Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

[Boris]

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?

 

[Kram81]

Re: Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

I've been saying for years they should trail 40 overs, don't the like the idea of 2 innings though.

 

[Beeswax]

Re: Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

I've been saying for years they should trail 40 overs, don't the like the idea of 2 innings though.

Why don't they just get rid of the Ford Ranger Cup if they hate it that much and extend the Big Bash?

Four innings for a match sounds kind of silly.

 

[a for effort]

Re: Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

More stupid potential rules for future domestic competitions

• Novelty hats
• 5 over powerplays where the bowling side may use a SwingKing
• Multiball
• 50 run bonus to the first side to catch the snitch

EDIT:

• Roller-skates

 

[Kram81]

Re: Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

^Something like this?

YouTube - The Goodies - Cricket

 

[Boris]

Re: Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

Oh wow. I doubt I could ever respect Cricket Australia again. I despise this move more than any other in the history of my remembrance.

Cricket Australia confirms split-innings one-dayers | Australia Cricket News | Cricinfo.com

Now I could live with 40 overs. I think it's a pointless move to do even that. But now we are set for 6 rounds of 4 innings of either 20 or 25 overs each starting in February next year.

It won't affect the World Cup apparently. And according to CA there won't be an 2015 World Cup, at least one like the one we know of.

The major reason seems to be that you will get to see both sides bat no matter what when you come home from work. Who cares, seriously? If you miss the team batting one time, there's a 50/50 chance you will see them bat next time. And there sure will be a next time. Over and over again. The domestic competitions are also looking at free to air coverage so this is part of the reason I bet.

Here's some tips for increasing the popularity and excitement of ODIs:
- Stop playing 5000 games per year. Tournaments aren't special anymore.
- Take away the pointless powerplays.
- Stop bringing the ropes in a few centimetres every game.
- Add some spicier pitches.
- Notice that low scoring games are exciting games. The amount of 300+ scores lately makes for a bit of a batting snoozefest.
- Hell, add cheerleaders for all I care.

I could seriously rant about this all night. I doubt I could even watch these games. What is CA expecting? That 50 000 people will turn up each game simply because it is 4 T20s back to back?

 

[a for effort]

Re: Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

Boris, none of those suggestions would make an ODI any more exciting. 40 over games are an excellent idea, because, despite the protests of a select few, ODI's are uniformly unpopular and something definitely needed to change. Breaking it up into two innings each, however, seems completely unecessary and will add needless confusion to the game.

 

[Boris]

Re: Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

Why 40 overs? It is of my strong opinion that 50 overs is the perfect length. Gives bowlers the opportunity for 5 wicket hauls, gives batsmen the opportunity for a century. And not bludgeoned ones, not ones that you will see every now and then. Every game gives the opportunity for a batsman to score 70+. Then the last ten overs come and you see an explosion and can often go for 10 R.P.O.

40 overs does reduce the amount of 'non-excitement' in the middle (which I have failed to see as of yet), but it also reduced the time of excitement. You still have relatively the same amount of wickets. Yes there are 10 less overs and the same amount of batsmen, but it's not a big enough drop in overs to really make a difference. The tail will still be excluded for most parts of the batting and will only be shown if there is a collapse.

I conclude that 40 overs really doesn't have that much point in it. You are threatening the excitement of a batsman getting 100s, threatening the balance between bowling and batting even more, and forcing tactic changes all over again.

Has there really been that big of a drop in the popularity of ODI cricket? As far as I know everyone I've talked to prefers ODI cricket to T20 cricket. T20 cricket won't stay boomingly popular for long until fans notice that there is more of a chance to watch a T20 match than not.

With the two innings idea now, what happens to OD players? You affectively have 2 T20s back to back, therefore those in between players will not be playing anymore. That's quite a few players, especially if this idea keeps on flowing towards the international scene. Batsman aren't going to bat leisurely in the first innings and blast in the next. There are going to be constant scores above 300, 350, 400. Who could watch 7 hours of cricket after seeing 600+ runs being scored every time? The very fine art of one day bowling is gone and it turns into a slogfest.

That's my rant for the meantime.

 

[a for effort]

Re: Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

You can wax lyrical all day about what an amazing spectacle 50 over cricket is, but very few people are going to share your point of view. It's not about giving players opportunities to take 5-fors and score 100's, it's about getting people through the gate, and more people are going to come through that gate if the horribly boring part of the innings gets cut from 20-25 overs down to 10-15 overs.

I agree that the two-innings concept is stupid.

 

[Ljp86]

Re: Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

The suggestions by CA are absolute shit, I can't understand why they need to tamper with the game. For a domestic comp, the crowds are actually quite decent in the FRC, CA should play games on days where they can maximise crowds rather than tampering with the format to try and make it better.

I can say that I would definitely be pissed off if any of the suggested changes came through, 25-over split innings is ridiculous. The last time I did that in a game I was playing Under 11's.

I also agree with what has been said regarding the amount of games played. They need to be reduced to address the issue of overkill in both ODI's and T20's. They need to make the crowd want more and actually cherish them rather than pump them out continually over the summer.

 

[Beeswax]

Re: Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

The suggestions by CA are absolute shit, I can't understand why they need to tamper with the game. For a domestic comp, the crowds are actually quite decent in the FRC, CA should play games on days where they can maximise crowds rather than tampering with the format to try and make it better.

I can say that I would definitely be pissed off if any of the suggested changes came through, 25-over split innings is ridiculous. The last time I did that in a game I was playing Under 11's.

I also agree with what has been said regarding the amount of games played. They need to be reduced to address the issue of overkill in both ODI's and T20's. They need to make the crowd want more and actually cherish them rather than pump them out continually over the summer.

I feel like I haven't followed any other type of cricket than 20/20 for the last year and am more familiar with Dirk Nannes than any of the other players in the Aus team.

He did well for Notts yesterday in case anyone gives a shit anymore.

Four 25 over innings, sounds mostly bizarre.

Will the boundary ropes be just behind the ump at square leg then for the third and fourth of the 25 over innings?

Or will they make all the last 50 entirely powerplay overs so the people after work can get their adrenalin boost?

And will Michael Clarke manage to bore the pants offa me when batting in this format as well? I know he'll find a way somehow.

 

[Boris]

Re: Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

As Mas said, the last time I actually played a game like this was when we had a social hit around down at the park when I was 12... They might as well chuck in the 'tipsy' rule so if they hit the ball they have to run.

I can't see this lasting too long at all. People will miss ODD cricket, I'm sure of it. This just means there is, correct me if I'm wrong because I'm just pulling this out of memory here, effectively 12 T20Ds per team, 4 ODDs per team, 6 of the new format and 9 First Class games. This effectively means 24 T20s, 12 normal and 6 games of two T20/25s each. Even if I have the figures slightly wrong there, you see what I mean. Sure there might be a few fans going out to see the game down at their closest ground or tuning in more on TV for the first few of the series. But then they will get bored of it, seeing the same thing over and over for weeks on end.

In perspective we aren't talking one football game per team per week, but 2-3 football games per week per team. Would you still watch football if your team played that often?

 

[Boris]

Re: Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

... if the horribly boring part of the innings gets cut from 20-25 overs down to 10-15 overs.

I haven't as yet found the horribly boring part of an ODI... I find the middle 5 overs of a T20 more boring. But perhaps that's just me.

 

[a for effort]

Re: Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

Believe me, it's just you.

 

[Boris]

Re: Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

Believe me, it's just you.

Well I call for a rethink on tactics for the second session on day 1 of a Test then. I find that session boring, perhaps we should limit it to 20 overs and only one wicket is allowed to fall, after that 5 runs are deducted for every wicket?

I find the 10 minutes either side of half time in a League match boring and the 2nd quarter of an AFL match boring. How about we just cut them out? I also find the middle about 50 laps of Bathurst quite boring, I think something will have to be done about that.

That's cricket. I don't think this 'boring' period has much to do with ticket sales and TV viewers. I think it's more because CA are looking for a sport in which they can display 2-3 games per week and still magically get the same crowd numbers for each. Not long ago stadiums were packed for ODIs. Then there were four 5 match series played pretty much back to back, the only break being the Champion's Trophy in between two of them where even more cricket was played. By the 25th game in recent memorable history of course crowds aren't going to be too enthusiastic about the game. The same thing will happen with T20s.

They seem to be trying an impossible feat.

 

[OhMyGodTheChips]

Re: Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

The crap that goes on at the ICC, the governing bodies, man, they seriously want to tweak the format rather than the layout. Wanting night tests, trialling pink balls, splits innings limited overs, reducing the number of days, its all just a crock of shit.

First thing they need to do is get rid of dead rubbers. Australia pumped Pakistan and WI at home for 10 nil white wash. Why? Australia pumped England 7 nil and then we're playing another series against them in a week or so. Why is the issue with 50 over matches and not the people who organise these ridiculous series that then don't even add up to anything meaningful?

By removing 50 over cricket they are then going to greatly damage the developing minnows that don't just have their sights just set on being sub-members but full test member nations. All these blokes that write on Cricinfo fail to look at how disjointed and inconsistent the matches are played at the top level, yet 2nd and 3rd tier nations have a complete format they're playing each year, trying to achieve the next level, their goal of either T20 or OD WC berth.

Why can't this be adopted for an actual championship that is played over the year or every two years between the OD member nations where a team can then legitimately be number one without any question. This could then also help ease in 2nd tier nations into the top level and give them exposure against all nations. Basically the demise of 50 over cricket is the result of the boards and their administrations in not caring about the game but the money.

 

[Boris]

Re: Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

...not caring about the game but the money.

This is exactly it, and always will be. The problem here is that not caring about the game will only reduce the quality of the game. Reduce the quality, reduce the amount of spectators and reduce any chance of gaining new viewers to the game. If that happens, then there goes all the money. I think the way to increase the money is not by trying to be new and innovative, but to work with what we have currently and make each and every game seem like it's the deciding Test in the Ashes, to make each game seem like the end of the world if you miss it. That has to be the goal, obviously it's not going to be achieved, but you have to aim for something.

Changing the rules/format every year isn't going to do that. Sure, it will boost numbers for the first few as people watch it to find out, to see if it is going to be the next new craze.

Here's an example: Rewind to 1900: Cricket's net loss | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com
They thought the game way going downhill, overreacted and put in place some of the stupidest things to ever hear of. That was in the early 1900s, this is the early 2000s, and by the early 2100s I bet you these sorts of random things will soon be happening. What I sincerely hope is that this attempt at 'boosting the quality of the game' by CA will one day become an article in something like the cricinfo "Rewind to..." section where it looks back to stupid ideas of the past. This idea will hopefully last only one season before they recognise this is going backwards and not forwards.

I've gotten passed down a big collection of recordings of past recordings and of the past week have gone through and watched some ODIs from the 1990s. Some of these were brilliant, the scores were lower, the bowling was better and the chases often came down to the last over. It was uninterrupted cricket, 50 overs per side, 10 wickets. That is what cricket is meant to be. No stupid powerplays, no bringing the boundaries in, making the pitches intentionally batting friendly, no big bats, no idea that 'good bowling is ruining the game'. Of course things like the better bats cannot be stopped, but the others can.

What happened to the Tri-Series? CA stopped participating in them because the games where the two visitors played didn't sell tickets in the host's country, and there was always the chance of the two visitors getting to the final and Australia not. IMO they were better, except for the 3 match final idea. You would play 4 matches, and then the final. That's still a 5 match series, but it has purpose, you are playing for that 5th game. Having one of those chucked in occasionally is more interesting than a 7 match series after the Ashes all crowded into one month, but obviously not all of them should be played that way.

Honestly, though, I hope the next few series are as many games as possible. I have the feeling this will be the last World Cup as we know it and these next few series may provide the last lot of 'true' ODIs.

 

[Boris]

Re: Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

Quote from ICC to watch split-innings experiment | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | Cricinfo.com

"Whilst we are trialling these things at domestic level we are still quite confident that 50-overs at international level will survive," Lorgat added. "What we probably need to be focussing on is the context in which it is being played, the quantity of 50-over matches and when it is scheduled. At international level I don't hold the view that the format is as challenged as it is at domestic level."

At least Lorgat and the ICC have it right. Hopefully this opinion continues.

 

[Beeswax]

Re: Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

I haven't as yet found the horribly boring part of an ODI... I find the middle 5 overs of a T20 more boring. But perhaps that's just me.

The boring part is when Michael Clarke bats. But that's the same in twenty/20.

 

[Ljp86]

Re: Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format

Can't believe CA went through with this rubbish. It isn't the game that needs changing it's the running of it that needs to be altered.