Tendulkar for two innings each in ODIs

[Zap_Brannigan]

25 overs of 2 innings would be similar to 2020 cricket of 2 innings. Rather leave 50 over game alone or make it a 40 over game. As Gambhir said, "50-50 can still be carried on alongside 2020 and tests."

Not if you just break the innings in 2 and not have 10 wickets per innings.Its basically dividing the 50 over innings into 2, still with only 10 wickets into 2 so that the unfair advantage that sometimes teams batting 1st or 2nd have, like dew factor or swing under lights.

[nballa]

horrible suggestion. it messes up the stats of every player. the old stats will not be relevant anymore. not to mention being boring as hell watching the same players get multiple opportunities to bat. you can big goodbye to breaking anwar's record as its impossible to score 200 in 25 overs. 5 wicket hauls will be tough as well.

[Chandan]

tendulkar's formula seems bizarre

It is not that bizarre if you think that two innings will have just 10 wickets. That is to say that batsmen who got out in 1st 25 overs can't bat again in next inning. This way, batsmen won't keep throwing at each and every ball like they do in T20. And they'll have to plan well since you don't know what they'll be required to do in next 25 overs. It'll make ODIs less precitable and more interesting.

[meloveindia]

sachin can have his own opinion, but i like the 50 overs format - it has stood the test of times we are having this debate due to T20, the only think i foresee is to reduce to 40 hours - thats it, but no 2 innings

[Anakin]

Actually test cricket has so far stood the test of time, and ODIs are just facing that now with the introduction of T20s. It is an interesting idea, and he's right that it does neutralize the impact of toss to a big extent.

[Zap_Brannigan]

sachin can have his own opinion, but i like the 50 overs format - it has stood the test of times we are having this debate due to T20, the only think i foresee is to reduce to 40 hours - thats it, but no 2 innings

You mean all of 1 year?The power play was just changed a a year or so back. Infact, tests have stood the test of time not ODIs. Almost every WC we have played had some rule change or the other.

[meloveindia]

ultimately the market will determine what staying and what not staying but yes the 15 to 40 over period of a 50 over game has become SO predictable and boring .... it needs some excitement fused in .... changing to 40 overs should be ideal one to start.. changing to Sachin formula will make T20 a boring scenario and an inferior product, who wants to watch T20 if u get double excitement in 2 innings of T20 in 50 Test matches is THE ultimate thing, and it should NEVER be changed (floodlights, white balls or whatever)

[vvvslaxman]

15 to 40 over is the Test match part. When you like Test matches why do you hate 15 to 40 overs mark. And another thing.. it is not like every team scores their runs in the first 15 overs and slow down dramatically at the point of 15 over mark. India made 67 runs in 5 overs against NZ between 22nd and 27th over if i am right. And also what makes you think scoring faster means "not boring". You need an even contest with bat and ball.

[cowboysfan]

you have got to admit that the toss is a huge factor though,especially in some venues where chasing is really difficult.

[vvvslaxman]

Cricket has multiple gears unlike other games. That is what make the game fascinating. If we are hell bent on making this a single paced game Cricket will essentially lose its luster.

[DomainK]

I like ODIs the way they are, but I guess they have to change if they want to remain popular. We are bound to see some significant changes in ODIs. The good news is that if ODIs take all the demands for change in the new times, tests might remain pure.

[Riley's Girl]

Cricket has multiple gears unlike other games. That is what make the game fascinating. If we are hell bent on making this a single paced game Cricket will essentially lose its luster.

Agreed. The different moods created by the various forms of the game is just one of the things that keeps me interested. Why mess with what is, essentially, a good thing?

[Anakin]

15 to 40 over is the Test match part. When you like Test matches why do you hate 15 to 40 overs mark. And another thing.. it is not like every team scores their runs in the first 15 overs and slow down dramatically at the point of 15 over mark. India made 67 runs in 5 overs against NZ between 22nd and 27th over if i am right. And also what makes you think scoring faster means "not boring". You need an even contest with bat and ball.

And who wants that anyway? I don't see how having a break in between will make that period a runfest.

[Riley's Girl]

More breaks during the game = more commercial breaks = more money for the already rich.

[vvvslaxman]

Yea. Too much of tweaking will distort lot of things. There are certain things that they should not touch. They have touched too many things oflate. It all started with supersub. Then they got rid of it. Then 20 overs power play. 2nd and 3rd can be used by fielding any time. Then they split that. Then they had this free hit rule. Why don't you have a 50 overs power play so that batsmen can dominate bowlers and the match will be "exciting". Let me tell you this. Some of the most memorable one dayers were played when there were 15 over power play. Who can forget Tendulkar's last over to Donald or world cup semi final. They were low scoring affairs. Weren't they interesting?

[Anakin]

More breaks during the game = more commercial breaks = more money for the already rich.

Not that kind of break :haha::haha::haha:

[Chandan]

More breaks during the game = more commercial breaks = more money for the already rich.

How will it have more breaks? Right now we have 30 minutes break between 2 innings of ODIs. If we'll have 4 innings, it'll be like this: 1st inning:25 overs-- 10 min-- 2nd innigs:25 overs-- 10 mins-- 3rs innings:25 overs-- 10 mins-- 4th innings:25 overs Break is essentially of 30 mins only!

[Lord]

ultimately the market will determine what staying and what not staying but yes the 15 to 40 over period of a 50 over game has become SO predictable and boring .... it needs some excitement fused in .... changing to 40 overs should be ideal one to start.. changing to Sachin formula will make T20 a boring scenario and an inferior product, who wants to watch T20 if u get double excitement in 2 innings of T20 in 50 Test matches is THE ultimate thing, and it should NEVER be changed (floodlights, white balls or whatever)

actually that is SRT's idea.have just one LOI format.no need for t20 n ODIs.it covers both the aspects of ODIs n T20s

[Lord]

15 to 40 over is the Test match part. When you like Test matches why do you hate 15 to 40 overs mark. And another thing.. it is not like every team scores their runs in the first 15 overs and slow down dramatically at the point of 15 over mark. India made 67 runs in 5 overs against NZ between 22nd and 27th over if i am right. And also what makes you think scoring faster means "not boring". You need an even contest with bat and ball.

that is a stupid comparison.in test the batsman has to preserve his wicket.there r fielders close to the wicket.n wicket is doing enuf to encourage bowlers.no such thing in ODIs.they have limited overs,flat wickets n mot more than 2 catching fielders .so thers no reason for them to go slow

[Feed]

Secret ingredient needed to spice up 50-over game Among the hot topics of the summer is the future of 50-over cricket. In some quarters indeed, wherein reside the deepest thinkers of how the game should evolve, it is the hottest topic. More... Secret ingredient needed to spice up 50-over game By Stephen Brenkley Monday, 7 September 2009 Among the hot topics of the summer is the future of 50-over cricket. In some quarters indeed, wherein reside the deepest thinkers of how the game should evolve, it is the hottest topic. The trouble with the 50-over format is that it has become predictable. No less a figure than Sachin Tendulkar said the other day that the outcome of 75 per cent of matches is known at the toss. Tendulkar has played in 425 of them – only Sanath Jayasuriya has appeared in more – and scored 16,684 runs, 3,682 more than anybody else, so he might have a teensy-weensy idea of what is going on out there. Tendulkar's preferred amendment is that the total of 100 overs allocated should be divided into four so that team A has 25 overs, team B has 25, team A finishes off and is followed by team B. He rightly thinks this would go some way to negating the advantage of the toss in day-night matches, which are now the majority. But it would add a further complication to a game that is supposed to be straightforward. It would not be a two innings match but a one innings match divided by two. Batsmen would not know whether they were coming or going, there would be an unnatural flow to the game, like forcing a river to alter course. But it is not merely toss and effect, of course. It is the manner in which the players approach the game. Between roughly the 20th over and the 40th in most innings of one-day internationals the game is put in a kind of suspended animation in which the bowlers bowl and the batsmen bat, but only way, as if by unspoken agreement. Defensive fields are set, runs are nurdled and squeezed rather than struck, it is risk-free on both sides. Anything beyond is a bonus. Things start to happen again in the 40th over. It was like that at Lord's again yesterday. Australia, having reach 75 for three off 20 overs, were 169 for six from 40 and then added 80 in the final 10. Perfectly innocent Sunday afternoon slumbers were disturbed all round the ground. It is formulaic cricket, which the introduction of power plays has not fully addressed, and its torpid effect has been aggravated by the advent of Twenty20 which is not perpetually exciting but is short. And at least in 20-over cricket, somebody is always trying something. Of course, it is probably worth saying that to those who do not watch much 50-over cricket, this is not especially noticeable yet but it is only a matter of time and then it will be too late. Nothing official has been said or done but talks are already being conducted in the corridors of cricketing power. The England and Wales Cricket Board has nailed its colours to the mast so firmly that it would need the services of at least a jemmy and possibly some mild explosive to loosen them. From next summer there will be no 50-over competition as part of the domestic structure. Whatever the ECB declares about the insignificance of this decision, it should not be swallowed. Twenty-over cricket and 40-over cricket, which the counties will play instead cannot be a proper preparation for 50-over international cricket. Either the ECB knows something or it is flexing its muscles to seek a change after the 2011 World Cup. The television companies, who do not run cricket but do make it commercially viable, may have something to say yet on two grounds: first 50-over cricket may still appeal to large audiences and second it can include a heck of a lot more advertising than T20. Ultimately, however, one-day cricket is meant to excite, entertain and be unpredictable and if it is not doing that now, it will move from withering to perishing