el-capitano
Member
Background:
New 50 Over Format Trialled
- Thread starter el-capitano
- Start date
el-capitano
Member
And his proposal:
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/highfives-all-round-for-new-oneday-game-20111018-1lyte.html
Thoughts?
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/highfives-all-round-for-new-oneday-game-20111018-1lyte.html
Thoughts?
futureblackcap
Well-Known Member
Stupid, there is no need to become like American sports!
In principle, I wouldn't see anything wrong with it, although you might have to reduce it to 40 overs to make up for the time spent switching over. The details. like "bonus points" - seem a bit unnecessarily gimmicky, but its not like the idea of innings being split up hasn't been considered before. I like the idea of allowing two sub-fielders so that the not-out batsmen can be ready to go - but what if the not out batsmen is your wicket-keeper or your best bowler, and you really want him on the field? It wouldn't work if it was compulsory.
It would certainly change the tactics - teams would have to respond in their own innings to how the other team are doing, either by accelerating or consolidating. The idea of one batsman staying in while the others bat around him would become somewhat redundant as he would have to play himself back in 3 times, so you might as well just take increasing risks towards the end of the 10 over stint and look to capitalise while you have your eye in. Par scores would probably reduce to around 200 off 40 overs. It would mean the pitch and weather conditions affected each team equally. It would put an end to the age old question "how do we know who's winning?"
I really do think it could work as long as you kept it as simple as possible.
It would certainly change the tactics - teams would have to respond in their own innings to how the other team are doing, either by accelerating or consolidating. The idea of one batsman staying in while the others bat around him would become somewhat redundant as he would have to play himself back in 3 times, so you might as well just take increasing risks towards the end of the 10 over stint and look to capitalise while you have your eye in. Par scores would probably reduce to around 200 off 40 overs. It would mean the pitch and weather conditions affected each team equally. It would put an end to the age old question "how do we know who's winning?"
I really do think it could work as long as you kept it as simple as possible.
someblokecalleddave
Well-Known Member
I hate it and as FBC has said - there's no need to turn it into an American style game. Unfortunately the whole world seems to sliding into an abyss of self obsessed personal gratification and there's no time or place for 'Real stuff' like cricket and sports.
1. Profit is King; If what you do and it doesn't matter what it is you do, it has to at least break even and ideally it has to turn a profit. The idea that something might be done at a financial loss or for egalitarian reasons is becoming more and more a thing of the past, so if what you do doesn't create a profit you're going to have to change it in some way.
2. With computers, endless TV channels, The internet, mobile phones and every thing around us, society (Me excluded) is obsessed with and used to the idea of instant gratification, the word patience is likely to be omitted from the English language soon! If you pay for something, more and more they want action and results within seconds, the idea that you pay to watch a sport and it's played out over a period of more than 90 minutes and includes the levels of complexity that cricket does has a limited appeal to younger people who have 'Apps' or whatever they are for everything they do.
3. Plus the other thing - time. 8 hours is 8 hours where you can't be totally focused on your Facebook page or your Twatter up-dates, finding out all those important things that make your life so very special and unique. The rest of us that don't do that crap, still can't get along to the matches because we all work and much of the time we can't afford it anyway.
There seems to be an inevitability that cricket will have to change to appeal to the lowest common denomenator. Everyone even the least financially aware people in the world must see a cricket match being played to a stadium/ground that is half empty or worse and say 'How can that go on'? Those of us that love the longer formats of the game are diminishing in numbers and the game will have to appeal to this new audience.
1. Profit is King; If what you do and it doesn't matter what it is you do, it has to at least break even and ideally it has to turn a profit. The idea that something might be done at a financial loss or for egalitarian reasons is becoming more and more a thing of the past, so if what you do doesn't create a profit you're going to have to change it in some way.
2. With computers, endless TV channels, The internet, mobile phones and every thing around us, society (Me excluded) is obsessed with and used to the idea of instant gratification, the word patience is likely to be omitted from the English language soon! If you pay for something, more and more they want action and results within seconds, the idea that you pay to watch a sport and it's played out over a period of more than 90 minutes and includes the levels of complexity that cricket does has a limited appeal to younger people who have 'Apps' or whatever they are for everything they do.
3. Plus the other thing - time. 8 hours is 8 hours where you can't be totally focused on your Facebook page or your Twatter up-dates, finding out all those important things that make your life so very special and unique. The rest of us that don't do that crap, still can't get along to the matches because we all work and much of the time we can't afford it anyway.
There seems to be an inevitability that cricket will have to change to appeal to the lowest common denomenator. Everyone even the least financially aware people in the world must see a cricket match being played to a stadium/ground that is half empty or worse and say 'How can that go on'? Those of us that love the longer formats of the game are diminishing in numbers and the game will have to appeal to this new audience.
el-capitano
Member
I'm not sure if I like it myself, but I thought I'd throw it out there for comments. Its obvious the current one day format is tired, and need a change of some sort. I don't want to be left with just Test Matches & T-20's.
someblokecalleddave
Well-Known Member
To be honest I didn't read the root article (Your link) but having read it, it does sound as though this is going to happen and there's not much out there to stop it and as they've pointed out it is far more dynamic and it may well have an appeal to both paying customers and the players. To be honest the players aren't going to throw away their careers in a hissy fit over not wanting to play it and it sounds as though it has the potential to re-invigorate the 50 over format.
Cricket Canuck
New Member
From a guy in the biggest un-tapped cricket market in the world (North America) I don't really love this, but I can see the utility. It's just making it more like Baseball. The major thing that differentiates Cricket and NA sports that not a ton of people seem to get is not the length of the actual game, as is usually discussed, but the length of the season. So, whereas cricket uses Test matches to seperate the cream of the crop from the rest, NA sports use long seasons of short/anyone can win games. If they played more T20 matches the cream would rise and it would be interesting.
Howard Littlejohn
Member
The season in American (and presumably Canadian) football is quite short isn't it? There seems to be no lack of interest there.
Cricket Canuck
New Member
The difference is that the length of each game is more conducive to the "cream rising to the top". On every single play, there are at least 5 battles going on at the line of scrimmage between Offensive Linemen and Defensive Linemen, 3-4 battles on the outside between Wide Receivers and Defensive Backs, and then of course there's the Running Backs and Quarterbacks battling with the Linebackers et al. So, with so many cogs involved on every play, luck plays less of a role. Whereas in baseball, there are only 27 outs, a good hitter will get a hit 30% of the time, so 70% of the time there will normally be an out. That's why they play 162 games in MLB, because each game has too many extenuating circumstances for you to reliably say that the winner is indeed the better (not just the luckier) team.
