30 overs a side?

[Cotchin 9]

I've enjoyed today's match. Australia in all sorts, but starting to recover a bit through Haddin and Cutting. 6 wickets down in a T20 and you're basically stuffed.

 

[Black Diamond]

I've enjoyed today's match. Australia in all sorts, but starting to recover a bit through Haddin and Cutting. 6 wickets down in a T20 and you're basically stuffed.

Exactly. With 14 overs to go we could still post a competitive total and put them under pressure with some tight bowling.

 

[Cleavy]

trial 40 overs (no split innings)

 

[Phone]

Theres nothing wrong with the game of 50 over cricket.

The problems come from the scheduling and the way administrators/selectors view it as low priority.

Nah there's a problem in terms of aggression. assuming an average start, batsmen and bowler alike slip into defensive play post 15 over mark and it is boring. they don't try too hard to take wickets, they don't try too hard to hit boundaries. the drive covered with ease by the sweeper and which nets just a single is the worst result in cricket, and ODI cricket in the 15-40 is filled with that. the recent changes in field restrictions (which restrict the amount of sweepers allowed) are a positive move though. it promotes aggression on both sides.(now bring on unrestricted overs for bowlers)

 

[exit]

trial 40 overs (no split innings)

I'd still like to see 30-35 overs trialled, but even 40 would surely be more exciting than the majority of 50 over matches currently being dished up. And yeah they trialled that split innings thing a few years ago and didn't really work.
Tonight was excruciating.

 

[ioppolo]

The English domestic scene has had a 40 overs per side comp going for a quite a few years now, don't know much about it's success or anything.

 

[brisbane13]

What's the point if reducing the 50 over format? All it will do is bring it closer to T20. If the longer limited overs game is to become the same as the shorter limited game, won't that just hasten the demise of one?

The changes I would make to the 50 over game:
- play less of them (and do not increase T20Is)
- revert to the old domestic rules of 2 outside the circle for 15 overs (this part used to be in place internationally), 3 outside for the next 15, and get rid of powerplays; maybe add having 4 outside the circle for the next 15, and five outside for the final five overs.
- how did the split-innings go domestically? I hated the idea when it was first announced, but can see some benefots as both team would bat in natural light and artificial light for half their innings each. Apparently it didn;t work, but was it as bad as all that, or just too big a change? I think it could be worth looking at again after the WC.

In the end though, if the 50 o ver game does diappear I'm not too fussed. One two-innings form and one limited overs form is probably enough. And if the limited form is 20 overs, so be it; the limited overs games only exist to help fund the true form.

i like this concept with the players out side the circle rule, but ive always thought the 50 over game should be reduced to a 40 over a side game the overs 25 to 40 odd are always the boring ones in the 50 over game.

 

[R00StaR]

Tbh i could live with 40 over games trialed, its still a solid day of cricket. Anything less however is getting too close to T20 which while entertaining doesnt show case cricket skills like longer forms. 40 overs with 10 over max per bowler would mean team would have close to a test match setup, 4 main bowlers, an all rounder, keeper and 5 specialist bats (we see with 50 overs most teams using 6 bowlers). Teams would have to bat more aggressively without throwing away an innings.

 

[Aussie_boy]

Although Test Cricket is by far my preferred form of Cricket I still think that ODI Cricket is still here to stay. It in my opinion is the best way of getting a result in a day. It allows batsmen time to get in and play proper Cricket strokes without feeling immediate scoreboard pressure. I just think that they play far too much of it. When I go to the Cricket I want to see David Warner, Michael Clarke etc. get a bat on top of that I want to see Mitchell Johnson, Peter Siddle etc. bowl. So in that respect ODI Cricket is good as Test Cricket you sometimes only see one or the other. In my opinion 2 series of 3 matches would be ideal for ODI cricket before it is overkilled. That way more emphasis is placed on each match and it allows each State to host a match.

Something does have to be done about the dull period though, because when you are at the game it is incredibly boring between the 15-40 over marks. On TV you can flick between channels but at the game you are stuck there watching the whole thing. I can understand people getting upset about the 'main players' playing but if there was less cricket then it would allow them to play all international matches throughout the season. You pay top dollar you expect to see Michael Clarke rather than say Steve Smith, so that's maybe why crowds are dwindling. I understand why ODI's get the lowest crowds because it is too far in the middle, its not pure cricket like a test match, nor is it designed for families like T20. Overall if they are going to change it then maybe cut it down to 40 because that would still see some proper cricket. But even with 40 there would still be sides knocking around a Xavier Doherty for singles off 5 overs straight which is not what people want to see.

 

[j0rdy1]

If you were to shorten I'd say go with 40 and have bowlers bowl a max of 8 overs each, so you still need a decent 5th bowling option. Revert it back to the old fielding restrictions, maybe add in a batting powerplay to be used within overs 20-30 to add in some 'excitement' during the middle overs.

 

[Parquet Court]

i think ODI crickets demise in australia is due to a number of factors

- over saturation of games
- a general lack of class opposition in the last decade or so
- full blown promotion of family friendly atmosphere, fun police, mid strength beer etc:
- the professionalism of the game is one that cannot be overlooked, players of the 80s, 90s and even very early 00s had charisma and style, they put bums on seats, a lot of the players today are pipe blowers for CA and lack any real personality edge.
- rotation policy, basically treating matches as exhibition games.
- overs 25-40
- emergence of t20, basically a more efficient ODI

now i wouldnt be displeased to see ODIs go, they are just not great spectacles anymore, even ABC havent trotted out maxwell and o'keefe in the first two games, something is amiss. However i am not sure that 30 overs, 35 or 40 overs is the answer, t20 is the obvious answer. You then have a game for the traditionalists and a game for the casual observer.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

OP's idea might have worked if it had been done before Twenty20 came around. No chance now.

ODIs will be around as long as the ICC and its member countries make money out of them. Who knows how long that will be?

The number of Twenty20s is still restricted to 'protect' ODIs. That won't last forever.

 

[Kram]

Before the advent of T20 came in I often though it would be a good idea for the one day game to move to 40 overs probably still with 10 overs max per bowler.

Especially when a team loses a few wickets early, the consolidation overs through the middle of the innings where the batsmen just work the ball around with the field back is boring as batshit.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The world cup of cricket is the games biggest and most sort after prize. Because of this the 50 over game is here to stay and rightfully so. As many have said above we need to schedule the games better and not so many of them.

As for the rules, well yes it is a bit boring in the middle stages but it always has been. Maybe get rid of all power plays and just make it that you can have only 4 men outside the 30m circle for the entire innings. That way temas will be encouraged to play more shots and won't be able to just push a single off every ball.
To counter act this for the bowling side remove the restrictions on bowlers overs. I have never understood the ridiculous situation where a bowler can bowl for only 10 overs but a batsman can bat for 50 overs. Just plain silly.
Your two best bowlers should be able to bowl at least 15 overs each.
Get rid of the ridiculous wide calls when the ball misses the leg stump by 2 inches, christ that was a free hit in my day, money for jam. But now they get a free run and another ball. And a fast bowler should be able to bowl 3 bounces per over.
No wonder the flat track bullies can't hook and pull anymore, they never face short bowling because it is not allowed.

 

[Parquet Court]

The world cup of cricket is the games biggest and most sort after prize. Because of this the 50 over game is here to stay and rightfully so. As many have said above we need to schedule the games better and not so many of them.

As for the rules, well yes it is a bit boring in the middle stages but it always has been. Maybe get rid of all power plays and just make it that you can have only 4 men outside the 30m circle for the entire innings. That way temas will be encouraged to play more shots and won't be able to just push a single off every ball.
To counter act this for the bowling side remove the restrictions on bowlers overs. I have never understood the ridiculous situation where a bowler can bowl for only 10 overs but a batsman can bat for 50 overs. Just plain silly.
Your two best bowlers should be able to bowl at least 15 overs each.
Get rid of the ridiculous wide calls when the ball misses the leg stump by 2 inches, christ that was a free hit in my day, money for jam. But now they get a free run and another ball. And a fast bowler should be able to bowl 3 bounces per over.
No wonder the flat track bullies can't hook and pull anymore, they never face short bowling because it is not allowed.

i actually think the removal of the 2nd powerplay was a good move, i also think the 4 outside the circle is a great idea, in theory it can actually clog up the singles rather than encourage them, more people in the circle, less gaps to nudge, it will hopefully encourage stroke play and risk taking which will be good for crowds and bowlers

 

[j0rdy1]

1.As for the rules, well yes it is a bit boring in the middle stages but it always has been. Maybe get rid of all power plays and just make it that you can have only 4 men outside the 30m circle for the entire innings. That way temas will be encouraged to play more shots and won't be able to just push a single off every ball.

2.To counter act this for the bowling side remove the restrictions on bowlers overs. I have never understood the ridiculous situation where a bowler can bowl for only 10 overs but a batsman can bat for 50 overs. Just plain silly.
Your two best bowlers should be able to bowl at least 15 overs each.

3.Get rid of the ridiculous wide calls when the ball misses the leg stump by 2 inches, christ that was a free hit in my day, money for jam. But now they get a free run and another ball. And a fast bowler should be able to bowl 3 bounces per over.
No wonder the flat track bullies can't hook and pull anymore, they never face short bowling because it is not allowed.

1. They've already changed the rule so you can only have 4 outside the ring when a powerplay isn't in use. Don't know why you think getting rid of the first 10 overs where you can only have 2 outside the ring is a good idea (that is classed as a powerplay). Its normally the most exciting time in an innings except for the final 10. Allow the fielding team to put 4 outside the ring and you are just going to get teams pushing ones for 40 overs until they smash it all over the park.

2. No. Please just no. Also comparing the limited bowling overs to a batter allowed to bat for 50 overs is just idiotic. Although I loved Warne and McGrath I don't want to see them bowling 40 of the 50 overs. Limiting the overs to 10 makes teams have to pick balanced teams and not just 8 batters and 3 bowlers, with a part timer if needed.

3. Agree they need to allow for a bit more room down the legside, say about 6 down the legside have a line painted and any ball in that line isn't a wide. Also you only get a free hit after a front foot no ball, which I think they have to get rid of. They also changed the bouncer rule to 2, which I think is fair. Though I love a bouncer being able to bowl half the over at the guys head is a bit ridiculous.

Think they have to go back to simply, first 15 overs only 2 allowed outside the ring. 4 outside for the rest of the innings. Take away free hits.

 

[Phone]

2. No. Please just no. Also comparing the limited bowling overs to a batter allowed to bat for 50 overs is just idiotic. Although I loved Warne and McGrath I don't want to see them bowling 40 of the 50 overs. Limiting the overs to 10 makes teams have to pick balanced teams and not just 8 batters and 3 bowlers, with a part timer if needed

what like test cricket? if anything forcing teams to pick an all-rounder does more to unbalance teams, as well reducing the quality of players picked, and obviously over restrictions do nothing but reduce the quality of bowlers on show. it encourages defensive play by captains and bowlers, which is the problem and lowers the entrainment value (who do you want to see bowl, Graeme Swann or Samit Patel?). i can't think of any reason why over restrictions are still there. if Sri Lanka wants to try to bowl Mendis for 25 overs a game, go ahead. i'd rather games be decided like that, rather than decided by which team can pick the best bit part all rounder...

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

3. Agree they need to allow for a bit more room down the legside, say about 6 down the legside have a line painted and any ball in that line isn't a wide.

If it would have struck the batsman in his initial stance, in my opinion it shouldn't be a wide.

 

[j0rdy1]

what like test cricket? if anything forcing teams to pick an all-rounder does more to unbalance teams, as well reducing the quality of players picked, and obviously over restrictions do nothing but reduce the quality of bowlers on show. it encourages defensive play by captains and bowlers, which is the problem and lowers the entrainment value (who do you want to see bowl, Graeme Swann or Samit Patel?). i can't think of any reason why over restrictions are still there. if Sri Lanka wants to try to bowl Mendis for 25 overs a game, go ahead. i'd rather games be decided like that, rather than decided by which team can pick the best bit part all rounder...

Maybe I'm in the minority but I don't want to see Warne bowl 25 overs in a 50 over game. So maybe we should do the same for T20 so all you need is 2 bowlers...there is absolutely nothing wrong with 10 over limit. No matter who is bowling the fielding side is going to be defensive when there is no fielding restrictions unless they are tearing through the batting lineup. You aren't going to have 2 slips and a gully in place the entire 50 overs even if you have McGrath bowling, teams will be smacking you all over the park if you did that. If you want to see teams slogging all the time just watch T20 don't ruin 50 overs for cricket lovers.

So your saying the conventional 6 batters/1 all rounder/4 bowlers setup that has been around since the beginning (with no problems until T20) is the problem? And to fix it we should throw that out and go with 8 batters/3 bowlers which is all so balanced. No thanks.

There is basically nothing wrong with 50 over game at the moment, my only changes would be to see the conventional 15/35 fielding split back and the free hit gone. Its the fact that T20 is all the rage and cricket is over saturated that nobody gives a shit about 50 over until the world cup comes around.

 

[The Speaker]

what like test cricket? if anything forcing teams to pick an all-rounder does more to unbalance teams, as well reducing the quality of players picked, and obviously over restrictions do nothing but reduce the quality of bowlers on show. it encourages defensive play by captains and bowlers, which is the problem and lowers the entrainment value (who do you want to see bowl, Graeme Swann or Samit Patel?). i can't think of any reason why over restrictions are still there. if Sri Lanka wants to try to bowl Mendis for 25 overs a game, go ahead. i'd rather games be decided like that, rather than decided by which team can pick the best bit part all rounder...

The very crux of limited overs cricket is embedded in those very words: limited overs.

Unlike test cricket where unlimited overs per innings requires a degree of thought in choosing the bowling, giving bowlers unlimited over in a limited overs match is basically a guarantee of matches being run on auto-pilot. While at first it may seem like giving better bowlers more overs would make the game more interesting, it would not. It would actually be counter-intuitive. Imagine how boring an ODI in India would be? Turning wicket, two spinners for the whole innings. The whole point is of having limited overs is to artificially create the kind of highs and lows a Test match has naturually, which is the same purpose those fielding restrictions you love so much have.

 

[Phone]

Maybe I'm in the minority but I don't want to see Warne bowl 25 overs in a 50 over game. So maybe we should do the same for T20 so all you need is 2 bowlers...there is absolutely nothing wrong with 10 over limit. No matter who is bowling the fielding side is going to be defensive when there is no fielding restrictions unless they are tearing through the batting lineup. You aren't going to have 2 slips and a gully in place the entire 50 overs even if you have McGrath bowling, teams will be smacking you all over the park if you did that. If you want to see teams slogging all the time just watch T20 don't ruin 50 overs for cricket lovers.

I wouldn't have a problem with changing over restrictions rules in T20's either, but I can understand leaving it as it is (a move to 5 overs each would be my preference though).

I don't want to see teams slogging all the time, I want to see attacking cricket played all the time. Either by batsmen or bowlers. Batsmen and bowlers have no reason to attack during the 15-40 stages. Letting 6 runs a over pass by with little risk is a desirable result for both sides. It's not a desirable result for the fans. We want wickets, or boundaries. Not singles covered with ease by the sweeper with David Hussey bowling. Removing over restrictions and letting good bowlers bowl during that period, and be able to bowl a spell rather a quick 2 over burst, might be able shake that up. Wickets are what we want to see. They change the game and create excitement. Allowing captains to actually bowl wicket taking bowlers whenever they want...I know who I'm backing between David Hussey and Mitchell Starc.

So your saying the conventional 6 batters/1 all rounder/4 bowlers setup that has been around since the beginning (with no problems until T20) is the problem? And to fix it we should throw that out and go with 8 batters/3 bowlers which is all so balanced. No thanks.

this set-up has never in vogue in test match cricket. it is a creation of the OD game, and a bad one at that. Why can't you go 6 batsmen/WK/4 bowlers like in test matches? Better batting, better bowling, better game. and if you've got an all-rounder deserving of a top 6/7 spot, lucky you! 8 batsman/3 bowlers wouldn't be used anyway. it's far too likely you're picking batsmen who won't get a good hit and if even one of your bowlers has a bad day you're screwed.

 

[Kram]

There should be bowling restrictions but I wouldn't be against it increasing to say 12 overs per player.

 

[Phone]

The very crux of limited overs cricket is embedded in those very words: limited overs.

Unlike test cricket where unlimited overs per innings requires a degree of thought in choosing the bowling, giving bowlers unlimited over in a limited overs match is basically a guarantee of matches being run on auto-pilot. While at first it may seem like giving better bowlers more overs would make the game more interesting, it would not. It would actually be counter-intuitive. Imagine how boring an ODI in India would be? Turning wicket, two spinners for the whole innings. The whole point is of having limited overs is to artificially create the kind of highs and lows a Test match has naturually, which is the same purpose those fielding restrictions you love so much have.

So why don't we send batsmen back after they face 60 balls? limited overs...

The current set-up does more to create auto-pilot-esque behaviour anyway. Only your good seamers bowl in the first 10 and last 10. Spinners and your 5th bowling option take up the 30 in between (more and more often, dart spinners), with the good bowlers coming on during that time to bowl only 2-3 over spells. It's pretty formulaic and it's a strange thing to infer that no over restrictions would make it worse. it would allow the captain flexibility for one, which would be a blow to the formula.

and i imagine if india decided to risk picking basically only two bowlers, the batsmen would back themselves to hit one spinner out of the attack and cause the captain a heck of a problem....which could create wickets. or runs. and def. create excitement.

 

[j0rdy1]

I don't want to see teams slogging all the time, I want to see attacking cricket played all the time. Either by batsmen or bowlers. Batsmen and bowlers have no reason to attack during the 15-40 stages. Letting 6 runs a over pass by with little risk is a desirable result for both sides. It's not a desirable result for the fans. We want wickets, or boundaries. Not singles covered with ease by the sweeper with David Hussey bowling. Removing over restrictions and letting good bowlers bowl during that period, and be able to bowl a spell rather a quick 2 over burst, might be able shake that up. Wickets are what we want to see. They change the game and create excitement. Allowing captains to actually bowl wicket taking bowlers whenever they want...I know who I'm backing between David Hussey and Mitchell Starc.

So basically you want more boundaries and wickets, why not just have fielding restrictions the entire time? Would do the exact job you want to be done. Having better bowlers on during the 15-40 period isn't going to stop the other team from knocking singles around. If anything it might lower overall scores which is exactly what you don't want. Likelyhood of scoring a boundary of a McGrath with the field back in over 25 is far less likely then off a Hussey. With your 'solution' you would see the exact same batting during 15-40 or a lot of wickets and teams going out for 150 before they even get close to batting out the 50 overs.

 

[The Speaker]

So why don't we send batsmen back after they face 60 balls? limited overs...

A batsman is sent in once per innings in all forms of cricket. They are to go in, and stay in until they lose their wicket or time runs out (game over, innings declared, etc).

A bowler is not sent in and then stays in until they get a wicket. A bowler is sent in to bowl six deliveries, before another bowler is sent in. They can then be sent in again.

Imposing a limit on batsmen would be completely at odds with the role of a batsman. But imposing a limit on a bowler does not change their role.

The current set-up does more to create auto-pilot-esque behaviour anyway. Only your good seamers bowl in the first 10 and last 10. Spinners and your 5th bowling option take up the 30 in between (more and more often, dart spinners), with the good bowlers coming on during that time to bowl only 2-3 over spells. It's pretty formulaic and it's a strange thing to infer that no over restrictions would make it worse. it would allow the captain flexibility for one, which would be a blow to the formula.

a) You are assuming that every captain follows that formula, which they do not.
b) You are assuming that there would not be a replacement formula, which is, at best, wishful thinking.

and i imagine if india decided to risk picking basically only two bowlers, the batsmen would back themselves to hit one spinner out of the attack and cause the captain a heck of a problem....which could create wickets. or runs. and def. create excitement.

a) You are assuming that the batsmen would be successful in their attack.
b) You are assuming that there would be no Yuvraj type players in the Indian team, who would normally be picked for their batting anyway, but can bowl fairly well in the right conditions (which this pitch would be). In fact, your proposal would attempt to eradicate players like Yuvraj from appearing in the future, which, given his record, cannot be seen as in any way positive.