One-Dayers

[goose]

In the light of Warne's recommendation to scrap one-dayes i think a poll is in order. A) One-day internationals have become redundant. Test cricket and Twenty20 cover all bases. The middle overs in a one-day game are boring and unnecessary. Abolish the fifty over format and ensure the previous debacle in the Caribbean remains the last one-day world cup ever played. The likes of Holland and Ireland can actually impact a Twenty20 world cup. In the fifty over format they are there to just make up the numbers. Fifty over cricket will not take the game to other countries. One-day internationals capture the best of both worlds. They mix the need to hit out with the need to pace an innings and hence provide a sterner test of a cricketer. You have a good balance of viewing entertainment on the one hand with the need to allow enough overs for the better side emerge on top. Winning a fifty over world cup actually means something to both the players and the supporters. Abandon this format and we take something away from all the one-day records to date. I don't care about taking the game to China or the US.

[goose]

**** it says poll twice in the title - how naff. someone delete the thread.

[Sooda]

Id go with B for shizzle. A much truer test of a cricketers ability than 20/20.

[Sachinism]

I think they should keep 50 overs just because it allows teams a chance to come back into the game, it takes away some of the luck factor too. The overall goal of ICC is to take cricket to all other coutries and make it a globally recognized sport by taking a more exciting format which they could easily enjoy and it doesn't take all day to get a result, but they are not taking 'cricket' to them.

[DomainK]

Too early to say anything. ODIs certainly don't look like having a bright future, but still, they remain Cricket's identity. Remember, when you say Cricket world champions, it means ODI champions. It's way too early to do away with them all together. These are early days for T20. The game will evolve a lot more in times to come. Two years ago not even all the teams played this format. Two years ago India had not played a single match in T20 format. We are just learning the new format, experimenting with it, finding out if we like it or not, making changes to it. Once the format has evolved enough, we may start thinking about replacing ODIs permanently. ODIs may be scrapped when: 1. A replacement is ready. T20 is certainly not yet ready. Let the format evolve and see where it ends up. 2. When we are sure that T20 is the best way of finding out the periodical champions. Are you sure that the hit and miss format is the right way to find out who is the best and give them the crown for 4 years? I think not. 3. ODIs have lost their commercial and sporting appeal to a large extent. If ODIs continue to remain popular, there is no reason to scrap them. Like I said, as T20 evolves, may be a certain group of fans will find that it's getting boring with the hit and miss crap. May be T20 is a fad and that ODIs will retain its popularity.

[Sachinism]

I think the biggest problem people have with ODIs is the duration of them. Cricket is a sport where time has to be taken, you can't compare it to other sports and say, I watch football over cricket because we have a result in 90 minutes. You can't attempt to get results from cricket matches in short times because it removes the skill factor and leaves it down to luck. Obviously there is still some skill required but not as much. I agree with Domaink, we aren't ready to totally scrap ODIs, T20 can't be used to decide who are the world champions. Hopefully ICC could put more money towards ODIs and then maybe players will be happy playing them and not think why should I go out there for a whole day when I can earn more in a T20 game

[cowboysfan]

i would go with c) keep the prominence of ODIs but reduce the number of games played in the season.for instance playing 7 odis at home against England and australia is beyond ridiculous.

[zubinpepsi]

I think I wud go with C aswell as cowboyfan...

[Sachinism]

^^ I agree, whenever India call Aus over for ODIs they also play 7, we were planning to play 7 against England too, its soo damn pointless, its a shame all boards have become greedy. If they're so keen to have a long tour, reduce the ODIs and add an extra test match in there.

[DomainK]

I think what makes T20 more hit and miss is that good bowling hardly makes a difference. A batting team can afford to lose a wicket every two overs and it does not make a difference. The bowlers have to take 3 wickets in a row to make a difference. 10 wickets in 20 over gives the batting team too much freedom to flirt with luck and they get away with too many slogs. I think a batting innings should be limited to seven wickets. You lose seven wickets, your innings is over. That will keep things a little more inperspective. That will make the wickets a little more valuable. That will prompt the batsmen to save a wicket while scoring runs.

[goose]

i would go with c) keep the prominence of ODIs but reduce the number of games played in the season.for instance playing 7 odis at home against England and australia is beyond ridiculous.

that puts you firmly in the B camp. this isn't a debate about quantity. it's one of format.

[cowboysfan]

I think what makes T20 more hit and miss is that good bowling hardly makes a difference. A batting team can afford to lose a wicket every two overs and it does not make a difference. The bowlers have to take 3 wickets in a row to make a difference. 10 wickets in 20 over gives the batting team too much freedom to flirt with luck and they get away with too many slogs. I think a batting innings should be limited to seven wickets. You lose seven wickets, your innings is over. That will keep things a little more inperspective. That will make the wickets a little more valuable. That will prompt the batsmen to save a wicket while scoring runs.

i completely disagree.you lose early wickets in t20 and you are in big trouble.just ask BRC what happens when you lose wickets early in the IPL2 final.this is a false assumption regarding t20 which i would have thought would be debunked by now.you lose 3 or 4 wickets early in t20 and you are pretty much out of it-just like ODIs.

[undisputed]

This is a close call, i do like odi's but T20 are getting really popular example the last T20 against sri lanka v pakistan was very exciting you saw quick runs and quick wickets, and it really put you on the edge of your seats. if odi's get abolished then you will see big contrasts in line up's for the team's test line up and T20 because of the major difference in the formats.

[gaurav92]

i d go with B here Clearly we all luv T20 but not at the expense of the ODI format,never.ODI will be evergreen format and T20 cant take its charm.ODI is a better format in terms of deciding the calibre and quality of a player to play according to the situation and also to pace his innings well,unlike T20 where he needs to go bang bang from ball 1 and keep hitting the swashbuckling form.It basically is Hit Out or Get Out format which is not the stage to decide the quality of a cricketer Yes there is test match to decide the technique of a player but sometimes you may be an excellent ODI player but you may not do well in Tests but that doesnt mean that you are not a good player. Take Yuvraj for instance,he is the murderer in ODIs and in T20 but hes not quite there in tests may bcoz he has to manuover his naturakl game But to sum up,I think ODI is the best format in terms of judging a player not T20

[Guest Gunner]

Do away with ODIs, they are redundant. Tests and T20s are the future.

[nospam]

No. Abolish it after we win the world cup.

[yoda]

ODIs are really hopeless. Don't have the class of the tests (not the boring drawn out ones on patta wickets), doesn't have the urgency or excitement of T-20s. Shut it down ASAP! Then again, I like the WC. :nervous:

[kabira]

scrap ODIs make T20 2 innings affair, to reduce luck factor and make it more tactical. Basically Team 1 bats first, scores x runs with 5 wickts down so in their 2 innings they start with 5 wkts down with same batsman starting hte innings. Also if Team 1 bats first, Team 2 should bat first in the 2nd innings.

[Lord]

i d go with B here Clearly we all luv T20 but not at the expense of the ODI format,never.ODI will be evergreen format and T20 cant take its charm.ODI is a better format in terms of deciding the calibre and quality of a player to play according to the situation and also to pace his innings well,unlike T20 where he needs to go bang bang from ball 1 and keep hitting the swashbuckling form.It basically is Hit Out or Get Out format which is not the stage to decide the quality of a cricketer Yes there is test match to decide the technique of a player but sometimes you may be an excellent ODI player but you may not do well in Tests but that doesnt mean that you are not a good player. Take Yuvraj for instance,he is the murderer in ODIs and in T20 but hes not quite there in tests may bcoz he has to manuover his naturakl game But to sum up,I think ODI is the best format in terms of judging a player not T20

tests r there to judge a player.n Yuvraj is murderer in T20 too.but unless he proves himself in tests,he wont be named among the best players to have played the game