Swann - scrap ODIs

[Sedition]

"Dave Hussey gets the ball, I walk out... no one enjoys those overs"

Come on man, generalisations I still love ODI cricket the way it is now, but then I'd continue to do so if some of the proposed changes were implemented, so there's probably no harm in recapturing some of the lost audience by making a couple of major changes, like the 12-13 overs per bowler rule.

 

[formula1man]

See I think here is where I differ from you. You're arguing that the proposed changes would make it more like a Test, I'm would argue that ODIs are now the lame cousin of T20s and need some differentiation. With T20 around, I don't mind if ODI cricket suddenly looks more like a 'one day Test'. To me, a one day Test would be much more interesting than what is at present just tacking 30 extra overs onto a T20. What ODIs need to find is their long term identity. What will help them stay popular long term?

On the 'one day Test' thing: in fact the commentators were talking about this the other night. With 2 new balls, and with pitches that seem a bit more bowler friendly here at present in Aus, openers are going to have to dig in more and opening bowlers will get more joy. I'm enjoying the opening exchanges a lot this summer actually.

And just on the 5 bowler thing: I personally think that while having to find 10 overs from all-rounders used to be a cool element of ODIs, it now annoys me GREATLY, to the point whenever Steve Smith or Dave Hussey gets the ball, I walk out , especially in the first innings where the batsmen won't take any risks (insert your own countries lame 5th/6th bowlers...Collingwood used to be a good one for Eng).

I think I used to like it because they were often different players than you saw in Tests, but now you see those players in T20, so there isn't much novelty anymore, it's just a chore that has to be suffered by both teams because you know batsmen don't want to risk getting out, and you know the bowling captains will be as defensive as possible to minimise any damage from loose balls. To me that is just a waste of time, no one enjoys those overs and I think both batting and bowling teams would prefer they didn't exist.

Could not have said it better myself.

 

[Owzat]

See I think here is where I differ from you. You're arguing that the proposed changes would make it more like a Test, I'm would argue that ODIs are now the lame cousin of T20s and need some differentiation. With T20 around, I don't mind if ODI cricket suddenly looks more like a 'one day Test'. To me, a one day Test would be much more interesting than what is at present just tacking 30 extra overs onto a T20. What ODIs need to find is their long term identity. What will help them stay popular long term?

More like a Test than a LIMITED overs international. T20 is only popular with faddest who'd want ODIs to be biff, bash. ODIs are still popular in England, not sure about elsewhere. I think T20 will burn out its fad popularity

I think less ODIs in a series, or playing mini-competitions is the right way to go, NOTHING wrong with the format so leave it alone

And just on the 5 bowler thing: I personally think that while having to find 10 overs from all-rounders used to be a cool element of ODIs, it now annoys me GREATLY, to the point whenever Steve Smith or Dave Hussey gets the ball, I walk out , especially in the first innings where the batsmen won't take any risks (insert your own countries lame 5th/6th bowlers...Collingwood used to be a good one for Eng).

That isn't the fault of the format, that is the fault of the captains/selectors deciding to "make do" rather than play a proper fifth bowler. While it might be frustrating for the fan of the side using a donkey to bowl the fifth allocation, it makes it interesting for the game. Just because say Steve Smith or Luke Shight aren't up to it, doesn't mean it takes away the tactical element.

It would be boring if you could just bowl anyone in ODIs, just an abbreviation of a day of Test cricket but with a result.

I think I used to like it because they were often different players than you saw in Tests, but now you see those players in T20, so there isn't much novelty anymore, it's just a chore that has to be suffered by both teams because you know batsmen don't want to risk getting out, and you know the bowling captains will be as defensive as possible to minimise any damage from loose balls. To me that is just a waste of time, no one enjoys those overs and I think both batting and bowling teams would prefer they didn't exist.

It would be much better if people stopped thinking runs = funs. Put more in the pitch, the batting side wouldn't be able to slog so easily overs 1-20 and 40-50, they'd be preserving wickets and having to decide when they were established enough to take on the bowlers.

Maybe the fact is you've just become as bad as the wham bam thankyou mam 'fans' that like T20, it is CRICKET and there is going to be slow moving bits in games. To take out middle overs for those with little true interest in cricket because of a perceived 'lack of action or excitement' would be like taking out the middle third of a football pitch so the goal kicks would be threatening the opposition goal

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, it isn't the format that causes problems it is a) the excess of cricket, b) the mentality of so called cricket fans and c) the modern day view that slow isn't good or interesting

 

[formula1man]

its not that the middle overs are slow that is the problem, it is that there is no tactics at all, the batsman just want to push singles and the captains allow it, they just go through the motions in those overs, that is why it is boring, it is the same everytime. The same thing happens in T20 but its only 3-4 overs not 15.

 

[pcfan123]

Pretty much all cricket playing countries are now market driven economies with strong middle classes or growing middle classes.

More and more families have 2 parents who both work 5 days a week. The days of spending 7-8 hours watching cricket, let alone attending it are coming to an end.

Twenty20 is a good alternative to ODI cricket. You can go to a match and still have the majority of the day left to do other things.

Test cricket is a good "purist" niche event. Sort of like a golf tournament, it takes days and people check in periodically. The tradition behind it will ensure it is preserved and survives.

ODI cricket does not have enough historical value or tradition behind it to merit keeping it.

I'm willing to bet if the 50 over WC is done away with and replaced with a 4 year 2020 WC, in about 10 years no one will complain other than a handful of fans who are a minority in the cricket market anyways.

It's an eventuality, ODI cricket will die. They are just trying to milk it for ever last drop before the hammer comes down.

 

[formula1man]

Pretty much all cricket playing countries are now market driven economies with strong middle classes or growing middle classes.

More and more families have 2 parents who both work 5 days a week. The days of spending 7-8 hours watching cricket, let alone attending it are coming to an end.

Twenty20 is a good alternative to ODI cricket. You can go to a match and still have the majority of the day left to do other things.

Test cricket is a good "purist" niche event. Sort of like a golf tournament, it takes days and people check in periodically. The tradition behind it will ensure it is preserved and survives.

ODI cricket does not have enough historical value or tradition behind it to merit keeping it.

I'm willing to bet if the 50 over WC is done away with and replaced with a 4 year 2020 WC, in about 10 years no one will complain other than a handful of fans who are a minority in the cricket market anyways.

It's an eventuality, ODI cricket will die. They are just trying to milk it for ever last drop before the hammer comes down.

This ^

 

[SaiSrini]

I'm willing to bet if the 50 over WC is done away with and replaced with a 4 year 2020 WC, in about 10 years no one will complain other than a handful of fans who are a minority in the cricket market anyways.

It's an eventuality, ODI cricket will die. They are just trying to milk it for ever last drop before the hammer comes down.

The Indian market is completely behind ODI cricket, and according to quite a few of the ranters against Indian cricket, we dominate the cricket world due to our market which nowadays dictates the scheduling of matches.

I dont understand this. If someone can watch test cricket in spite of it being played over 5 days (5 * 7 hours = 35 hrs), how does one throw the logic in that one cannot watch an ODI which is a single day of 7 hrs? I see people complaining about the middle overs. To me, thats what makes or breaks a game of ODI cricket. It brings in the skill required for test cricket where you milk the bowlers for singles and make sure you do not lose your wicket so that you can put yourself in a good position for the late slog. Its not so easy to achieve it all the time and that makes it interesting. ODI is a good mixture between test cricket and T20 cricket where you have the blast and yet you have the classical cricket game. If at all something should go, it should be either test cricket or T20 cricket, not ODI cricket.

And I am not saying this because India seem to perform well in ODI's. I have enjoyed even non-India ODI's (the ones I have sporadically watched).

 

[formula1man]

something crossed my mind last night, why dont they do international fixtures like they do the domestic competition over here? they should do a test match and then have an ODI at the same ground after it, then go and play a test match again. That ensures that neither formate gets tiresome.