Sedition
Panel of Selectors
Remembered Dave afterwards 
I don't rate Beer tbh.
I don't rate Beer tbh.
Swann - scrap ODIs
- Thread starter barmyarmy
- Start date
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
I admire your patriotism
His username already explains were his loyalty lies
----------
No question they are doing good in patches. But they cannot be best until they are consistent and prove in different conditions. Swann was dropped in spinner friendly Indian wickets...he could not even clean up Bang/Irish tail in WC. If standards are so low then Ashwin would be a contender as well.
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
Ashwin may well be a contender if he carries on over the next year or two. Although ironically enough, I don't actually think he's anything special, but he does seem to be getting wickets. Sort of reminds me of an off-spinning version of Kumble.
Certainly standards are low, but then that's not really Swann's fault. Obviously if Murali was playing, or Bedi, Kumble or Warne, then no one would be mentioning Swann as one of the best spinners currently in international cricket. However, there just isn't really much competition at the moment.
In fact, would it be fair to suggest that ODI cricket is partly responsible for the standard of spinners declining? Are we likely to see real genuine wicket threats like Warne and Murali if the majority of cricket spinners play requires them to keep it tight? Will erratic but threatening spinners still have a place in cricket? Would Warne be allowed to flourish now, or would they be trying to make sure he can send down 4 tight T20 overs?
ODI Cricket, people see off Swann's spell and just target the dross that is Dernbach or Patel. All spin bowlers (except Murali) have to some degree relied on an element of teamwork, a similar threat at the other end bowling to help build pressure. I don't think in any ODI Cricket has Swann had that benefit recently. Difficult to take wickets if there is never any need to take risks against him as the rest of the attack are getting carted.
Certainly standards are low, but then that's not really Swann's fault. Obviously if Murali was playing, or Bedi, Kumble or Warne, then no one would be mentioning Swann as one of the best spinners currently in international cricket. However, there just isn't really much competition at the moment.
In fact, would it be fair to suggest that ODI cricket is partly responsible for the standard of spinners declining? Are we likely to see real genuine wicket threats like Warne and Murali if the majority of cricket spinners play requires them to keep it tight? Will erratic but threatening spinners still have a place in cricket? Would Warne be allowed to flourish now, or would they be trying to make sure he can send down 4 tight T20 overs?
ODI Cricket, people see off Swann's spell and just target the dross that is Dernbach or Patel. All spin bowlers (except Murali) have to some degree relied on an element of teamwork, a similar threat at the other end bowling to help build pressure. I don't think in any ODI Cricket has Swann had that benefit recently. Difficult to take wickets if there is never any need to take risks against him as the rest of the attack are getting carted.
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Disagree, ODI cricket once played amongst the best of teams still deserves to be part of the international calendar.
The problem with those administrators running the ICC is that over the last 5-6 years, those blokes have tried to complicate the rules in ODIs by moving away from the tradition "first 15-overs format" and introducing a crescendo of confusing new rules.
A good ODI game>>>>over a good T20 game.
BKB1991
Panel of Selectors
No question they are doing good in patches. But they cannot be best until they are consistent and prove in different conditions. Swann was dropped in spinner friendly Indian wickets...he could not even clean up Bang/Irish tail in WC. If standards are so low then Ashwin would be a contender as well.
Pretty much answers it. Swann is probably the best or second best off spinner in the world right now, no ones saying hes the best ever.
The standard of Aus domination, has set the bar so high, the best players/teams dont have to be owning each team every game, but generally has to be better than the rest.
Left_Hander
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Online Cricket Games Owned
When I heard about these comments from Swann on Cricinfo I was gobsmacked. I can't believe he would say that. The thing I love about ODI cricket is that it is shorter than Test cricket but still allows a batsmen to play a long innings, a bowler to have a decent spell and a team can recover from a collapse unlike Twenty20 which can be over very quickly if one team dominates. I find ODI cricket alot more memorable.
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
I'm going to cry 
That is yet another person who has described a maximum of 50 overs as a long innings. That's not even seeing off two bloody sessions of cricket!
That is yet another person who has described a maximum of 50 overs as a long innings. That's not even seeing off two bloody sessions of cricket!
Atharv
Club Cricketer
hmmm.
If Swann does not like ODI's he should retire from ODI's. I would have understood it, if he had suggested some form of modification to the ODI rules but demand to scrap something just because you do not like it, is a bit too much.
Code:
For me it's not as enjoyable to play in. I think Test cricket and Twenty20 are the way forward for cricket.Why does english cricket board force somebody to play ODI's who doesn't like to play ODI's ? No wonder English seem to loose everything in shorter version of the game.
.....
I scanned the source article and he did not give any credible reason to scrap the ODI's. I don't know if scrapping of UDRS(which was a joke.More abt it some time later) will affect Swann's performance,but if what I have read is true then it might have an adverse effect(?) on his wicket taking ability because it is said in various articles that UDRS has played a significant part in Swann's recent success.I have no checked stats but "experts" might know.
BKB1991
Panel of Selectors
I think theres being too much weight be giving on Swanns opinion. At the end of the day its his opinion based on his logic and experience.
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
No Bilal, aren't you aware that when sports people provide bland PR constructed answers that we moan they don't give their own opinion. Then, when, using their own experiences they provide their own personal opinion that we want them to give us the generic PR answer that everyone else says.
Jeebus, get with the times!
Jeebus, get with the times!
Gurjot95
National Board President
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
May I know why only Britishers voted for Yes?
Probably because of rankings. Look where they stand at Tests and T20's. Now look where they are in ODI's.
ODI's are great fun and more exciting than T20's imo. Since there are many twists and turns which you won't find in T20's. But that's the not only reason it serprates it from T20's. ODI are not only about playing attacking cricket. It requires technique to continue innings throughout and skills to bat according to situation. Low scoring match are more of fun when you get to see bowlers doing well and amount of pressure building up every ball. Maintaing RR for 50 overs is hell a lot of difficult than for 20 overs. ODI cricket develops the player and make it ready to enter Test arena. Imagine players selecting from their performances in T20's? Pretty rubbish idea, IMO.
Probably because of rankings. Look where they stand at Tests and T20's. Now look where they are in ODI's.
ODI's are great fun and more exciting than T20's imo. Since there are many twists and turns which you won't find in T20's. But that's the not only reason it serprates it from T20's. ODI are not only about playing attacking cricket. It requires technique to continue innings throughout and skills to bat according to situation. Low scoring match are more of fun when you get to see bowlers doing well and amount of pressure building up every ball. Maintaing RR for 50 overs is hell a lot of difficult than for 20 overs. ODI cricket develops the player and make it ready to enter Test arena. Imagine players selecting from their performances in T20's? Pretty rubbish idea, IMO.
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
A lot of us have been fairly vocal about it for a while.
Quite a few of us have given long and reasoned arguments as to why we think Odi cricket could be phased out, but it's just personal opinion. I barely watch them, regardless of who's playing. If I want to spend the day watching cricket I'll watch some test cricket, regardless of who's playing. If I want a quick, fun and entertaining game I'll watch a 20-20 over a couple of hours. All this rubbish about ODI cricket allowing batsmen to build innings etc, it's 50 overs max! Basically, not even two sessions of cricket, of which generally at least 10 overs are facing off against some part time bowlers and bits and pieces cricketers in a turgid formulaic spell that became so stale that they had to attempt to change the rules to regain interest.
Surely it's telling that there isn't a global 50 over domestic tournament like the IPL or club thingy they do? Obviously people like them, so there is a market, so keep them. It's not unfair however for me to suggest that as primarily a fan of test cricket who considers most other forms as a side show, that I only need one other sideshow, for me that would be 20-20. Commercially, the idea of being able to fit night games in and play midweek also seems to make much more sense to me. Just my opinion though. Just as it's just Swann's opinion.
If he doesn't want to play, I do agree with people saying he should retire from them though, however, that implies that he still doesn't try his hardest whenever he plays for England, which Swann clearly does.
----------
Don't lie Colin. Me and you were adamant they should scrap all cricket in the late 90's, early 00's
Quite a few of us have given long and reasoned arguments as to why we think Odi cricket could be phased out, but it's just personal opinion. I barely watch them, regardless of who's playing. If I want to spend the day watching cricket I'll watch some test cricket, regardless of who's playing. If I want a quick, fun and entertaining game I'll watch a 20-20 over a couple of hours. All this rubbish about ODI cricket allowing batsmen to build innings etc, it's 50 overs max! Basically, not even two sessions of cricket, of which generally at least 10 overs are facing off against some part time bowlers and bits and pieces cricketers in a turgid formulaic spell that became so stale that they had to attempt to change the rules to regain interest.
Surely it's telling that there isn't a global 50 over domestic tournament like the IPL or club thingy they do? Obviously people like them, so there is a market, so keep them. It's not unfair however for me to suggest that as primarily a fan of test cricket who considers most other forms as a side show, that I only need one other sideshow, for me that would be 20-20. Commercially, the idea of being able to fit night games in and play midweek also seems to make much more sense to me. Just my opinion though. Just as it's just Swann's opinion.
If he doesn't want to play, I do agree with people saying he should retire from them though, however, that implies that he still doesn't try his hardest whenever he plays for England, which Swann clearly does.
----------
Don't lie Colin. Me and you were adamant they should scrap all cricket in the late 90's, early 00's
