CA hopes to get better than 50-50 split

[aussie1st]

SPLITTING one-day games into two innings per team is almost guaranteed, but shortening matches to 40 overs per innings is unlikely to get resounding support.

Instead, Cricket Australia is likely to decide that 25 overs per innings is the way to go, pushed by television networks which still want the full match length provided by the traditional 50-over format. CA will discuss the radical revamp of one-day cricket at its board meeting tomorrow, but this shake-up has been on the agenda since November and would come into effect for next season's domestic tournament.

The new game, a ''one-day version of Test cricket'', already has its critics. Some believe many matches could be decided after each team has played one innings each, and broadcasters are also wary of that prospect. Others wonder if opening batsmen will dawdle their way through the first innings to conserve wickets - which will be carried over - into the second innings.

The finer details will be worked out at future meetings but it will be at least two years before any new format is introduced to international games.

The ICC is adamant the 2015 World Cup will remain a 50-over event, raising serious concerns over the proposal. CA spokesman Peter Young said a number of opinions had been canvassed from players, sponsors, cricket journalists and fans.

CA hopes to get better than 50-50 split

Really can't see the idea becoming a hit, should just stick to normal 50 over cricket. Zimbabwe breakthrough tournament shows competitive cricket is on the up again.

 

[AkshayS]

The new game, a ''one-day version of Test cricket'', already has its critics. Some believe many matches could be decided after each team has played one innings each, and broadcasters are also wary of that prospect. Others wonder if opening batsmen will dawdle their way through the first innings to conserve wickets - which will be carried over - into the second innings.

The game plan than will surely be to save wickets in first half of session and attacking cricket in second session. Dunno how will be powerplay gonna be applied.
I think the current system of powerplays wouldn't work with that.

The ICC is adamant the 2015 World Cup will remain a 50-over event, raising serious concerns over the proposal. CA spokesman Peter Young said a number of opinions had been canvassed from players, sponsors, cricket journalists and fans.

I can't see it becoming famous idea. But I would love to see some matches with that format.

 

[Num]

I don't like the idea, further complicating cricket would make it more difficult to expand to new fan bases. Simplification of the one day game (such as lessening field restrictions) and allowing the players and captains to be more creative has a better chance of producing a better brand of cricket in my opinion.

 

[War]

I find it fairly disturbing why people around the world are still talking about abolishing 50 over cricket.

I thought the 2009 Champions trophy pretty much laid to rest all notions, that 50 over cricket was dead.

 

[angryangy]

I tend to think that Zimbabwe tournament is more an argument for breaking the innings into two sessions than against it.

 

[aussie1st]

I didn't watch them but I take you mean 1st innings advantage. Even breaking it into two 25 overs will still disadvantage the team batting first.

 

[riz7khan12]

I totally disagree this is a horrible idea. 4 Innings of 25 overs . Seriously cant beleive CA are even considering this.

 

[drainpipe32]

Trial and error guys. There's gotta be some change and better trying now than too late.

 

[angryangy]

I didn't watch them but I take you mean 1st innings advantage. Even breaking it into two 25 overs will still disadvantage the team batting first.

There always going to be that little disadvantage to be the first ones surprised, but we're talking about a chance for a team that gets a big disadvantage to recover. That's what we're told is the weakness of T20, but in truth, it is often really absent in ODIs as well.

The Zimbabwean pitches weren't particularly bad wickets, not green seamers or anything like that; just tacky. Bad balls can still go for four in these conditions, but it is much harder to drive on the up while it is tacky. In those cases, the entire first innings took place before midday, so it wasn't a case of getting through an hour and making up for it. Batsmen were able to get used to it, but any time a wicket fell, it put a lot of extra pressure on the new batsman. Collapses grew for a range of reasons, but the main thing is that the team batting second was not tested in remotely the same way, when the ball was coming on much better in the afternoons.

I guess it's not common to have these exact circumstances because they were playing in winter and without lights, so the games had to take place in cool mornings and finish before five. Summer brings not only more warmth, but also more hours of sun. However, there are still games played under lights that suffer from heavy dew in the second innings and that slipperiness for bowlers and fielders can be tragically compounded if the pitch starts out in the daytime with a bit of moisture. There are also a few day/night games on very dry pitches where it's much harder to chase. It's much the same with regards to the balance of advantages.

What's more is that we have that peculiarity of the rain affected game; sometimes playing 50 overs and getting no result due to a heavy deluge. Split innings would mean there's no difference between raining out the first half of the game or the second half.

No, it certainly can't be made perfect, but I can see how it could be better.

 

[sohum]

I'd be against the change, mainly because I would have to rewrite PCCS.

Seriously, though, it would be a statistical nightmare.

 

[pcfan123]

Stupid idea and I doubt it will be implemented?

Whats next? 3 outs per innings? and gloves?

 

[sifter132]

Well I actually like this idea - so there

Having 2 innings makes the game fairer as one team does not have to bat/bowl under lights exclusively and it makes the game closer for longer so that there are no more wastes of 3 hours once India makes 350 and New Zealand are 3/20 in reply. And it would also hopefully chop out 10 overs of bowler milking which is SO mundane. I don't watch overs 15-40 of an ODI 1st innings anymore - well I have it on in the background, but I'm not paying much attention.

There are extra things they could do to encourage more attacking cricket: giving a bowler or 2 some extra overs rather than the usual bore of watching 2 guys who are in the team for their batting cobble together 10 quick overs. And there would need to be some incentive to get batsmen playing attacking shots in the first of their 2 innings - powerplays might be enough, but it may take to experimenting to balance this right.

I personally think that until they decide to abolish international T20s they should keep the game at 50 overs, but I would LOVE to see some kind of merge between the formats - I really don't think 3 formats of international cricket is sustainable. At the moment T20s as internationals are a joke IMHO. Fun to watch, but absolutely meaningless as to which nation has the better cricket team - and I'm not just saying that because England won :laugh. That's why an idea like this: 40 overs split into 2 innings has the potential to be that middle ground that I think is needed.

 

[Prithvi]

For me, have a trail.
'Cause as Gaz said, at any time in future, it sure is gonna come into light. So why don't you do it now?

And similar was the situation when 60 over cricket became 50 over cricket. But now, many are liking 50 over cricket.

But what if the team chasing will get restricted below target with wickets remaining? In tests, we declare the game draw, but here, its not possible.
This'll be a controversial form of cricket.
One poor innings out of four can rule the game if seen in my view.
Consider a match between X and Y.
X bats first, scores, say 150 runs in 25 overs.
Then Y gets all out for, say 70 runs.
X bats again, scores about 200 runs. So chasing about 280 in 25 overs is bit difficult and is unfair.
and what about the follow on rule?

 

[ajdude]

Cricket Australia confirms split-innings one-dayers | Australia Cricket News | Cricinfo.com

First four rounds of the FRC will be normal, but the following six will be the new format, I'm actually looking forward to it.

 

[Num]

it makes the game closer for longer so that there are no more wastes of 3 hours once India makes 350 and New Zealand are 3/20 in reply.

I think it would actually make the game closer for shorter. In that example there with the current 50/50 format, you've probably seen about 55 overs worth of cricket where the game could still go either way. Just say they go with the 25/25/25/25 format, and India makes 2/150 in their first 25, and New Zealand is at 3/20 in the first 5 overs of their first 25. In this case, you see around 30 overs worth of cricket where the game could still go either way, in comparison to the 55 overs in the current 50/50 format. Although, there may be other permutations that means the game stays closer for longer in the 25/25/25/25 format.