Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

[Ljp86]

Re: Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

Same here.

So no designated hitter but you can pad the team for fielding AND batting.

What a pile of poo.

Surely one of the joys of cricket is watching tail-enders bat? Well, it is for me anyhow. It would be a shame if the world was deprived of Ruggie or Asif batting to win a match.

Edit: Though having said that, if given a chance I'm sure I'd watch it until there was too many of them like t20 then I'd get real choosy.

A big thing to get people back watching one day cricket, and this is OBVIOUSLY rocket science and won't be considered at all, is to charge less for tickets.

In my opinion they are trying to change the game so it has more of a Twenty20 feel. The splits of 20 and 25 overs would suggest they are trying to increase the scoring rate so that batters can hit out more knowing they'll have two splits of overs in which to score their runs. That could mean that scoring at 6 an over would be par in order to have a competitive total and scores in general would be higher.

I don't agree with any of the changes except for the two bouncers per over rule. The rest are just rubbish. Like you said, a nominal way to increase crowd numbers would be to reduce ticket prices but that results is less revenue for CA so that's out of the question.

Friday Day/Night matches proved fairly popular for the Warriors in the past, some games as many as 8000 people showed up for those games. CA could help themselves by scheduling games on days that people will go to the game. Continually holding games on Wednesday Nights where people have work and have to work the next day is fairly stupid.

 

[Boris]

Re: Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

In my opinion they are trying to change the game so it has more of a Twenty20 feel. The splits of 20 and 25 overs would suggest they are trying to increase the scoring rate so that batters can hit out more knowing they'll have two splits of overs in which to score their runs. That could mean that scoring at 6 an over would be par in order to have a competitive total and scores in general would be higher.

I don't really see how this does increase the run rate though. They have that extra batsman, so what I would be doing is having your two slower batting, longer staying batsman opening and trying to bat around 3.5-4.5 an over for the first 20, losing little to no wickets. IMO this first 20 becomes the new 'boring middle overs'.

Then they'll pack the end of the batting order with T20 players and hit out in the last 25. This will increase the scoring rate, but then again for 24 of the 25 last overs you can literally have 2 bowlers bowling the entirety of it if you wished. Just think if you had the two most economical bowlers (especially if they are spin bowlers that can bowl 12 overs straight) in your country bowling for the entire innings? You could have something like McGrath and Bracken bowling either end for 16 overs straight of a T20 match.

The all-rounder/part timer is also diminished with only 4 bowlers required to bowl. If you have a couple of economical spinners you could in reality turn what could be a good game into a boring stonewall or wicketfest of a T20.

The batting team will not want to bat like normal with a break in the middle. If you do, and say go down 3 wickets at 5.5 an over in the first 20, then you've got only 7 wickets for facing bowlers who've had a rest and have had time to plan in between innings.

Then you also have to have your batsmen get set again after the break. More time wasted.

Cricket doesn't work with split innings. You either have two complete innings each like a Test or one each like the current one dayers.

I like that this format does, for me anyway, seem to favour the bowlers, but it's not going to make it the exciting game they were expecting.

Take ODIs back to what it was like in the 90s and early 00s.

 

[Ljp86]

Re: Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

I don't really see how this does increase the run rate though. They have that extra batsman, so what I would be doing is having your two slower batting, longer staying batsman opening and trying to bat around 3.5-4.5 an over for the first 20, losing little to no wickets. IMO this first 20 becomes the new 'boring middle overs'.

Then they'll pack the end of the batting order with T20 players and hit out in the last 25. This will increase the scoring rate, but then again for 24 of the 25 last overs you can literally have 2 bowlers bowling the entirety of it if you wished. Just think if you had the two most economical bowlers (especially if they are spin bowlers that can bowl 12 overs straight) in your country bowling for the entire innings? You could have something like McGrath and Bracken bowling either end for 16 overs straight of a T20 match.

The all-rounder/part timer is also diminished with only 4 bowlers required to bowl. If you have a couple of economical spinners you could in reality turn what could be a good game into a boring stonewall or wicketfest of a T20.

The batting team will not want to bat like normal with a break in the middle. If you do, and say go down 3 wickets at 5.5 an over in the first 20, then you've got only 7 wickets for facing bowlers who've had a rest and have had time to plan in between innings.

Then you also have to have your batsmen get set again after the break. More time wasted.

Cricket doesn't work with split innings. You either have two complete innings each like a Test or one each like the current one dayers.

I like that this format does, for me anyway, seem to favour the bowlers, but it's not going to make it the exciting game they were expecting.

Take ODIs back to what it was like in the 90s and early 00s.

It will increase scoring rates, two short periods of batting will see the guys at the crease become more aggressive. Scoring at 3.5-4 runs per over for the first 20 overs will kill the game for the team batting, they won't be competitive by starting like that. An ideal start would be 50 runs off the first ten overs and then maintain that pace so teams can be at least 100 by the end of the 20th over. After then teams can solidate for about 10 or 12 overs when they bat again and then hit out towards the end.

The thing CA hasn't taken into account is that the strategic gameplay will be similar to what it was previously. Teams will make the most of the field restrictions early on, then play sensibly for the major portion of the innings while keeping wickets in hand. Then once the overs start to run out, the batting team will go for it at the end. The only difference is that there are a few rules change, there's a big break between batting and that scoring rates will be inflated a bit. Other than that, it's the same. The bowlers will do the same and the fielders will do the same. The all-rounder becomes slightly less irrevelent like you said. Rather than three of four all-rounders, you might only see one or two at most as there are less overs to bowl.

The stupidest thing of all is that CA decides to do this when the World Cup is only a year away. This summer is going to determine who will go to India et al for the 2011 tournament and now CA decide to change the rules all of a sudden. It makes no sense, hopefully domestic cricket fans vote with their feet and stay away from the monstrocity that CA have created by making a mockery of the format.