South Africa in West Indies

[shahid6995]

The ICC changed it to 20 just over a year ago.

Ok thanks. With the advent of Twenty20 now I dont see the point however of playing 20 over ODIs. Why not just play with the Twenty20 rules?

 

[cheaterr]

Because it was a ODI from the start?

 

[andrew_nixon]

Because it was a ODI from the start?

Exactly. This match was scheduled as a ODI. If they wanted to play a Twenty20 game, the ODI would have to be cancelled. As there was no reason for the ODI to be cancelled, the ICC would have imposed a fine for failing to fulfill a fixture.

 

[shahid6995]

My point being, the ICC should change the rules. If there is a point where a full ODI is not being completed, meaning a minimum of twenty five overs not twenty, then it should be a twenty20 game instead. They probably changed the rules to accomodate the 20 overs for a full ODI before Twenty20 got completely accepted. Now that it is a full game with its own rules, a ODI of 20 overs does not make much sense to me.

 

[T20]

although I agree that odi status should be for min 25 over match, problem with your idea is it may spoil the concept of a 'series'..so you may have a situation in a 5 odi series where first 2 were odis next two were twenty20 and last one was a odi. now that doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Dhoni]

5-0 wow, West Indies suck.

Hey don't say that man. They're out of form. It happens; don't you remember how India lost the series against Pakistan after winnig the first two matches. It doesn't mean they suck.

 

[cheaterr]

Atleast India 3 matches in that whole tour. West Indies didnt even win one

 

[vibs89]

5 in a row that's a magnificiant win for SA. Keep it up SA.

 

[The Champ]

great win for SA's I think WI have another big problem in way of Pak

 

[shahid6995]

although I agree that odi status should be for min 25 over match, problem with your idea is it may spoil the concept of a 'series'..so you may have a situation in a 5 odi series where first 2 were odis next two were twenty20 and last one was a odi. now that doesn't make sense to me.

Before Twenty20 came along, and before they changed the rules to say that 20 over games are also ODIs, what happened then? If there was rain and 25 overs a side could not be bowled, then the whole game for that day was called off. In your example, the series would have been spoiled anyways with two games rained off (going by the old rules). If its about making sure the series is not affected, then why even stop at 20 overs? Why not make SURE a result is obtained even in ten overs a side blast-off??

So leave the ODIs to be at least 25 overs, and if its only possible to play 20 overs a side, make it a Twenty20 game, give the crowd their entertainment, and let the statistics be separate. I think the stats do matter in it too because cricket is very statistic-oriented. And counting just a 20 over game towards a players over-all ODI stats is probably not good. Anyways, just my opinion.

 

[sohum]

As you all know I never like to be pedantic, but this isn't technically a Twenty20 game, it's a one day game reduced to 20 overs a side.

Hence the quotes Andrew--specially for you.

Before Twenty20 came along, and before they changed the rules to say that 20 over games are also ODIs, what happened then? If there was rain and 25 overs a side could not be bowled, then the whole game for that day was called off. In your example, the series would have been spoiled anyways with two games rained off (going by the old rules). If its about making sure the series is not affected, then why even stop at 20 overs? Why not make SURE a result is obtained even in ten overs a side blast-off??

So leave the ODIs to be at least 25 overs, and if its only possible to play 20 overs a side, make it a Twenty20 game, give the crowd their entertainment, and let the statistics be separate. I think the stats do matter in it too because cricket is very statistic-oriented. And counting just a 20 over game towards a players over-all ODI stats is probably not good. Anyways, just my opinion.

You're giving the ICC, nay, most sports bodies in the world too much credit. Once the rules are set in place they are very difficult to change. Although it would make more sense to make this allowance, common sense does not prevail in the working of sports governments. Another example is the NBA. In a recent Dallas Mavericks - Phoneix Suns encounter (Game 3), Avery Johnson (Dallas coach) was given a technical because he pointed out a mistake on the part of the referees. The referees later realized that they had made a mistake and changed their judgment. However, the technical on Avery stayed--because there's nothing in the rule book allowing that change.

Anyhow, what other changes would the Twenty20 game exactly bring to the table? Apart from the 2 runs per no ball and the free hit ball? Although those could promise a lot more runs.

 

[andrew_nixon]

The thing is, common sense isn't that you play a Twenty20 game. Common sense is that if the conditions are fit to play a ODI of reduced overs, you play it.

 

[shahid6995]

The thing is, common sense isn't that you play a Twenty20 game. Common sense is that if the conditions are fit to play a ODI of reduced overs, you play it.

Fine, but there is a limit to how low you can go. For me, that limit is 25 overs. Like I said before, if weather only permits a five over a side game, would you play that???

 

[andrew_nixon]

Not at international level, no. I'd actually prefer a 25 over limit, as once international Twenty20 becomes more widespread, there is going to be increasing confusion.