Buchanan suggests two-innings-a-side in ODIs

[Kev]

it's not so much that back to back T20's would be boring. I'd like to see it. Its that there isn't anything wrong with 50 over cricket.

 

[usy]

how does it make a 2 T20 over game??

One T20 game = 40 overs
Two T20 games = 80 overs

Normal ODI = 100 overs (max)
Two innings a side ODI = 200 overs (max)

:what :what

 

[Left_Hander]

Stupid suggestion. Just leave ODI as they are.

 

[manee]

Its that there isn't anything wrong with 50 over cricket.

I think it can get a tad boring at times but I feel that the key to solving the problem is to simply decrease the number of ODIs per series to an absolute maximum of 5 and a normal of 3.

 

[Kev]

I think it can get a tad boring at times but I feel that the key to solving the problem is to simply decrease the number of ODIs per series to an absolute maximum of 5 and a normal of 3.

Yes, but thats not a format problem, thats boredom due to overexposure. Like anything if you do it/see it too much it gets dull and repetitive.

 

[Sureshot]

Anything?

 

[Kev]

Yes anything.

 

[Skater]

how does it make a 2 T20 over game??

One T20 game = 40 overs
Two T20 games = 80 overs

Normal ODI = 100 overs (max)
Two innings a side ODI = 200 overs (max)

:what :what

If you had read the article it suggests two innings of 25 overs per side, totalling 100 overs as usual.

 

[SaiSrini]

I like Buchanan's idea. Give a test match feel to the ODI's to try and revamp it. Test cricket is the ultimate and no one is tinkering with it. ODI is a commercial format which was introduced for the audiences and for making the game more commercialised. Its not that the ODI's are untouchable and should absolutely not be tinkered with. Now with Twenty20, its obvious that the commercialisation can be taken to a new different level.

This method would totallyy take off the boredom that sets in an ODI from the 20-40 overs. For some fans who miss the batting of their favorite team due to work/timings, this would be good coz they can at least watch one of the innings. And more than anything, it would bring the Twenty20 atmosphere which is electric.

how does it make a 2 T20 over game??

Normal ODI = 100 overs (max)
Two innings a side ODI = 200 overs (max)

:what :what

You understood it wrong. Its the same 100 overs as in a ODI match, but now split into 4 chunks of 25 overs (one team plays the first 25 overs, then the other team plays the next 25 overs, then the first team plays the next 25 overs and the last team finishes the match).

 

[Pomers]

Bloody awesome idea. Teams have 25 overs with 10 wickets in hand, meaning they can play with more aggresiveness = more excitement. No dull patches.

Who said he is an idiot- makes common sense. Hes been an international coack for like 10 years - probably watched more cricket than youve had hot dinners...

 

[smssia0112]

I like Buchanan's idea. Give a test match feel to the ODI's to try and revamp it. Test cricket is the ultimate and no one is tinkering with it. ODI is a commercial format which was introduced for the audiences and for making the game more commercialised. Its not that the ODI's are untouchable and should absolutely not be tinkered with. Now with Twenty20, its obvious that the commercialisation can be taken to a new different level.

This method would totallyy take off the boredom that sets in an ODI from the 20-40 overs. For some fans who miss the batting of their favorite team due to work/timings, this would be good coz they can at least watch one of the innings. And more than anything, it would bring the Twenty20 atmosphere which is electric.



You understood it wrong. Its the same 100 overs as in a ODI match, but now split into 4 chunks of 25 overs (one team plays the first 25 overs, then the other team plays the next 25 overs, then the first team plays the next 25 overs and the last team finishes the match).

What is it with everyone and the assumation that if people aren't scoring quickly then cricket is boring? I find no part of cricket to be more exciting than others merely as a general rule. The middle overs are just as interesting and often they are ones that the bowlers are allowed to get on top of the batsmen! It is the part that is more like test cricket, rather than the first and last 10.

If ODI cricket is so terribly boring then just scrap it and replace it with Twenty20's, but there's no point in remodeling it to become double doses of Twenty20 (yes, it's 25 overs each, but it's similar enough).

Personally I believe that all 3 are different in their own way and all bring something to the game. Don't need to mess with them! The only reason ODI is starting to become boring is because we play so much of it!

 

[aussie_ben91]

Stupid suggestion. Just leave ODI as they are.

Exactly.

I'd rather watch a ODI then a Twenty20. There is more build up and more anticipation in a ODI then there is in a Twenty20, sort of like a Test Match over the coarse of 5 days but a ODI over the coarse of a day.

Having 4, 25 innings in a ODI would be more 'stop and start' then the middle-over of a normal ODI.

 

[Kev]

What is it with everyone and the assumation that if people aren't scoring quickly then cricket is boring? I find no part of cricket to be more exciting than others merely as a general rule. The middle overs are just as interesting and often they are ones that the bowlers are allowed to get on top of the batsmen! It is the part that is more like test cricket, rather than the first and last 10.

If ODI cricket is so terribly boring then just scrap it and replace it with Twenty20's, but there's no point in remodeling it to become double doses of Twenty20 (yes, it's 25 overs each, but it's similar enough).

Personally I believe that all 3 are different in their own way and all bring something to the game. Don't need to mess with them! The only reason ODI is starting to become boring is because we play so much of it!

Spot on!

Spot on!

and Spot on!

I like the middle part, there's some good bowling, there's batsmen building innings, there's recoveries where people are digging deep, there's waiting to see how captains deal with set batsmen, and most of all there is great anticipation, these are the overs where more often than not the games are won or lost.

 

[Left_Hander]

What is it with everyone and the assumation that if people aren't scoring quickly then cricket is boring? I find no part of cricket to be more exciting than others merely as a general rule. The middle overs are just as interesting and often they are ones that the bowlers are allowed to get on top of the batsmen! It is the part that is more like test cricket, rather than the first and last 10.

If ODI cricket is so terribly boring then just scrap it and replace it with Twenty20's, but there's no point in remodeling it to become double doses of Twenty20 (yes, it's 25 overs each, but it's similar enough).

Personally I believe that all 3 are different in their own way and all bring something to the game. Don't need to mess with them! The only reason ODI is starting to become boring is because we play so much of it!

I agree with this post. The middle part of ODI's might "not be all guns blazing" but this is when batsmen settle in, grind an innings, try to stop a collapse happening. That is what is interesting about cricket, not trying to slog every ball for six. Yes, sixes can be good to watch but a constant slog-a-thon is boring. I would rather see an even contest between bat and ball.

 

[smssia0112]

Exactly. I'm not saying that quick innings aren't exciting, but if it's the only thing that is happening then it becomes monotonous. That's what is so great about ODI cricket. It is not as slow as test cricket, and not as fast as Twenty20. It provides the best of both worlds and is played over a single day.