What Is The Ideal Length Of A One Day Match?

Top Contributors
Bluey Zarsoff

Bluey Zarsoff

Active Member
50 x 6 ball overs seems too long and people often find the middle overs boring to watch. 20/20 is really too short and is often little more than hit and giggle stuff.
What do posters think the ideal duration would be for one day games?

I think either 30 or 35 overs would work best. Probably 35.

Thoughts??
 
I often wonder how ODIs used to consist of 60 8-ball overs once upon a time.

Fifty overs is fine: it allows for the flexibility of aggressive pinch hitting without compromising the intriguing subplots and tactics of the longer format.
 
From memory the very first ODI was the result of a 1970/71 Melbourne test between Australia and England being washed out, and with the teams otherwise idle and in order to provide some cricket, they put on a one day match. It would have been 8 ball overs back then in Australia and I think they played 40 overs each.

The 40 x 8 = 320 ball match is obviously longer than the 50 x 6 = 300 ball games they play now.

Personally I still think a 35 x 6 ball = 210 ball game would have merit.
 
Ist One Day International: Australia vs England, January 1971, Melbourne. Maximum 40 x 8 ball overs per team.

England: All out 190 off 39.4 overs (Edrich 82, Mallet 3/34, Stackpole 3/40).

Australia: 5 for 191 off 34.6 overs (Ian Chappell 60, Illingworth 3/50).
 
Even before the advent of T20 I've always been for reducing the one day game to 40 overs but probably still keeping the 10 over maximum for bowlers. Watching part timers get pushed around with the field back whilst the the batting team 'consolidates' through the middle overs is often very dull.
 
Kram81 said:
Even before the advent of T20 I've always been for reducing the one day game to 40 overs but probably still keeping the 10 over maximum for bowlers. Watching part timers get pushed around with the field back whilst the the batting team 'consolidates' through the middle overs is often very dull.
Click to expand...

I like the 40 overs with 4 x 10 overs per bowler concept. I've always thought 50 overs too long.
 
I'm with LL, I like the one day format how it is as far as length is concerned. I find ODI's consistently the most interesting of the three formats because it has some of everything ie. T20 doesn't have enough substance and Test cricket sometimes almost has too much substance...

A good Test match will always be the best but ODI cricket is more dynamic than both T20 and Test cricket in some ways I find.
 
Having said that. I get bored if it's a seven ODI series...especially when the two teams are resting some of their big names!

I'd keep all three formats with the same legnth and have 3,3,3 has the standard series format.
 
futureblackcap said:
I find ODI's consistently the most interesting of the three formats because it has some of everything ie
A good Test match will always be the best but ODI cricket is more dynamic than both T20 and Test cricket in some ways I find.
Click to expand...

Wowee! I couldn't disagree more :D
 
futureblackcap said:
I didn't say it wasn't. ;) Of course it is but I don't get how the middle overs are dull to you when Test cricket is quite often slower...
Click to expand...

Test cricket is like a 5 day war. It's what cricket was always intended to be. The ultimate test of two teams.

I'm sure, like me, you have attended and watched test matches where barely a run is being scored but the contest is enthralling. That doesn't often happen in the middle overs of a 50 over match - not for me anyway.
 
Bluey Zarsoff said:
Test cricket is like a 5 day war. It's what cricket was always intended to be. The ultimate test of two teams.

I'm sure, like me, you have attended and watched test matches where barely a run is being scored but the contest is enthralling. That doesn't often happen in the middle overs of a 50 over match - not for me anyway.
Click to expand...


True but I like watching the battle between the bowler and the field and the batsmen in the middle overs. It takes skill for the batsmen to be able to manipulate the field.

I like one day cricket when it's two full strength sides because one match will be a batting masterclass where both teams smash over 300 hundred runs and another match the bowlers dominate in a low scoring match of just over 200 runs scored by both teams. Both those scenarios require lot's of skill by the batsmen and fielders or bowlers and fielders. In T20 however, quite often when a team gets bowled out, it's not because of the bowlers skill but the batsmen's lack of skill and bad shot selection. That's the difference in my mind. I like having a battle between bat and ball. T20 is basically a battle between batsmen and themselves. Mainly because most T20 bowlers don't try to take wickets, they just try dry up the runs.
 
futureblackcap said:
I didn't say it wasn't. ;) Of course it is but I don't get how the middle overs are dull to you when Test cricket is quite often slower...
Click to expand...


Because in Test Cricket, one side is always attacking (unless Michael Clarke is involved). So there is always some excitement going on. Either the batsmen are defending for their lives - which is exciting as hell, or they're taking the game to the fielding side - which is also pretty exciting, or sometimes, if you're lucky, both teams are attacking at once, which is just mindblowingly exciting.

In a routine 50 over game, there are long stretches where... nothing... happens... at all. Both teams are defending. Thousands upon thousands of spectators commit suicide of sheer boredom.

20 over cricket is the ultimate version of limited overs cricket. It displays all the best aspects without any of the downsides.


If you want a game that is longer than 20 over cricket, but is still over in a day but isn't boring as ********, then you need to make it some kind of declaration game.
 
futureblackcap said:
True but I like watching the battle between the bowler and the field and the batsmen in the middle overs. It takes skill for the batsmen to be able to manipulate the field...
Click to expand...

Our opinions vary there. I usually find the middle overs of a 50 over game anti-climatic, and they are often very predictable.

But it is important for the future of cricket that it continues to be packaged such that it appeals to a broader audience than just the purists who predominantly follow test cricket.
 
futureblackcap said:
True but I like watching the battle between the bowler and the field and the batsmen in the middle overs. It takes skill for the batsmen to be able to manipulate the field.
Click to expand...
You don't find the middle overs dull with part timers trundling in with the field right back? Then again as a Kiwi you probably love it brought up on a diet of bowlers like Nathan Astle, Gavin Larsen and Craig McMillian bowling lots of overs trying to bore batsmen out in ODIs ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top