[Captain Crash]

Interesting blog about ODIs suggesting a few areas for improvement of the game. A few ideas I quite like are:

-Increasing the amount of overs able to be bowled by a given bowler
-Limiting all ODI series to 3 matches.
-Redefine wides to be more leniant to balls that pitch in line but deviate out or balls than pitch outside leg but turn in.
-Increase Bouncer per over limit to 2.
-Simplify D/L or find an alternative.

Thoughts anyone?

[Straight up G]

(Original post by Captain Crash)
Interesting blog about ODIs suggesting a few areas for improvement of the game. A few ideas I quite like are:

-Increasing the amount of overs able to be bowled by a given bowler
-Limiting all ODI series to 3 matches.
-Redefine wides to be more leniant to balls that pitch in line but deviate out or balls than pitch outside leg but turn in.
-Increase Bouncer per over limit to 2.
-Simplify D/L or find an alternative.

Thoughts anyone?

ODIs are just fine, except this crap 2 new balls rule. And the powerplays are a bit weird.

I grew up watching ODIs, they were fine and didn't need tinkering with. The fantastic world cup, possibly the best there's ever been, last year, proved that.

[shyamshah]

(Original post by Captain Crash)
Interesting blog about ODIs suggesting a few areas for improvement of the game. A few ideas I quite like are:

-Increasing the amount of overs able to be bowled by a given bowler
-Limiting all ODI series to 3 matches.
-Redefine wides to be more leniant to balls that pitch in line but deviate out or balls than pitch outside leg but turn in.
-Increase Bouncer per over limit to 2.
-Simplify D/L or find an alternative.

Thoughts anyone?

I agree with a lot of things in this article, for example giving a dead ball if the ball hits the stumps and runs to the boundary, and the D/L option, the giving two bowlers 12 overs each is also a great idea because then the last few overs will be more even then normally the batsmens game. I dont agree with limiting all series to 3 matches because some series definitely deserve to be more than that. but overall i woul agree with most of the ideas.

[kirisatha96]

Just like to say congrats to SL. Great all round pressure. Fielding wasn't as sharp. Malinga looks depressed with his fielding.

[kirisatha96]

(Original post by Straight up G)
ODIs are just fine, except this crap 2 new balls rule. And the powerplays are a bit weird.

I grew up watching ODIs, they were fine and didn't need tinkering with. The fantastic world cup, possibly the best there's ever been, last year, proved that.

Semi-finals could have been better - Sri lanka vs New Zeleand - more of a one sided contest. Sri Lanka looked the dominant force. Australia should have been in the semi's given their good form leading up to the world cup.

[shyamshah]

(Original post by kirisatha96)
Semi-finals could have been better - Sri lanka vs New Zeleand - more of a one sided contest. Sri Lanka looked the dominant force. Australia should have been in the semi's given their good form leading up to the world cup.

But they came up against the best team in the world at that moment India so you cant blame them from losing.

[Straight up G]

(Original post by kirisatha96)
Semi-finals could have been better - Sri lanka vs New Zeleand - more of a one sided contest. Sri Lanka looked the dominant force. Australia should have been in the semi's given their good form leading up to the world cup.

Well no, Australia got completely dismantled by Pakistan and lost to India too.

The best three teams, the ones in effectively home conditions, got to the semis.

[♥ ♥ ♥]

Today's match was just an taster of all the problems with India's cricket right now.

Why was Rohit dropped for Sehwag?

Sehwag isn't even that good a captain for India. If they have to persist with Sachin (God knows why, BCCI probably just want that bloody 100th 100 over and done with ASAP), then why at the expense of a youngster?

Gauti should have captained, Rohit should have played, and Saha should have been keeping instead of PP.

India cannot move on from their oldies. Just keep them for Tests. We have plenty of home Test series coming up after the IPL, keep them fit for then. Sachin, and maybe even Sehwag, shouldn't be part of the ODI squad.

Really wish India would win a toss, and bat first

Our openers are a mess, our reasonably inexperienced (in Aus) middle order are then put under extreme pressure to keep their wicket as well as score freely (considering we've been chasing stiff targets in the last two ODIs).

Just sucks pretty much. Unless India get really lucky, I doubt they'll make the finals.

[Raiden10]

(Original post by shyamshah)
Dravid has saved India from so many losses and has got through tough times when other people would have failed. He definitely deserves to be called a legend.

I quite agree that Dravid is a legend.

[Sunshine showers]

The changes I would make to ODI's:


Get rid of the two new balls, because it takes reverse swing out of ODI's completely. The game is much more interesting when it's just one ball that reverses towards the end. The two new balls also causes more early batting collapses, which leads to one sided games.

Allow the powerplays to be taken at any time.

In the bowling powerplay, the fielding side should be allowed to have one extra fielder on field, so they have 12 men on the field. This gives the fielding side a genuine advantage during the bowling powerplay, whereas currently the fielding side are reluctant to take the bowling powerplay because it usually goes in favour of the batting side.

Be more lenient with wides down the legside.

Finally, all ODI series should be Tri-series. They are just more interesting.

[♥ ♥ ♥]

(Original post by Sunshine showers)
The changes I would make to ODI's:


Get rid of the two new balls, because it takes reverse swing out of ODI's completely. The game is much more interesting when it's just one ball that reverses towards the end. The two new balls also causes more early batting collapses, which leads to one sided games.

Allow the powerplays to be taken at any time.

In the bowling powerplay, the fielding side should be allowed to have one extra fielder on field, so they have 12 men on the field. This gives the fielding side a genuine advantage during the bowling powerplay, whereas currently the fielding side are reluctant to take the bowling powerplay because it usually goes in favour of the batting side.

Be more lenient with wides down the legside.

Finally, all ODI series should be Tri-series. They are just more interesting.

Agree with all, but the current CB series is just too long. Each team play each other twice, then the finals. Otherwise I think it's just too much unnecessarily done.

[Raiden10]

(Original post by Sunshine showers)
In the bowling powerplay, the fielding side should be allowed to have one extra fielder on field, so they have 12 men on the field. This gives the fielding side a genuine advantage during the bowling powerplay, whereas currently the fielding side are reluctant to take the bowling powerplay because it usually goes in favour of the batting side.

No, just no way.

[Raiden10]

(Original post by Sunshine showers)
Get rid of the two new balls, because it takes reverse swing out of ODI's completely. The game is much more interesting when it's just one ball that reverses towards the end. The two new balls also causes more early batting collapses, which leads to one sided games.

I agree about reverse swing, but I like how proper batters - openers - regain in stature and you have to pace the innings more. It's not as if conditions always contribute to reverse swing anyways. When they didn't in the old format bowlers often looked like mugs.

[Sunshine showers]

(Original post by Raiden10)
No, just no way.

Why not?

[Raiden10]

(Original post by Sunshine showers)
Why not?

12 fielders? Eww.

[Captain Crash]

(Original post by Straight up G)
ODIs are just fine, except this crap 2 new balls rule. And the powerplays are a bit weird.

I grew up watching ODIs, they were fine and didn't need tinkering with. The fantastic world cup, possibly the best there's ever been, last year, proved that.

One world cup doesn't make a spring, especially if the only reason it was the best ever was because of England's mercurial performances. Take out the England games and there were only a handful of exciting games. Take out the world cup and ODIs have been marching slowly towards insignificance during the last decade. Indeed there were many calls before the world cup for it to be scrapped.

One of the problems is that ODIs are far too biased towards batting rather than bowling. A lot of the suggestions in the blog are quite sensible and try and revert that balance, mostly through some subtle law changes. I'm wasn't exactly for the 2 new balls rule, but it provided a more balanced contest and doesn't neccesitate a random ball change at the 35th over.

[TheProdigy2k9]

(Original post by Captain Crash)
One world cup doesn't make a spring, especially if the only reason it was the best ever was because of England's mercurial performances. Take out the England games and there were only a handful of exciting games. Take out the world cup and ODIs have been marching slowly towards insignificance during the last decade. Indeed there were many calls before the world cup for it to be scrapped.

One of the problems is that ODIs are far too biased towards batting rather than bowling. A lot of the suggestions in the blog are quite sensible and try and revert that balance, mostly through some subtle law changes. I'm wasn't exactly for the 2 new balls rule, but it provided a more balanced contest and doesn't neccesitate a random ball change at the 35th over.

Bit contradictive no? I think the World Cup was pretty bad except for England v India and Ireland and India v Pak.

[Captain Crash]

(Original post by TheProdigy2k9)
Bit contradictive no? I think the World Cup was pretty bad except for England v India and Ireland and India v Pak.

Not really. England's group matches excepted (which were all close, regardless of opposition) the only exciting matches were Inda-Pak, SA-NZ and India-SL.

I don't personally think it was an amazing WC, but if it was the 'best ever' it was only because of the entertainment provided by England.

[Straight up G]

(Original post by Captain Crash)
One world cup doesn't make a spring, especially if the only reason it was the best ever was because of England's mercurial performances. Take out the England games and there were only a handful of exciting games. Take out the world cup and ODIs have been marching slowly towards insignificance during the last decade. Indeed there were many calls before the world cup for it to be scrapped.

One of the problems is that ODIs are far too biased towards batting rather than bowling. A lot of the suggestions in the blog are quite sensible and try and revert that balance, mostly through some subtle law changes. I'm wasn't exactly for the 2 new balls rule, but it provided a more balanced contest and doesn't neccesitate a random ball change at the 35th over.

Well equally, you could say something along the lines of 'the 2003 World Cup was a world cup with no good teams if you take out Australia'. I really don't think they have been going to insignificance. Where is Graeme Swann telling us that we don't need ODIs anymore? It's basically because England have generally been **** at them.

I really don't think it's required. While I don't want to see 434 chased every game, there are few better feelings than seeing your team win a big chase. Chasing down 300 always feels better than chasing 200. Part of the reason why there were high scores in the latter part of the decade is because bowlers have generally gotten ****ter... but if you look now, SA, Pakistan, England and Australia can all say they have excellent bowling attacks.

[TheProdigy2k9]

(Original post by Captain Crash)
Not really. England's group matches excepted (which were all close, regardless of opposition) the only exciting matches were Inda-Pak, SA-NZ and India-SL.

I don't personally think it was an amazing WC, but if it was the 'best ever' it was only because of the entertainment provided by England.

Of course it is. First, you said it was only because of England, then you say there were only a handful of exciting games so which is it?