40 Overs, the future for ODI's?

[angryangy]

One day cricket used to be 60 overs a side, there were no fielding restrictions, players wore white and the ball was red. In the initial stages, teams who batted first rarely won (hello Twenty20) and defence was the status quo. Did I mention the 8 ball overs? That was the length of an over in several countries.

Change is just change. Although many changes have been tossed aside or deemed ineffective, without change, we wouldn't have the ODI game as we know it.

I have to say, Pro40 would be one way to help the English to bat out an innings.

 

[Kev]

By that logic we should be good at T20's though

 

[sohum]

I think it will be hard to switch away from 50 overs because the ICC will be buried in officialdom. I'm not sure how I'd like a 40 over game, either, I guess because the numbers don't round up as nicely.

 

[Owzat]

I actually prefer the 55/60 over format, but the speed they bowl overs and the conditions in some countries make that an unworkable format. 50 overs has been working for many years, why change it? Because of T20? Let's see if T20 is a fad or here to stay before we start adapting everything else, it's new and exciting which may be why some have taken to it, but given the Test of time class shines through and T20 has none.

 

[IanG]

Well as far as people saying they're a tradionalist. Perhaps I should take you back in time to 1971 when the first ever ODI was played. It was only 40 overs a side. Then again they were also 8 ball overs but that's another story

 

[SciD]

Lets not have ODIs. Overs 15-40 are so boring.

 

[Kev]

Lets not have ODIs. Overs 15-40 are so boring.

I've heard of people saying the game can have a dull period, but that's the majority of the innings. Do you actually like cricket at all? Because it sounds like you don't.

 

[shravi]

Sid, you need to give the bowlers a chance. If you are reducing the over limit by 10 overs at the very least that already puts the bowler at a further disadvantage. The bowler will become accustomed to changing his line and length every single ball. As a result, when the time to play a test match comes, he will most probably not be capable to perform to his full capability as he will not be able to be consistent with his line and length.

 

[marci9]

I think that 10 overs difference is not much better

 

[sohum]

Let's see if T20 is a fad or here to stay before we start adapting everything else, it's new and exciting which may be why some have taken to it, but given the Test of time class shines through and T20 has none.

It's unfair to define class as an ability that defines you at being good at Test cricket. There are plenty of cricketers who are better at Twenty20 cricket than many of the premier Test cricketers can ever hope to be. Not acknowledging those cricketers because they haven't achieved it at the highest level (especially given the national board tendencies, in the case of the subcontinent) is a tad bit unfair.

Many people seem to be of the opinion that Twenty20 is easy compared to Test/ODI cricket. If that were the case, ALL the Test/ODI stars would be the Twenty20 superstars. The fact is that it is just a completely different form of the game, and one should not demean achievers in one or the other just because they do not play the other form of the game.

 

[Benno]

The IPL series was a good platform for the younger Indians to kick start their careers and showcase the best of what these young Indians are capable of. So in closing, yes I agree with that. An Australian Premier League may commence summer 2009. We will just have to see if the ACB and ICC agree to it.

 

[Owzat]

I've heard of people saying the game can have a dull period, but that's the majority of the innings. Do you actually like cricket at all? Because it sounds like you don't.

Put a bit of life in the pitch for bowlers and see if the cricket is dull in overs 15-40. Personally I think the one-sided nature of limited overs cricket is dull, lots of runs and not as many wickets as there should be. Let's see a few more sides 100/4 after 25 overs and see if it's 'dull'. I'm not for all this razamatazz of sixes and fours all the time, let's see batsmen EARN their runs not just walk out and wonder who'll score the quickest hundred



sohummisra - not sure why you've picked to quote me given your comments. Perhaps you don't understand the word "Class", I haven't said T20 has no skill so you've made a complete misinterpretation. Class<>skill. T20 is a quick slogfest designed to produce lots of quick runs, near 10 an over or more. Where's the class in that? It's over before it's begun, it has no tactics and can be as one sided as any version despite being so few overs. Bowlers normally end up cannon fodder, it has no class whatsoever. It would be like having a GP with five laps. Or a (best of) one set Wimbledon. Or a football match of 30 mins. Or a darts match of one leg. It might be a bit classier if you didn't reduce the overs by 60% and not the wickets available to bat with. You lose so much of the essence of a game of cricket with no gain but speed of runscoring. THAT's why it lacks class, you've gone off on a completely different tangent talking about skill. Or put another way, I'm familiar with the word "skill" and if I'd meant skill I'd have used that word.

And whatever happened to the (Hong Kong) sixes? Is that still going but with no tangible coverage? Give me that over T20 any day of the week.