ICC Champions Trophy 2013 - England & Wales

[Haarithan]

put in bangladesh's win and they'll be on 84, NZ are on 82.

More like the predictor page didn't remove the concluded ODI match from the prediction column. Have seen that happening before.

New Zealand are still 8th

Reliance ICC Rankings, ICC ODI Team Rankings, ICC Rankings Predictor

 

[Epic]

They are not tough to schedule, but with the decrease in popularity of ODIs, it has become even harder to attract spectators for the matches between the two away sides.

I seriously can't be bothered with ODIs anymore, like it's soooooo boring man. I know many retort to the middle 10, but I'm talking about the middle 30 here. Sooner we kill it altogether, the better.

With all that said, I'll most likely be tuning in for this tourney.

Come on. Countries like Australia, England, and SA would see packed crowds for India/Pak/WI/SL matches

Don't even, the best example is the CB series of last year in Australia, no one gave a flying kerpluck about the IND/SL matches and rightfully so. Ofc, you could always make the argument that we play SL every Wednesday, Friday and Sunday, but that's a story for another time.

 

[aditya123]

I seriously can't be bothered with ODIs anymore, like it's soooooo boring man. I know many retort to the middle 10, but I'm talking about the middle 30 here. Sooner we kill it altogether, the better.

With all that said, I'll most likely be tuning in for this tourney.



Don't even, the best example is the CB series of last year in Australia, no one gave a flying kerpluck about the IND/SL matches and rightfully so. Ofc, you could always make the argument that we play SL every Wednesday, Friday and Sunday, but that's a story for another time.

I have a special attachment with ODIs as compared to T20s. Some of my favorite cricketing memories are ODI related. Its far superior to T20s in my opinion. With the 2 new ball rule along with the 2-bouncer rule and the enforced attacking fields have made ODIs far more challenging according to me. I feel this Champions Trophy is going to be a cracking one.

Cricket in general was so much better in the pre-T20 era. The quality of matches, the multi nation events and mostly test quality cricketers bossing ODIs made it even more special. Cricket has lost its soul for me. I hope this Champions Trophy is a throwback to the good old era of properly contested cricket and being in England I`m counting on it to be one of the finest ICC events in recent memory.

 

[cerande]

I started watching cricket when I was in 1st grade.I have grown up in a home without cable tv and consequently without test matches.Only ODIs were shown and that too was on the whim of DD(national tv).

So basically I usually only saw ODi matches when I was a kid.People say nobody remembers ODi matches due to their magnitude.To be honest I know many ODi matches by heart.Like Aditya,I have my share of great ODI memories as well.

I loved ODI .I still do.It is really painful to see that its existence is in danger.ODIs over T20 anyday for me.T20 is just mindless.Building an ODI innings is still a craft.

While ODIs might not have the intensity of a test match or the sixes of a T20,it will still hold a special place in my heart.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

More like the predictor page didn't remove the concluded ODI match from the prediction column. Have seen that happening before.

New Zealand are still 8th

Reliance ICC Rankings, ICC ODI Team Rankings, ICC Rankings Predictor

ah well, to be honest I'm disappointed they're not 8th though I was pretty pleased when the predictor through them up at 8th, as it is it's pretty convenient for the ICC. otherwise they could have faced some difficult questions. someone mentioned a qualification cut off, definitely plausible but unless they've actually announced such a cut off it smacks of making it up as you go along.

still think bangladesh's exclusion doesn't really make sense coming off the back of a tie in sri lanka, win v west indies, and finishing runner up in the asia cup.

 

[Epic]

The thing is, ODIs were fine till T20s showed up, for me that is, I no longer see the point in them tbh. T20 does what ODIs used to(crowd pulling), except it does it better.

----------

The only argument I could come up with in support of ODIs is the need for middle ground between Tests and T20s... but meh, I'd rather take a free flowing International schedule over the ---- we got going on right now.

 

[Cricketman]

When there is a test series, people say test cricket is in danger. When there are ODIs, people say they are dying too.

I dont buy it. I like all forms of cricket, T20 the least so. I dont think there should be international T20 personally.

 

[sifter132]

^Agree with you. Keep T20 at domestic level in my ideal world.

The change I'd like to see in ODIs is the bowling limits. I hate seeing part time bowlers having to bowl 10 overs. Increase the limit to 12 or 13 overs each, and that makes it so teams can use their best bowlers more (option B: keep 10 over limits, just reduce games to 40 overs long). More overs for the better bowlers will lead to more attacking play from the fielding team because they have more faith in the guys with the ball - no more part timers, and on the other side it will lead to teams picking a longer batting lineup (because they'll need 1 less bowler). I think that will make for better cricket. No one goes to the cricket wanting to watch Suresh Raina bowl or Glenn Maxwell bowl. It might mean the death of all-rounders, but if that makes those all-rounders improve their game so they are better at one of the skills, then I'm happy.

 

[Epic]

When there is a test series, people say test cricket is in danger. When there are ODIs, people say they are dying too.

I dont buy it. I like all forms of cricket, T20 the least so. I dont think there should be international T20 personally.

Well you're right, none of the formats are dying or even in danger of dying for that matter, it's just I would like for ODIs to be killed.

----------

England news: Graeme Swann wants ODIs scrapped | England Cricket News | ESPN Cricinfo

I love you Swanny!

 

[aditya123]

^Agree with you. Keep T20 at domestic level in my ideal world.

The change I'd like to see in ODIs is the bowling limits. I hate seeing part time bowlers having to bowl 10 overs. Increase the limit to 12 or 13 overs each, and that makes it so teams can use their best bowlers more (option B: keep 10 over limits, just reduce games to 40 overs long). More overs for the better bowlers will lead to more attacking play from the fielding team because they have more faith in the guys with the ball - no more part timers, and on the other side it will lead to teams picking a longer batting lineup (because they'll need 1 less bowler). I think that will make for better cricket. No one goes to the cricket wanting to watch Suresh Raina bowl or Glenn Maxwell bowl. It might mean the death of all-rounders, but if that makes those all-rounders improve their game so they are better at one of the skills, then I'm happy.

I don`t think there should be any bowling quota in ODIs at all. Let us scrap the quota on how much a bowler can bowl. We don`t do that with batsmen, why do itwith bowlers. The batsmen can go on batting for 50 overs if he is playing well. There is no restriction that says, you go off after you face 70 balls. Why have it for bowlers? I for one, think that taking away bowling restrictions would make for awesomely well contested games, teams would go for specialists and that would take substandard part timers out of the game. What say?

 

[shravi]

While I think that is a good idea Aditya, it would make cricket an even more elitist and exclusive sport. The smaller nations often thrive on not having to face the best bowlers for more than 10 overs. Moreover, while the bigger nations may have world class bowlers that would benefit from having no quotas, the smaller nations most likely do not, which once again causes massive inequality. However, this inequality wouldn't only stem from a naturally smaller and poorer talent pool, but forced changes that would only further inhibit their competitiveness.

We already have one elitist and restrictive format of the game in test cricket. I don't think there is room for one more.

 

[sifter132]

Actually I think no over restrictions might help the smaller, weaker teams. Then they would might only need to have 3 good bowlers, where now they need 5 decent ones. Depends on your team, but think Sri Lanka of 15 years ago. They could have had Murali bowl 20-25 overs, Vaas probably another 15-20 and that means they need less bowling talent overall.

The other thing with over restrictions is that it gives the batting team a chance to target someone. Most of the time they don't - they are happy to milk bowler #5 for 5 singles an over, happy to trade less runs for not losing a wicket - rather than really attacking the weakest bowler. That is probably the main root of the problem, conservative batting strategies. Why not send up a big hitting tail ender eg. Sammy, Southee, Mitchell Johnson, Swann - someone whose wicket isn't really important, and get them to target the weakest bowler? Teams just don't like to take risks, especially if batting first.

 

[sifter132]

Enough rules bitching - lets get some real news!

Champions Trophy 2013 : Australia keep Champions Trophy probables list secret | Cricket News | ICC Champions Trophy | ESPN Cricinfo

Australia want to keep their 30 man squad a secret! That's interesting...question is why?? There's only a couple of reasons I can think of:
1) They want players in the IPL who aren't on the 30 man list to play hard in the hopes they'll make the squad ie. keep all Aussie players hopeful of a spot.
2) They've named some players in the 30 that are...questionable? Controversial? Don't know! You don't have to pick your final 15 from the 30 anyway...so I'm not sure why it's a huge issue. The player in question is probably Mr Fawad Ahmed, the leg spinner who technically hasn't qualified to play for Australia yet. He could play as soon as he gets a passport though, which could be as quickly as the Immigration department allows. Maybe they've named Mike Hussey in the 30 man squad, and don't want anyone to know...
3) On the reverse of that, maybe they've left out a player or 2 from the 30 man squad and don't want the world to know yet eg. David Warner or Matthew Wade who's ODI form has been lean, or maybe Shane Watson for his disciplinary concerns, or Michael Clarke because of back problems. I can't really think of anyone else who'd be a 'shock' omission.

Could be that the selectors are just sick of being in the cricket news, and figure they'll get less grief for 'hiding' their squad, than for picking a 30 man squad openly for everyone to pick apart.

 

[cerande]

It seems like scenario no. 2 to me.There are probably some very surprising inclusions.
If there are some exclusions though,that wouldn't be that much surprising when you think about it.After the homework issue,if they do exclude Watson,it wouldn't be that much of a shock.If Clarke doesn't play due to his injury,all is well unless he doesn't play the ashes.

But to be honest,as you said,they don't have to pick 15 from the squad of 30 so this just seems weird.

 

[Cricketman]

Honestly have never seen the point of probables. I feel it only serves to kill the morale of fringe payers who didn't make the cut. Why not just announce a squad and have everyone playing their hardest for a spot on question day.