Four Innigs ODI. Each Innings of 25 Overs.

[Hamish]

What a rubbish idea... why don't we just scrap Test matches and ODIs, and play T20s all year long to satisfy those with ridiculously short attention spans, the boards that guzzle all the cash as well as the often mediocre player who becomes a superstar over a couple of games for stringing a few flukes together involving a couple of quickfire 40s.

There's no need to make drastic shanges to ODIs, they are a much better test of a player's capability than T20s, and if you can't respect the format for the decent (and more skill orientated) contest it provides, stick to watching the IPL. It's all matter of an optimum schedule (that means no 7 match series like the one between Eng and Aus), as well as maybe a bit of a tweak in terms of powerplays or the total overs in an innings (40 overs is a decent, more realistic approach).

Tbh, ODIs, and even Test matches, didn't really have a big problem (apart from the batting paradises that popped up) until the first Twenty20 World Cup anyway, and its not like those format have changed radically since (if at all). That ends my rant for the day

 

[Deleted member 9102]

Edit: Chris Gayle

 

[jkartik]

feels a little weird but am disagreeing with the little master..
just leave it as it is.

the only thing that needs to be changed is the BLOODY PITCHES !!! :

 

[aditya123]

Definately not a good idea, 25 over per sides X 4 means, again slogging. Where as full 50overs means, lots of concentration and concistency. Another vital thing is, after eaach 25 overs there will be a kind of break, and that will ruin the whole thing. 50 overs cricket is the format we definately need to stay. This idea is basically cutting a ODI game into two T20s.

It need not have to be 50 overs and 20 wickets though. If you want to split the 50 overs into 2 halves just because both sides should get to bat under similar conditions, you could just continue from where the teams finished in the first block of 25.

Say, the batting side were 162/3 at the end of the 25th over which would be the end of their first block of 25. Team 2 comes in to bat and say they are 152/1 after 25. Now team 1 comes back to bat and resumes from 162/3 , over no.26 and the 2 not out batsmen come back knowing that the game is even and team 2 has 9 wickets still left. A bit more strategy comes into it and teams only get 10 wickets to play with.

I do not suggest something like this to be implemented because I see nothing brutally wrong with the current format anyway but if at all they do want to experiment a bit, I believe this format I suggested would be better than just playing 2 individual blocks of 25 overs which would really make it 2 T20s in a day.

 

[shubhrayu]

Why modify the ODI's.......I see majority of the people want ODI's as it is...maybe the majority of the world maybe wanting it....

They say T20 Attracts Crowds...The main reason is that the ticket prices are real low!

 

[Aditya]

No i dont think it is about tickets price what i think is it is about time.One twenty match hardly takes 3 hours to finish but if you see fifty over's it takes 5 hours atleast to be completed.So what i think is sachin idea is quite good and it should be tried in county championship's.

 

[TheGreemSim]

Personally I'd prefer 2 innings for each team of 50 overs over the course of 2 days, but that still doesn't fix the winning the toss problem.

 

[das_vicky]

As end user, T20 is far exiting than 50-50. At this point, ICC has to see how it can still persist with 50-50 though its not a crowd puller (atleast as it used to be). So changes are necessary.

As far as the change suggested by Sachin is concerned, the change is too drastic to be still called as 50-50. The change has to be shuttle to see which one fits the best. Changing to 40 overs each side is still crap.

 

[irottev]

After seeing the absolute farce of a pitch and conditions in Colombo this sounds more appealing. At least it might make the odd chasing side win if it were split. Then again, still probably not.

 

[DJ Ager]

Firstly, Sachin didn't come up with the idea, it is one which has been banded around before.

Secondly, I think it's worth a try, at least at domestic level, as I can see 50 over cricket struggling, for example if you compare the 2007 WC (50) and 2007 + 2009 T20 WC. On the flip side you could see matches all but over by the 3rd or 4th innings, although this happens in 50 over matches anyway. Also what about following on? (50 runs perhaps as a marker) But I still think it will be an idea worth trying.

 

[Brook]

I think there's too many ODIs, and the other problem is that when they were brought in the run rates in tests were really low. Now there's not a lot different between the main bulk of the ODIs and tests.

 

[formula1man]

I think there's too many ODIs, and the other problem is that when they were brought in the run rates in tests were really low. Now there's not a lot different between the main bulk of the ODIs and tests.

Exactly. An ODI isn't maent to be exciting like a T20. It is so people can go and watch a day of cricket and get a result at the end of it. Hard Flat 350 pitches are also required for ODIs.

 

[icyman]

It will ultimatly to lead to poor quality of cricket being played.
Test matches will lose their sheen.
25 overs of 2 innings in an ODI will ensure that batsmen keep on sloggin. You dont want it to become a slug fest.

I believe that ODI 50 overs still has a long way to go.The ODI has also thrown up some great matches at us.
E.g. SAF chasing 435.

Blindly followung what Tendulkar says will not make the game great. A logical approach needs to be taken as to how to increase the value of the game to the spectators.

 

[Leggie]

As with most people, I also disagree with Sachin on his theory. A lot of players get into Test Cricket via ODI cricket. This won't be a test of the skill that will be required at Test Level.

 

[aussie1st]

Secondly, I think it's worth a try, at least at domestic level, as I can see 50 over cricket struggling

Problem is England and SA have already dumped the 50 over format altogether. Now I was reading Australia have a contract to play 50 overs in domestic cricket up to 2011 so I don't know how long England and SA signed up to stick with their forms of cricket but this could present a problem if we wanted to try this out.