View Full Version : Yawn
The Fonz
24 Jan 2010, 18:30
This is the type of one-dayer that gives Twenty20 a magnificent name.
So utterly boring. So utterly pointless.
davey_magik
24 Jan 2010, 18:35
Still better than T20.
Most T20s are over after about 30 of the 40 overs played. Some are over even earlier than that.
don't know why it's the fault of the format when the opposition is fluffing it. you play a shit team who is playing shit and any type of game will seem pointless and boring, ****ing hell.
Adelaide Hawk
24 Jan 2010, 18:50
More Test matches needed. Far more exciting.
Anyone for 10 day cricket?
Bombers_Forever
24 Jan 2010, 18:55
The part that is boring is there is still another 3 games after this.......I know they canned the "series" concept last year but three games of this is enough.
Plugger35
24 Jan 2010, 19:04
Pakistan stuffed up by bowling first. You should always bat first at the SCG in a D/N ODI as batting is a lot harder at night. They must have got sucked in by the overcast conditions and thought it would move around like the Sydney test, the pitch was nowhere near as green though.
Would have been a much more competitive match if Pakistan batted first and Australia were chasing.
King Elvis
24 Jan 2010, 19:07
The part that is boring is there is still another 3 games after this.......I know they canned the "series" concept last year but three games of this is enough.
It's only boring because the Pakis have capitulated.
peternorth
24 Jan 2010, 19:12
here's a way of spicing it up.
have a shot everytime michael slater craps on about sydney
Mr Ripper
24 Jan 2010, 19:13
here's a way of spicing it up.
have a shot everytime michael slater craps on about sydney
Or Richie... or Tony... or Nicholas... or Tubby...
peternorth
24 Jan 2010, 19:19
Or Richie... or Tony... or Nicholas... or Tubby...
foxsports and ch 9 now head up nsw cricket.
DeadlyAkkuret
24 Jan 2010, 19:21
Perfectly named thread.
This is the type of one-dayer that gives Twenty20 a magnificent name.
So utterly boring. So utterly pointless.
Problem is, most T20's are both boring and pointless, unless you're the type who goes agog everytime the ball croses the fence. Such things provide the odd thrill, but not when they occur every few minutes.
Within T20's, there is little scope for tactics and strategy, in bowling, fielding or batting. For instance, we have batsmen who don't need (or know how) to build an innings, we have bowlers who have to resort to complete defence and denial to guard against getting smashed and captains can only place and pray the batsman mistimes one.
That's not true of ODI's much of the time. Tonight was dull in some ways, but the clinical performance of Australia was admirable. Admiration at such an exhibition of cricketing skill cannot be found much in T20 (except for in the field) - the rub of the green is paramount.
There are too many T20's, but also maybe a few too many ODI's, too.
The part that is boring is there is still another 3 games after this.......I know they canned the "series" concept last year but three games of this is enough.
3 games or best of 5
usalion
24 Jan 2010, 19:52
3 games or best of 5
Surely the ACB won't pass on the money from two extra games- plus the cities hosting the games would scream bloody murder, wouldn't they?
stmookeyj
24 Jan 2010, 20:06
I'll keep saying this until blue in the face...BRING BACK THE TRI-SERIES!
matty p
24 Jan 2010, 23:45
Problem is, most T20's are both boring and pointless, unless you're the type who goes agog everytime the ball croses the fence. Such things provide the odd thrill, but not when they occur every few minutes.
Within T20's, there is little scope for tactics and strategy, in bowling, fielding or batting. For instance, we have batsmen who don't need (or know how) to build an innings, we have bowlers who have to resort to complete defence and denial to guard against getting smashed and captains can only place and pray the batsman mistimes one.
That's not true of ODI's much of the time. Tonight was dull in some ways, but the clinical performance of Australia was admirable. Admiration at such an exhibition of cricketing skill cannot be found much in T20 (except for in the field) - the rub of the green is paramount.
I completely disagree with this post. I can't be bothered arguing against every wrong point, so just reverse what you said and it's probably right.
Adelaide Hawk
25 Jan 2010, 04:20
Look, the reason 50 over cricket is boring is because the restrictive laws lead to very negative tactics, and every game is played the same.
If people must have limited over cricket (and I still don't understand why), then just play it under normal conditions. No limit of overs per bowler, ease up on restricting the line he can bowl, forget restrictive fields, power plays, roped off boundaries, the lot. Just play proper competitive cricket, and you may breathe some interest into it.
20/20 is a fad. People will grow tired of it very quickly. Its popularity at the moment is because people are sick of 50 over cricket and T20 is something new. Overkill of 6s, not enough genuine cricket skills on show. When people DO tire of it, and they will, what then ... 10 overs per side ... 5 even?
Well i found the finish to saturday nights big bash final boring....lets play 10/10 cricket :D.
Games were the result is beyond doubt well and truly before the end of the game are boring. I enjoy watching 50 over cricket, i really enjoyed watching Cam white in game one "build" his innings and let lose in the last 10 overs was a perfect one day innings. And watto's stroke play in game two yesterday.
I find that more enjoyable than 4 or 5 players hitting 30 of 20 balls.
The trouble is the power plays were brought into one day cricket to try and spice up the middle overs but the trouble is bowling sides use them 99 times out of 100 from overs 11-15 becuase we are all use to the first 15 overs of field restrictions. And batting sides use them from overs 40-50 99 times out of 100 even when they would be going after the bowlers regardles of how many are in the circle or on the fence.
Hence the middle overs are still boring, but i don't mind watching the way players try to keep the run rate up during these overs.
I'll keep saying this until blue in the face...BRING BACK THE TRI-SERIES!
Yea with the Australia A :thumbsu:
Anyone for 10 day cricket?
10 day/night Test match cricket FTW!!!!!!!
any gimmick used could well go the way of the supersub (remember that?). could be just a case of riding out the spike in popularity.
if some people do get bored of 20/20 and its constant thrashing like some of us think, are they likely start watching ODI's (it was apparently going to bring people to the game as we all were told), or jump off cricket altogether?
Cotchin 9
25 Jan 2010, 20:47
Love a good ODI, much prefer it to T20. Lets hope the Paki's can fire up a bit, especially Boom Boom Afridi.
OzBomber
25 Jan 2010, 20:51
I'll keep saying this until blue in the face...BRING BACK THE TRI-SERIES!
I'd be all for it, and instead of playing the neutral matches in big stadiums, take it to regional grounds. Put in a portable stand for the game, and heaps of people form the country will flock to the games.
Ill Chicken
26 Jan 2010, 21:35
Surely the ACB won't pass on the money from two extra games- plus the cities hosting the games would scream bloody murder, wouldn't they?
Well technically if the money was better long term they more than likely would.
krusden
27 Jan 2010, 08:30
10 day/night Test match cricket FTW!!!!!!!
we need to bring back timeless tests!
magpie_militia
27 Jan 2010, 09:13
Bring back the tri-series.
The games need some meaning!!
King Elvis
27 Jan 2010, 11:07
What if they made the Powerplays overs 20-35?
The Falcon Strike
27 Jan 2010, 11:33
Call me a bandwagoner - but I am starting to prefer T20 to ODI's
Mainly because I can see an entire game after i knock off from work
Test cricket is still the pinnacle - and the most enjoyable to watch - however if we are talking a shortened form - then T20 has it for me.
The issue with ODI's is the fact that for the past 20 years - overs 15 - 40 generally involve a team noodling the ball around to fieldsmen in the deep for singles.
Even a classic on-drive, cut shot or flick off the pads only yields one run. It's not traditional cricket - and the building of an innings is a fallacy - look how easy Michael clarke's innings was yesterday - no fielders anywhere near the bat - could push easy singles from ball dot - ended up with 80-odd with bugger all boundaries! He didn't have to worry about slips, or finding the gaps on the off-side, or worry about being pushed onto the back foot - or flighted spin bowling.
Simon_Nesbit
27 Jan 2010, 11:39
50 over cricket - fielding restrictions (only 4 out, two catchers) for the entire game.
Ill Chicken
27 Jan 2010, 12:31
The rules of the ODI doesn't need to change any more, it just needs an proper schedule with a ladder and home/away season on a yearly or two yearly roster that cut out the dead rubbers.
King Elvis
27 Jan 2010, 12:48
Even a classic on-drive, cut shot or flick off the pads only yields one run. It's not traditional cricket - and the building of an innings is a fallacy - look how easy Michael clarke's innings was yesterday - no fielders anywhere near the bat - could push easy singles from ball dot - ended up with 80-odd with bugger all boundaries! He didn't have to worry about slips, or finding the gaps on the off-side, or worry about being pushed onto the back foot - or flighted spin bowling.
I actually enjoyed his innings - good to see somebody play an anchor type role, without getting bogged down (like Kahn did), and then accelerating when appropriate.
Chicken probably has a decent idea.
The Falcon Strike
27 Jan 2010, 13:01
I actually enjoyed his innings - good to see somebody play an anchor type role, without getting bogged down (like Kahn did), and then accelerating when appropriate.
Chicken probably has a decent idea.
I don't deny it wasn't an appropriate innings for the game - however easysingles to long on and long off are boring as bat shit.
How about some cat and mouse - of having fielders inside the circle meaning the batsman has to take a risk to score runs. This is what is great about test cricket.
ODI is just a negative predictable game - that hasn't had any real innovation since Jayasuriya and Kaluvitharana opened the batting in australia in the 90's.
I don't deny it wasn't an appropriate innings for the game - however easysingles to long on and long off are boring as bat shit.
How about some cat and mouse - of having fielders inside the circle meaning the batsman has to take a risk to score runs. This is what is great about test cricket.
ODI is just a negative predictable game - that hasn't had any real innovation since Jayasuriya and Kaluvitharana opened the batting in australia in the 90's.
It was smart batting due to bad captaincy, Mohammed Yousy is one of the dumbest tatically and most defensive captains ive seen for a while. As soons as the field restrictions are over he puts 5 men out on the boundry.
Ponting is the complete opposite doesn't mind keeping a 5th fileder in the circle during the middle overs and may put the 5th field on the boundry the 5th and 6th balls of the over.
Why would clarke need to risk hitting over the top when the field is so spread from ball one for him he can knock it round for 1's and 2's and score at 4 an over without any risk.
The Falcon Strike
27 Jan 2010, 14:06
It was smart batting due to bad captaincy, Mohammed Yousy is one of the dumbest tatically and most defensive captains ive seen for a while. As soons as the field restrictions are over he puts 5 men out on the boundry.
Ponting is the complete opposite doesn't mind keeping a 5th fileder in the circle during the middle overs and may put the 5th field on the boundry the 5th and 6th balls of the over.
Why would clarke need to risk hitting over the top when the field is so spread from ball one for him he can knock it round for 1's and 2's and score at 4 an hour without any risk.
That's my whole point - i have already said it was an appropriate innings - it is the negative game that ODI has become that makes it boring.
Gavin Excell
30 Jan 2010, 08:55
That's my whole point - i have already said it was an appropriate innings - it is the negative game that ODI has become that makes it boring.
and pointless
bombersno1
30 Jan 2010, 16:11
I am starting to warm to the idea of 30 over cricket. 20 overs of PowerPlays. 10 manadatory then 5 from each side. 6 overs per bowler, 1 bowler can bowl 8 overs.
OzBomber
30 Jan 2010, 16:29
I am starting to warm to the idea of 30 over cricket. 20 overs of PowerPlays. 10 manadatory then 5 from each side. 6 overs per bowler, 1 bowler can bowl 8 overs.
Then what would be the point of 20 over cricket? It would be terrible.
bombersno1
30 Jan 2010, 16:32
Then what would be the point of 20 over cricket? It would be terrible.
2 different forms, one a bit longer. The issue with ODI's is the middle overs, it is a snooze fest in the middle overs. You either :
a) Scrap the middle overs (hence T20 cricket)
b) You compromise (hence 30 or 40 over cricket, make it 40 if you want)
c) Limit the number of fielders outside the circle at all times
Ill Chicken
30 Jan 2010, 17:42
2 different forms, one a bit longer. The issue with ODI's is the middle overs, it is a snooze fest in the middle overs. You either :
a) Scrap the middle overs (hence T20 cricket)
b) You compromise (hence 30 or 40 over cricket, make it 40 if you want)
c) Limit the number of fielders outside the circle at all times
50 over cricket is integral to the game from grass roots to national. Removing it or making it defunct is not an option, creating a proper international calendar with an effort to bring the tier system into play would remove the problems currently associated with the sameness of these five match series while creating equality between the nations that would encourage growth and exposure while making the ICC a more legitimate governing body.
bombersno1
30 Jan 2010, 20:16
50 over cricket is integral to the game from grass roots to national.
Give me one reason..cricket lasted for 100's of years before ODI's came in. We have a better version oflimited overs cricket in T20. I'd rather have a 5 match T20 series.
Ill Chicken
30 Jan 2010, 22:31
Give me one reason..cricket lasted for 100's of years before ODI's came in. We have a better version oflimited overs cricket in T20. I'd rather have a 5 match T20 series.
Considering that all the tier nations, the majority of their cricket is based on the 50 over format which is a stepping stone to the first class cricket, by relegating this format, it means they go from playing a format that assists in the development of their longer form but also enables them a chance to play against international teams and so on to getting blasted out continually in T20 format with little to no development and making it extremely difficult for them to transfer from 20 over cricket to 100 over+ cricket. The development of the game has been crucial in this respect.
Test cricket has been around 100 years, but for the first 50 there was what, four teams? Since its inception there has then been only another 6 teams, yet ODI cricket has seen a huge development in the game in the last 15 years where the tier program is actually seeing huge improvement from the minnows. Throwing 50 over cricket away is not in the best interests of cricket.
Simon_Nesbit
31 Jan 2010, 07:34
The 'boring' bit of ODI's are generally when the fielding captain decides saving boundaries is better than taking a wicket....and the batsman decide scoring at 4.5 an over in singles is enough to set up a 'launchpad' for the last 5-15 overs.
Fix it by removing the fielding captain's ability to push the field back. If he's only allowed 3 outside the circle for the entire innings and must keep two catchers....suddenly the game becomes more attacking (from both sides) and therefore more 'exciting'.
Tyberious Funk
31 Jan 2010, 12:20
Give me one reason..cricket lasted for 100's of years before ODI's came in. We have a better version oflimited overs cricket in T20. I'd rather have a 5 match T20 series.
"Better" in what sense? Because there is more mindless slogging?
I find T20 mildly enjoyable, but it is a far cry from being "cricket" as far as I'm concerned. You just have to look at the sort of players that are "superstars" of T20 to see how different they are from true cricketers. At least 50 over cricket has some resemblance to the real game.
Reducing it to 40 overs would help as it would remove 10 boring overs in the middle of the game. English first class cricket as change their one day format to 40 over cricket the season just passed.
I think the power plays should only allowed to be taken between overs 20-40. Subtle wit out drastically changing the format of the game.
JimDocker
1 Feb 2010, 12:11
Call me a bandwagoner - but I am starting to prefer T20 to ODI's
Mainly because I can see an entire game after i knock off from work
Test cricket is still the pinnacle - and the most enjoyable to watch - however if we are talking a shortened form - then T20 has it for me.
The issue with ODI's is the fact that for the past 20 years - overs 15 - 40 generally involve a team noodling the ball around to fieldsmen in the deep for singles.
Even a classic on-drive, cut shot or flick off the pads only yields one run. It's not traditional cricket - and the building of an innings is a fallacy - look how easy Michael clarke's innings was yesterday - no fielders anywhere near the bat - could push easy singles from ball dot - ended up with 80-odd with bugger all boundaries! He didn't have to worry about slips, or finding the gaps on the off-side, or worry about being pushed onto the back foot - or flighted spin bowling.
I don't deny it wasn't an appropriate innings for the game - however easysingles to long on and long off are boring as bat shit.
How about some cat and mouse - of having fielders inside the circle meaning the batsman has to take a risk to score runs. This is what is great about test cricket.
ODI is just a negative predictable game - that hasn't had any real innovation since Jayasuriya and Kaluvitharana opened the batting in australia in the 90's.
Exactly what he said, but to be honest, I am not sure when I will make the effort to go to a T20 game either.