England had the best side in 1992, didn't quite work out for them but they were strong throughout the side. You change the bowler allocations, and it will never happen anyway, and you aren't really playing an ODI at all.
Even worthless-duck method ruins a game by moving the goalposts, if one bowler had a stonking game he could decide a game in his 10 overs, but if rain means the side bowling second might have won had they bowled their 50 overs, but because that bowler can only bowl say five then the opposition get away with it.
And what if Finn say takes four wickets, he's just finishing his second spell of three overs and then the rules have been changed so he can just carry on bowling. In the sensible allocations era the batting side can see him off and look to attack the weak fourth and fifth bowlers, in your suggestion they'd simply be bowled at by the two most effective bowlers and the tactical elements are gone.
See I think here is where I differ from you. You're arguing that the proposed changes would make it more like a Test, I'm would argue that ODIs are now the lame cousin of T20s and need some differentiation. With T20 around, I don't mind if ODI cricket suddenly looks more like a 'one day Test'. To me, a one day Test would be much more interesting than what is at present just tacking 30 extra overs onto a T20. What ODIs need to find is their long term identity. What will help them stay popular long term?
On the 'one day Test' thing: in fact the commentators were talking about this the other night. With 2 new balls, and with pitches that seem a bit more bowler friendly here at present in Aus, openers are going to have to dig in more and opening bowlers will get more joy. I'm enjoying the opening exchanges a lot this summer actually.
And just on the 5 bowler thing: I personally think that while having to find 10 overs from all-rounders used to be a cool element of ODIs, it now annoys me GREATLY, to the point whenever Steve Smith or Dave Hussey gets the ball, I walk out , especially in the first innings where the batsmen won't take any risks (insert your own countries lame 5th/6th bowlers...Collingwood used to be a good one for Eng).
I think I used to like it because they were often different players than you saw in Tests, but now you see those players in T20, so there isn't much novelty anymore, it's just a chore that has to be suffered by both teams because you know batsmen don't want to risk getting out, and you know the bowling captains will be as defensive as possible to minimise any damage from loose balls. To me that is just a waste of time, no one enjoys those overs and I think both batting and bowling teams would prefer they didn't exist.
