Saw this very interesting article about whether 1 day cricket is doomed (link to article). I dont know about you guys but the problem for me is that I do like the one dayers, but there seems to much of them, along with T20 and test matches. The article talks about the drop in interest, it even mentions boredom. I dont think its boredom, I think its the saturation of all the different cricket matches, especially when you have the choice of an ODI or a T20 match...Id be interested in your views as this article really struck a chord with me.
Odi: Is 1 Day Cricket Doomed?
- Thread starter Mugshot
- Start date
futureblackcap
Well-Known Member
I am really really tired of this argument. There is no need to get rid of any of them. But there is definitely too much cricket on these days. That is only because of stupid scheduling from the ICC ie. 5 or 7 match ODI series'. If 3 T20's, 3 ODI's and 3 Test's was the format for 95% of tours then we wouldn't have this problem. The game isn't the problem it's the men scheduling the game.
As far as I see it, there are a few different types of fans these days. The purests which love Test cricket and a lot of them love ODI cricket as well. The all-round fans like me that love all of the three formats but like Test cricket the best. Then there is the annoying stupid fans who just like T20 cricket and ruin it for everyone else.
If one format had to go, T20 cricket should go because it's created more problems than good around the world and I find it consistently the most boring of the other two formats.
As far as I see it, there are a few different types of fans these days. The purests which love Test cricket and a lot of them love ODI cricket as well. The all-round fans like me that love all of the three formats but like Test cricket the best. Then there is the annoying stupid fans who just like T20 cricket and ruin it for everyone else.
If one format had to go, T20 cricket should go because it's created more problems than good around the world and I find it consistently the most boring of the other two formats.
Kram81
Well-Known Member
Like it or not T20 is here to stay.
Apart from the WC there is just so many forgettable one day series, the format was getting a bit tired even before the advent of T20. Often games (especially if some early wickets are lost) turn into a stand off through the middle overs. The batsman consolidate the innings pushing the ball around with fielding side having the field set back and often have part timers bowling, it's hardy enthralling stuff..
Won't happen but I'd look at the one day game switching to 40 overs per innings but still allow 10 overs per bowler. Get to see a better contest between bat and ball with less part timers throwing in darts and will reduce the snoozefest though the middle, will also see a reduction in teams picking crappy 'pseudo' all-rounders.
For the record my favourite cricket to watch is the Tests matches and the BigBash.
Apart from the WC there is just so many forgettable one day series, the format was getting a bit tired even before the advent of T20. Often games (especially if some early wickets are lost) turn into a stand off through the middle overs. The batsman consolidate the innings pushing the ball around with fielding side having the field set back and often have part timers bowling, it's hardy enthralling stuff..
Won't happen but I'd look at the one day game switching to 40 overs per innings but still allow 10 overs per bowler. Get to see a better contest between bat and ball with less part timers throwing in darts and will reduce the snoozefest though the middle, will also see a reduction in teams picking crappy 'pseudo' all-rounders.
For the record my favourite cricket to watch is the Tests matches and the BigBash.
Your right on the scheduling and thats what I meant by the saturation, maybe I didnt word it well
the issue for me is that the schedules are all over the place and its difficult to keep up with how many matches are in a series, whats happening in international and domestic schedules.Im not a fan of T20, I would say ODI is my favourite, this being said with long series of ODI it can get a bit much towards the end. T20 seems like it was used as a way to try and introduce more people to cricket by offering a wham bam thank you mam style of cricket that is played at a faster pace....not my cup of tea to be fair.
I like your idea on the one dayers, I always struggle with a long series of one day int. because of the sessions getting a bit mundane in the middle, but your idea could resolve that. I suppose the only issue is that I doubt the men in the know will change the format. I have a preference for ODI, so anything to improve it will definately get my vote.
henrywill5d
New Member
Yap.
Brian Lara
Active Member
It's obvious to me now what was the inspiration for Mugshot's username! 
Brian Lara
Active Member
I would get rid of t20's. But the problem is that too many people benefit from it now. It means a professional career is available to a wider range of player, or a more lucrative professional career. Admins make easy money out of it and it's more convenient for the fans.
I'm not sure if admin scheduling is the problem, because that would be a massive pain in the arse to organise. Think about it, 9 test playing nations, in roughly 3 distinct degrees of longitude, 2 hemispheres, roughly 6 time zones. All with their own distinct peak period for cricket, which overlap with another country. That looks like a massive mess to sort out. It would've been easier had t20 not gained popularity.
Just think, my plan to improve the weaker test nations competitiveness over a playing generation or two, would be to introduce two dayers! The difference in length between one-day and tests is too much for them.
I'm not sure if admin scheduling is the problem, because that would be a massive pain in the arse to organise. Think about it, 9 test playing nations, in roughly 3 distinct degrees of longitude, 2 hemispheres, roughly 6 time zones. All with their own distinct peak period for cricket, which overlap with another country. That looks like a massive mess to sort out. It would've been easier had t20 not gained popularity.
Just think, my plan to improve the weaker test nations competitiveness over a playing generation or two, would be to introduce two dayers! The difference in length between one-day and tests is too much for them.
I've removed the replies to timmy who is a long-time troll at BigCricket.
ODI cricket is definitely in a period of decline I think, Australian crowds haven't decreased by a lot but there has been a noticeable difference. I think some other countries have also suffered crowds wise but the declines haven't been big there either but have been enough to be noticed also.
We may get to the point where ODI cricket may need to be shortened to 45 or even 40 overs (although I'd prefer to keep it at 50 overs) in order to keep the format fresh, so it can continue to remain exciting and more importantly still attract large crowds. Over the last few months there have been some absolute cracking games and ones definitely worth watching. The only problem is that we're having to go through periods of predictable and slightly uninteresting cricket to get to the last 15-20 overs which are the best part of the game and that's the major problem the format has at the moment.
ODI cricket is definitely in a period of decline I think, Australian crowds haven't decreased by a lot but there has been a noticeable difference. I think some other countries have also suffered crowds wise but the declines haven't been big there either but have been enough to be noticed also.
We may get to the point where ODI cricket may need to be shortened to 45 or even 40 overs (although I'd prefer to keep it at 50 overs) in order to keep the format fresh, so it can continue to remain exciting and more importantly still attract large crowds. Over the last few months there have been some absolute cracking games and ones definitely worth watching. The only problem is that we're having to go through periods of predictable and slightly uninteresting cricket to get to the last 15-20 overs which are the best part of the game and that's the major problem the format has at the moment.
It's obvious to me now what was the inspiration for Mugshot's username!
Sorry dear boy, did I scare you! I dont usually have the moustache, that was a Movember moment and added to the scary image you see, but trust me Im a big softie
I actually would like the one dayers reduced to 40 overs, it would speed it up just enough to make it the perfect game for me. Like Ljp said, it would be a great way to get rid of that boring middle overs and keep it fresh.
Howard Littlejohn
Member
The point of both limited overs forms is money. We're therefore stuck wit T20, like it or not.
On the 50 over game, I don't see the point of reducing the overs. All that does is reduce the differentiation between it and T20.
Far too many games are played though. A key point of the way I would like to change scheduling would be to ban all limited overs only tours, except world cups or series where Associate of Affiliate nations play an equal role with any participating Test nation (eg a bilateral series between NZ and Ireland would be allowed).
Then the bilateral series for 50 over and T20 could become a "best of" situation. And T20 should not be allowed to proliferate any further, or it will lose its gloss and theatre as the 50 over game was already doing before the rise of the even shorter game.
I wouldn't be too sad to see the 50 over game though. In many ways having one form unlimited by overs, and one limited over variety, of the game makes sense.
To me Test cricket is sacrosanct, everything else at international level is subject to the whim of the times. I don't think it will disappear as quickly as 2015, but hopefully it will be scaled back rather than the endless meaningless easily forgotten series.
On the 50 over game, I don't see the point of reducing the overs. All that does is reduce the differentiation between it and T20.
Far too many games are played though. A key point of the way I would like to change scheduling would be to ban all limited overs only tours, except world cups or series where Associate of Affiliate nations play an equal role with any participating Test nation (eg a bilateral series between NZ and Ireland would be allowed).
Then the bilateral series for 50 over and T20 could become a "best of" situation. And T20 should not be allowed to proliferate any further, or it will lose its gloss and theatre as the 50 over game was already doing before the rise of the even shorter game.
I wouldn't be too sad to see the 50 over game though. In many ways having one form unlimited by overs, and one limited over variety, of the game makes sense.
To me Test cricket is sacrosanct, everything else at international level is subject to the whim of the times. I don't think it will disappear as quickly as 2015, but hopefully it will be scaled back rather than the endless meaningless easily forgotten series.
Brian Lara
Active Member
Just muckin around.Sorry dear boy, did I scare you! I dont usually have the moustache, that was a Movember moment and added to the scary image you see, but trust me Im a big softie
.
You could've put up almost any photo and I would've said that.
troll3y
Active Member
And to think that ODIs were 60 overs per innings, once upon a time!
I like to think of ODIs as being the bridge between the two extremes of five-day Tests and blink-and-you-miss-it T20, and I still believe it's an important part of cricket as a whole. FTB's point of having three Tests, three ODIs and three T20s for just about every tour should really be the way to go; at international level, ODIs and T20s should be played at the same frequency. Let's not forget that T20s are a wonderful way to introduce our marvellous game to non-cricketing nations and even non-cricketing fans in Test nations. Sadly, there will be people that will just not get into Test matches, but if the ICC play their cards right, a lot of new fans may follow the T20 -> ODI -> Test match route.
I'm torn on the idea of reducing ODIs to 40 overs. I agree that the pace of the world has changed, and the masses love an action-packed game, but I think a reduction in overs would eliminate one or two of the pseudo-Test tactics that are still present in ODIs. This does include the "boring" containment tactics used in the middle overs, but I (as a bit of a purist) still see it as an ebbing-and-flowing battle between bat and ball. Didn't one or two domestic leagues (in, I think, England and South Africa) reduce their one-day format to 40-over innings? What is the consensus there?
I like to think of ODIs as being the bridge between the two extremes of five-day Tests and blink-and-you-miss-it T20, and I still believe it's an important part of cricket as a whole. FTB's point of having three Tests, three ODIs and three T20s for just about every tour should really be the way to go; at international level, ODIs and T20s should be played at the same frequency. Let's not forget that T20s are a wonderful way to introduce our marvellous game to non-cricketing nations and even non-cricketing fans in Test nations. Sadly, there will be people that will just not get into Test matches, but if the ICC play their cards right, a lot of new fans may follow the T20 -> ODI -> Test match route.
I'm torn on the idea of reducing ODIs to 40 overs. I agree that the pace of the world has changed, and the masses love an action-packed game, but I think a reduction in overs would eliminate one or two of the pseudo-Test tactics that are still present in ODIs. This does include the "boring" containment tactics used in the middle overs, but I (as a bit of a purist) still see it as an ebbing-and-flowing battle between bat and ball. Didn't one or two domestic leagues (in, I think, England and South Africa) reduce their one-day format to 40-over innings? What is the consensus there?
Howard Littlejohn
Member
On reducing the 50 over game to 40 or 30 or whatever overs, won't that just decrease its difference form the 20 over game. It just makes the longer limited form even less relevant, as it loses its distinction from the 20 over variety.
If one form goes, it goes. So long as Tests are given the priority they deserve (and only England probably does that), the rest is unimportant.
If one form goes, it goes. So long as Tests are given the priority they deserve (and only England probably does that), the rest is unimportant.
troll3y
Active Member
WOAH!! One-Dayers should never, under any non-rain-interrupted circumstances, be less than 40 overs.
That's precisely my fear. A reduction of overs may make a seemingly 'short' innings quite tantalising for big-hitting batsmen: ten wickets over 40 overs leaves less time and less risk for big swinging than 50 overs. Think about anomalies like the infamous 438 game between South Africa and Australia: one-day games like that -- regardless of the number overs -- should never become commonplace, and I fear that reducing ODIs to 40 overs will subsequently produce more ridiculous-scoring games that just don't look right in the history books.
As I've said previously, fifty overs offers a good balance between Test and one-day tactics. As long as the ODI rules are well-thought and well-maintained, and there's a (relatively) constant and fair balance between bat and ball everywhere in the world, the format will stand its place in time.
Just muckin around.
Lol, but it is the reason for my nick! I actually have the word Mugshot tattooed on my back! Either way, Im glad for the banter, we need more of that round here. Seems there is a small group of us regulars, I wish more would join in the fun!
You make a good point, the format does need looking at though. Maybe the answer isnt 40 overs, but something needs doing. T20 will never go away no matter how much some of us are not that keen, but a review of the ODI format to refresh it could well hope. I was thinking of 40 overs myself, but that doesnt mean I am right....you have got me thinking about the overs again.
futureblackcap
Well-Known Member
Why the need for the constant refresh? In my opinion the constant tweaking is making ODI's worse not better! I don't understand how people who love Test cricket find the middle overs boring! It's quite often the best part for me although I am a bowler.
Howard Littlejohn
Member
Why the need for the constant refresh? In my opinion the constant tweaking is making ODI's worse not better! I don't understand how people who love Test cricket find the middle overs boring! It's quite often the best part for me although I am a bowler.
There's a lot of truth in that. I thoink the major thing missing is context. Too many one day games are played but they only mean anything in the World Cup.
This goes to scheduling more broady, with with specific refernce to the 50 over game:
- 5 before a Test series is fne, but in a "best of" format so that if a team wins games 1, 2 and 3 the dead rubbers aren't played.
- Ban all limited overs only (50 and 20 overs in that) tours that are not World Cup, T20 World Champs, or do nt involved an Associate or Affiliate member on equal terms as full members.
- Don't make up the missing games with extra international T20s. T20 is rare at international level,and works because of it. Making it too common risks removing the "theatre" factor just as playing too many 50 over games has.
In terms of format there was on tried here in Australia which was mong the better ones. First 15 overs, two outside the circle; overs 15-40 three outside the circle; overs 41-50 five outside the circle. No mucking around with "power plays" (which, in my opinion, are a bad gimmick), just a simple known increment.