Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format
Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format | Australia Cricket News | Cricinfo.com
Either 40 overs per side, or two 20 over innings totalled together like an unlimited overs match in a new domestic series that would scale back the Ford Ranger Cup, if not wipe it out over a couple of seasons, and probably push in on the Sheffield Shield as well, which has already been cut short a match by the T20 Big Bash.
I dislike both of the ideas. 50 over cricket for mine is nearly as good as Test cricket. I love watching it, I love playing it and I there is no way that the two innings idea, or even the 40 over idea, can provide the same thrills.
50 over cricket still keeps a 'cricket' feel to it. It gives bowlers a chance to get 5 fors, batsmen to get centuries, for a spell of bowling to change the match (and not just one over) and for a mental war to happen between batsmen and bowler. It's the next closest thing to Test cricket, except you will get a result, and you will be assured of fast run rates and some big hits.
50 over cricket is essentially the highlights of a Test match put all into 7 hours. That is why I love it. 40 overs is just one step closer to T20s, and while ODI cricket is still 50 overs, playing 40 overs only limits the step up from domestic to international. Playing two innings of 20 overs is absurd, just playing two T20s back to back.
Does anybody like it or see any sense in it?
Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format | Australia Cricket News | Cricinfo.com
Either 40 overs per side, or two 20 over innings totalled together like an unlimited overs match in a new domestic series that would scale back the Ford Ranger Cup, if not wipe it out over a couple of seasons, and probably push in on the Sheffield Shield as well, which has already been cut short a match by the T20 Big Bash.
I dislike both of the ideas. 50 over cricket for mine is nearly as good as Test cricket. I love watching it, I love playing it and I there is no way that the two innings idea, or even the 40 over idea, can provide the same thrills.
50 over cricket still keeps a 'cricket' feel to it. It gives bowlers a chance to get 5 fors, batsmen to get centuries, for a spell of bowling to change the match (and not just one over) and for a mental war to happen between batsmen and bowler. It's the next closest thing to Test cricket, except you will get a result, and you will be assured of fast run rates and some big hits.
50 over cricket is essentially the highlights of a Test match put all into 7 hours. That is why I love it. 40 overs is just one step closer to T20s, and while ODI cricket is still 50 overs, playing 40 overs only limits the step up from domestic to international. Playing two innings of 20 overs is absurd, just playing two T20s back to back.
Does anybody like it or see any sense in it?