An idea for a new form of ODI cricket.

[harishankar]

I actually think that ODI cricket can be made more interesting if the 50 overs are split into 2 innings each of 25 innings.

Team 1 bats for the first 25 overs and then team 2 bats for their alloted 25 overs. Then Team 1 bats again for 25 overs followed by team 2 which has to chase down the total made by team 1 just like a test match.

BATTING:

Each batsmen has two "lives". If he doesn't get out in the first innings of his team he can bat twice in the second. However, he has only one "life" in the first innings. This would lead to an interesting strategy. Should the team batting in the first innings actually look to conserve wickets so that their batsmen has 2 opportunities in the second innings instead of 1 and can go hell for leather?

BOWLING:

All bowlers have 10 overs each and can spread it out in the first or second innings as they wish. That is they can either bowl 6 overs in the first innings and 4 in the second or even bowl all 10 in one innings.

The team with the highest score at the end wins.

POWERPLAYS WITH FIELD RESTRICTIONS:

3 total powerplays of 5 overs each for all 50 overs which is left to the bowling side to distribute among both the innings.

OPTIONAL TIE SITUATION:

In case of a tie, the team with the higher first innings total would win. If the first innings total also tally, then the team which lost lesser number of wickets in the first innings would win. If that is also equal then there would be a "tie-breaker" with each team choosing one batsmen to face one over from a bowler of the other team's choice. The batsman who scores more runs in that alloted over wins the match for his side.

How do you like this idea? Would anybody implement such an idea? Or has anybody already thought of this idea before and I haven't heard of it?

 

[aussie_ben91]

No offence, but I think that's stupid. That'd be like watching 2 Twenty20 games in one which would be hidious.

You'd never see a batsman build an innings or a bowler still being able to have some sort of dominance over a batsman.

 

[andrew_nixon]

Whilst splitting the game into two innings isn't that bad an idea (but still pretty useless) your idea of giving a batsman two chances to get out in a second innings is just plain stupid.

 

[Hooper]

Yeah, the lives bit is pretty far fetched. I think its a bit confusing, but I think that there needs to be a change in 50 over cricket, not just as weird as that

I remember someone suggesting we split the 50 overs in 2, don't remember if it was a commentator or a member on here, but that could work.

 

[harishankar]

No offence, but I think that's stupid. That'd be like watching 2 Twenty20 games in one which would be hidious.

You'd never see a batsman build an innings or a bowler still being able to have some sort of dominance over a batsman.

It is offensive when you use words like "stupid". I don't require appreciation, but I spent a bit writing that post so I don't to be told that it's stupid. If you disagree with the idea, you could have expressed it without being offensive and not having to use hypocritical expressions like "No offence"

I know it sounds radical, but I vaguely remember that something like this idea was actually proposed some time back. Why it never was given a trial I don't know.

I think the dynamics of this game could be interesting if you think about it with an open mind. The 50 overs per side game is just a bit predictable and doesn't offer so much excitement. 20-20 is fun but too short and doesn't have the suspenseful build-up. I think playing a game over 2 innings is a better option to improve the ebb and flow of the game.

Andrew, the idea of 2 lives is only applicable if the batsman doesn't lose his wicket in the first innings. I think it is a different idea, but it could have some interesting strategies if people actually thought about it.

 

[Hooper]

Hmmm, When was this sort of tried? I don't remember it?

But yeah, I do agree that ODI cricket is boring between overs 20 and 40.

 

[harishankar]

Hmmm, When was this sort of tried? I don't remember it?

But yeah, I do agree that ODI cricket is boring between overs 20 and 40.

I don't think it was tried. Maybe I'm confusing it with those super sixes. I think it was suggested by somebody though but I cannot seem to remember when and by whom. I changed my post to "proposed" because I think nothing of this sort was ever tried out.

I'm not suggesting that ODI cricket change from the current format but rather as a new form similar to 20-20. Maybe the ICL would be interested

 

[Gilly Fan]

Harish, you're obviously a fan of 20/20 cricket?

We don't need anymore forms of cricket.

What would this be called? 25x2?

 

[harishankar]

We don't need anymore forms of cricket.

What would this be called? 25x2?

I am not such a big fan of 20-20 because I think it is too short to create and build up the excitement of a full 50 overs match.

Actually I don't know why everybody is so worried that a new form of the game will come into existence. I am not the chief of the ICC you know, I can only make casual suggestions like this one. :rtfl

I thought it would be fun discussing the possibilities of such a game even if it never becomes reality.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Riight...

Well you do realize that this technique of 25x2 would most likely lead to quality/talented players like Alastair Cook getting picked over by Twenty20 specialists?

 

[Gilly Fan]

I'd rather, instead of this; a game where each team gets 4 innings. ANd each innings goes for 60 overs each. It'd be much better than this 25 over crap. No offense mate.

 

[Ollie_H]

thats kinda like somebody coming along and deciding screw test matches were gonna have 20-20 test matches. What you want is a test match setup(2 innings per team) played in one day which has lots of big hits.

 

[harishankar]

If you disagree you disagree. Lighten up everybody. I'm not the Chief of the ICC to make decisions. I just thought it would be nice to think of how players will adopt to such a game.

Again I hate the term "no offense" particularly when everybody keeps using words like "crap" and "stupid" to describe my idea. :

If some moderator thinks this topic isn't worth discussing on this forum, please do close it. I will not take offense in that case. What I will take offense to is when people keep rubbishing my idea without even explaining why they don't like it. Why such negativity?

Not that I mind it so much, but some discussion of the idea's merits and demerits would be nice.

Here's my own list of merits and demerits:

Merits:
1. Faster action.
2. Batting becomes more exciting.
3. A team gets two chances to make amends and toss doesn't matter so much.
4. Both teams have a chance to strategize a bit more about the approach in the 2 25-over innings rather than 1 50-over innings.

De-merits:
1. More complicated.
2. More favoured to batsmen than bowlers.
3. Might kill the ebb and flow of a full 50-over ODI game.
4. Takes much longer than 20-20.
5. Too many innings change-overs for a single day.

Can somebody add to this list of merits and demerits?

 

[aussie_ben91]

That sounds like baseball. Especially when the innings' are so short.

I also don't think batsman would enjoy batting twice when their going to try to slog out anyway but would much rather one innings of 50 overs.

 

[Leicester Fox]

Now i know it seems a little childish but I say from overs 25-35 we introduce the one hand,one bounce rule. It would bring in tight close in fields from spinners putting the batsmen under pressure and not letting them play as many defensive strokes encouraging them to play over the top!