Tendulkar for two innings each in ODIs

[evdo1706]

http://www.cricinfo.com/india/content/current/story/423548.html

Sachin Tendulkar is in favour of one-day cricket but believes the 50-over format can be tinkered with in order to reduce the advantage gained by the team winning the toss. He said that the total of 100 overs could be split into four innings of 25 each, which would mean that no side would have the best of the conditions for the entire match.
Tendulkar said he first thought of the format during the Champions Trophy final in 2002 where India played Sri Lanka in Colombo. In that match, Sri Lanka Batted 50 overs before rain washed out the game shortly after India began their chase. On the reserve day, rain once again forced an abandonment after Sri Lanka had completed their innings.
"I am for 50-over cricket. I think we should have 25 overs a side to start with. I thought of this during the 2002 Champions Trophy in Sri Lanka," Tendulkar told Times Now, an Indian news channel. "In the finals, we ended up playing 110 overs against Sri Lanka. First they played 50 overs and we played 10 overs before the rain interruption. The next day, Sri Lanka again played 50 overs and in the end we were declared joint winners. I thought, 110 overs and still no result.
"That is when I thought, we should have 25 overs first for one side and then the other, and then once again 25 overs for one side and then the other. Today, we can tell the result of close to 75% of matches after the toss. We know how the conditions will affect the two teams. But it [his idea] is not too dependent on the toss because, for example, in a day-night match both the teams will have to bat under lights. The conditions change very dramatically but this would ensure that it's same for everyone."
Tendulkar's comments come at a time when the future of the one-day game is being questioned. The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) has scrapped its domestic 50-over tournament while Cricket South Africa is considering changes to its domestic 45-over competition. The ECB is also likely to propose that the ICC conduct a formal review of the future of the 50-over format after the 2011 World Cup to protect the ODI structure amid the rise of Twenty20 cricket.


IMO its an interesting idea and I am glad to see a leading cricketer coming up with some innovative thinking.This idea might work if the second innings of batting was a continuation of the first, not a seperate innings. It will definitely bring some new strategies to the game and also might bring some excitement to the dying format of the game. What do you think fellas?

[OzBomber]

If it's going to save One dayers then I'm all for it. Except they should make it either that the innings continues or the batsmen who batted in the first innings can't bat until everyone else has batted in the 2nd. Or you can just make it so they can only bat once.

[nobbyiscool]

didnt we try this in our one-day domestic cup at one stage? or did i imagine that?

its certainly not an original idea... i remember as a kid playing under 16s the league that i played in, in their wisdom, decided that the under 16s was a good place to trial this format.

the result? a diabolical failure. we played one game in this format and then it was shelved.

confusing, and unnecessary.

[Illinois Nazi]

This was done in the Australian domestic series a while ago. It was an absolute disaster.

What occurred was that every team's priority in the first 25 overs was to not lose wickets rather than to score runs, making for a fairly dull first half.

Then what would inevitably happen was that one of the teams would in fact lose a bunch of wickets in the first 25 anyway, even though they weren't making runs either. This set us up for an extremely dull second half as the result was pretty much determined - you had one team batting for 25 overs with 5 wickets in hand versus a team batting for 25 overs with 9 wickets in hand.

The only way it would work would be to restart your innings each time, so if you all get out in the first 25 overs it doesn't stop you from scoring in the second 25. Effectively playing back-to-back 20-20's and aggregating the scores.

[courtjester]

Effectively playing back-to-back 20-20's and aggregating the scores.


I actually like this idea. The perceived public problem with one-dayers is that the overs between 15-40 are boring.

The problem with 20-20s is that if the team batting first crashes and makes a low score, then the game is over and pretty dull as the team batting second make the runs without risk taking. I'm reluctant to drive an hour to the MCG to see a 20-20 that might not last too long.

Two innings of 20 overs per side is a nice compromise.

[hogman]

The idea has merit but only if each of the 25 overs are treated as seperate innings

[Dez!]

20 over "Test Match"? 2 innings each.

1st Innings
Team A 180 after 20 overs
Team B 140 after 20 overs

Team A leads by 40 runs

2nd Innings
Team A 120 after 20 overs (Lead by 160 runs)
Team B requires 160 runs to win from 20 overs

Everyone else is pulling ideas out their asses so I thought I'd join in.

:p

[Illinois Nazi]

20 over "Test Match"? 2 innings each.

1st Innings
Team A 180 after 20 overs
Team B 140 after 20 overs

Team A leads by 40 runs


Enforce the follow-on!!

[Port85]

20 over "Test Match"? 2 innings each.

1st Innings
Team A 180 after 20 overs
Team B 140 after 20 overs

Team A leads by 40 runs

2nd Innings
Team A 120 after 20 overs (Lead by 160 runs)
Team B requires 160 runs to win from 20 overs

Everyone else is pulling ideas out their asses so I thought I'd join in.

:p

I don't mind this idea, you could also have "first innings points" etc in case it rains later in the game, plus could be good for the league table in domestic games. Would hopefully encourage entertaining cricket.

[Illinois Nazi]

I don't mind this idea, you could also have "first innings points" etc in case it rains later in the game, plus could be good for the league table in domestic games. Would hopefully encourage entertaining cricket.

I'd love to see it done like this, when they brought in the experiment referred to above I thought this was how they were going to do it. Sadly, they didn't.

The other option might be that in the second 25 you continue from where you left off, but when you get to the end of your 11 you go back to the beginning and go through again. Would certainly make for some entertaining batting by the tail! Would also give you the chance to see a batting combination like McGrath-Hayden at the crease together!

[ashley12]

Played one tournament for junior cricket run in a similar format to each, a 20/20/20/20 so to speak for under 12's. The under 14's played a straight 50/50 match, because apparently the kids couldnt field for 3 hours straight.

Of them all only one was anything exciting...

The first we batted first and made just over 100. We bowled them all out for about 40, and spent the next 4 hours doing nothing until the other game finished.

Game two, We batted first and made 2/90 odd. They batted and ended the session 8/60. We batted the next twenty overs in a slogathon because they were so boned, and added something sick like 150 more, which was pretty disheartning for them, knowing your stuffed but in the 35 degree heat chasing leather anyway...

The last game, the decider was actually interesting. We bowled first, they made about 5/80. We got a good start but lost some quick wickets due to shifting the batting order and ended our innings 8/100. They didnt know we had our better bats at the tail so were very conservative in adding another 70 runs, giving us 50 to get with two wickets in hand. We lost by 5 runs or something in a pretty exciting finish. Was a long time ago but was interesting to play that format...

About the actual idea, I like it, but I fear that it will just be another wasted, improperly added gimmick like the supersub...

[isthisavailable]

The answer to the ODI problem is incredibly simple.

MULTI-BALLS!