ICC looking at four 25-over innings in ODIs

[Guest gaurav_indian]

ICC looking at four 25-over innings in ODIs

The ICC is considering a trial splitting of one-day matches into two innings of 25 overs for each team, Dave Richardson, the ICC's cricket manager, has said. The idea was mooted by Sachin Tendulkar last week. "I quite like that idea, I believe South Africa may trial something along those lines," Richardson told BBC Sport. "This might work in day-night cricket where one team has to bat in day and the other at night. It provides something different and reduces the effects on the team who loses the toss and has to bat first on a damp wicket, for example." Richardson believed the concept, discussed during the ICC's cricket committee annual meeting at Lord's in May, could breathe life into the 50-over format, which has been increasingly threatened by the rise in popularity of Twenty20 cricket. Though two innings of 25 overs could lead to new strategies and even reduce the influence of winning the toss in favourable conditions, Richardson was eager to prevent results becoming predictable. His concern was that splitting the innings could take away scoring opportunities for the batsmen. "I don't necessarily like the idea of playing two matches of 25 overs each with the openers batting again," he said. "The charm of one-day cricket is seeing someone batting at four and scoring a good hundred. If you bat in the middle order of a Twenty20 or a new 25-over innings, you're not to get much of an opportunity to hit three figures, one downside of the Twenty20 game." The clamour for a fresh approach to the one-day game has grown considerably with players including Tendulkar 50-over games be played over two innings to provide similar overhead conditions for both teams. Tendulkar said the contests were becoming too predictable because results of "close to 75% of matches" could be predicted after the toss. The England and Wales Cricket Board recently agreed to scrap the domestic Friends Provident Trophy, the only 50-over domestic cricket tournament, in favour of an expanded Twenty20 competition along with a 40-over format. Cricket South Africa are also likely to join the bandwagon as it considers changes to its 45-over competition. However, Richardson said the experiment would have to be successful at the domestic level before changes could be made to the international game. "The bottomline is if we can come up with a product that is better than the existing one, then everyone would like to look at it," he said. "If it has been trialled successfully at domestic level, it may give the trial to give it the go-ahead at international level. "The ICC has been proactive with ideas and innovations, like the powerplays. The idea of the 'super-sub' (scrapped in March 2006) wasn't as successful and got rid of quite quickly. One of the criticisms was that we trialled things at international as opposed to domestic level. Our tactics going forward are member countries trial changes first domestically and if they are successful, then we can take them on board at the international level." The ICC's cricket committee is set to meet again in 2010 when the results of the experiment will be discussed.

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/424523.html

[Mamu]

When Tendulkar brought this idea up, I was like -- Hell No. Mainly because I thot there were going to be two seperate 25 over innings, which is not the case, but the 2nd part is just going to be a continuation of the 1st. But after giving careful consideration -- even I am in favor of this. Let us try.

[jf1gp_1]

wonder if someone else remembers this but few yrs ago i remember watching limited over game with this multiple innings concept, 15/20 overs an inning and 4 innings.

[DomainK]

Well, Sachin's idea had to be taken seriously. Lets see how the experiment turns out.

[zubinpepsi]

when god speaks.. everyone listens.. the power of the almighty... all hail the GOD..

[cowboysfan]

if its ever implemented then it will definitely impact day-night matches(in a postive way) and we will see less number of rained out games as we can have result in only 50 overs.my only hope is that they keep it a 50 over game(each team will bat just once in 50 overs).

[goose]

I have a major problem tinkering with an established format that has brought so much joy to all, in order to accommodate a fad brought on by a new format who's whole raison d'etre is money and power. I say keep all three formats as they are. Wipe out all these bilateral and triangular tournaments in the short forms of the game. The only time 20/20 and 50/50 should be played is in the context of a World Cup. That means we need more World Cups. Play a 50/50 WC once every two years and also play 20/20 WC once every two years. Stagger these by one year so we have a marquee limited over WC that actually means something once per year. The rest of the cricket calendar will be filled with test matches and domestic 50/50 and 20/20 leagues as per wishes of each cricket board.

[vvvslaxman]

I have a major problem tinkering with an established format that has brought so much joy to all, in order to accommodate a fad brought on by a new format who's whole raison d'etre is money and power. I say keep all three formats as they are. Wipe out all these bilateral and triangular tournaments in the short forms of the game. The only time 20/20 and 50/50 should be played is in the context of a World Cup. That means we need more World Cups. Play a 50/50 WC once every two years and also play 20/20 WC once every two years. Stagger these by one year so we have a marquee limited over WC that actually means something once per year. The rest of the cricket calendar will be filled with test matches and domestic 50/50 and 20/20 leagues as per wishes of each cricket board.

Agreed. Too much of messing up is going on. With a game like cricket there are infinite possibilities of tweaking. We should not keep on tweaking and make all the records that were achieved over the years redundant.

[The Outsider]

Agreed. Too much of messing up is going on. With a game like cricket there are infinite possibilities of tweaking. We should not keep on tweaking and make all the records that were achieved over the years redundant.

Should we go back to underarm bowling?

[Celeste]

when god speaks.. everyone listens.. the power of the almighty... all hail the GOD..

It wasn't Tendulkar's idea! He just agreed with someone elses idea, and it will be a failure if implemented.

[Bradman99]

I disagree that there should be more world cups, world cups are meant to be special. If you have too many of them, they will start to lose that feeling and will become less significant. As for this idea, it is certainly one of the better alternatives to a 50/50 over match that I have heard but I would like to see it stay the same.

[Lord]

great n noiw i hope sense prevails n there is only one LOI format scrap the t20. n i think there should be two 25 over innings ,not a continuation.it'll have the excitement of T20 n doubling it would ensure the luck factor is reduced. n i agree with Bradman99-World cups should be held every 4 years

[coffee_rules]

So, will we have draws in ODIs now? What if only 3 innings is completed?

[cowboysfan]

as usual people are completely misconstruing the whole idea just for the sake of criticism.

[riya]

Hahaha more like 20/20 test.

[Aadhavzone]

nice call! wouldf be inetersting ultimately it would fetch new champions , stats, strategies and leaders

[cowboysfan]

nice call! wouldf be inetersting ultimately it would fetch new champions ' date=' [b']stats, strategies and leaders

nope.why would the stats change?it will still be a 50 over game.

[yoda]

seems like a good idea to spice things up in a format which has clearly gotten boring since the arrival of the T-20s. It is either dump ODIs or do something to make it more interesting.

[Lord]

chappel agrees

The 50-over game is currently under more fire than a coal grate. This form of cricket badly needs an exciting and competitive Champions Trophy tournament. In its short existence the Champions Trophy has been chameleon-like in its ability to change appearance. It's gone from a knockout affair to a non-event and has now settled ideally as a prestige tournament. It would be even more prestigious if qualification was expanded to a points system that connected it and other limited-overs tournaments. This would ensure the majority of 50-over games are meaningful - quality rather than quantity should be part of any solution to the game's perceived problems. Limited-overs cricket has a couple of inbuilt flaws. A match can be won without dismissing the opposition, which can encourage teams to over-emphasise containment. The rationale for the game is predicated on a close finish, so anything less becomes an anti-climax. Consequently 50-over cricket is often perceived as boring because the close finish is a rarity and much of the batting involves a predictable formula. Gimmicks have been tried to spruce up the game; the now redundant super-sub and a variety of Powerplays. This has only served to entrench "formulated" batting, so there's a tendency to concentrate on scoring heavily in the Powerplay overs and utilise the rest of the time to conserve wickets while accumulating risk-free runs. Abolishing the not-out might encourage batsmen to play with more freedom. Heaven knows why administrators haven't trialled matches that are divided into four 25-over segments. It's an idea that was floated early in the life of the day-night fixture and would virtually eradicate any inequities, in that both sides have to bat under lights and cope with evening dew on the outfield. In addition to eradicating inequities this innovation would provide scope for imaginative tactics, which along with less regulation should be a feature of revitalising the 50-over game. The improvements should include preparing pitches that encourage an even contest. If the limited-overs game constantly features teams chasing huge targets then there's very little likelihood of a close finish. The boundaries should be as large as possible, which places an emphasis on daring running between wickets and athletic fielding, two features that originally attracted fans to the limited-overs game. Short boundaries tend to emphasise defending the ropes, and make some fielding attributes redundant, whereas larger extremities make containment difficult because of the big gaps between the outfielders. There should only be one stipulation about field placings: four men should compulsorily be inside the circle in the final five overs. If captains aren't told where their fieldsmen have to go then they've got to think where to put them, and the regulation is only there to stop teams having nine men on the boundary in a tight finish. The other restriction on the fielding side should simply say that five bowlers have to deliver a minimum of five overs each. Apart from that the captain can utilise his bowlers how he sees fit. The more overs available to the better bowlers, the more likely a captain will attack rather than defend with stop-gap trundlers. Bowl well and you'll be rewarded with more overs. A good contest between bat and ball is the crucial factor, closely followed by a tense finish; all else is forgotten if the final moments are riveting. If every run is scrapped for and earned by skillful, aggressive batting and daring running between wickets in defiance of brilliant fielding, no one can complain about the game providing value for money. It may be argued that only "traditional" cricket fans will enjoy this style of contest. Well, if limited-overs cricket can only expand its audience by providing a hailstorm of sixes and fours, then the game is destined for a short life span. In the end the future of the 50-over game will be decided by the fans. The Champions Trophy has the potential to make a positive impact on fans, with great rivals Australia, India and Pakistan grouped together. A final four of India and Australia, South Africa and Sri Lanka could provide a couple of mouth-watering death-or-glory contests that remind fans how good the 50-over game can be. Nevertheless, no matter how successful the Champions Trophy tournament, it shouldn't delude officials into thinking the game doesn't require some fine-tuning to improve the spectacle.