Why 2 innings of 25 over each makes sense

[jf1gp_1]

Lets look at todays game; as soon as australia lost ponting in the 11th over the game was more or less over. A 100 over game over by 61st over; the only reason why Indians stuck around was because you dont beat aus this big every day. Had it been the other way around most would have stopped following the game around that point. Now lets take the score as is and split them into 25 over innings this is how it would have looked India (1st inning) - ~160/3 Aus (1st inning) - ~120/4 At this point yes aussies are behind but if they bowled well there was hope of pulling things back Then India explode and ppl got there moneys worth till 75th over India (2st inning) - 354/7 Australia in their second innings would need over 230+ to win with 6 wickets in hand; game more or less over but with 10 overs of power play (spliting powerplay across 2 innings) all it took was a freak innings from Shaun marsh. In the end it would still be a one sided game but atleast it was alive till the 83rd- 85th over. Instead of 40 over of dragging on we just had 15 which i think isnt such a bad thing for the game.

[vicks]

Lets look at todays game; as soon as australia lost ponting in the 11th over the game was more or less over. A 100 over game over by 61st over; the only reason why Indians stuck around was because you dont beat aus this big every day. Had it been the other way around most would have stopped following the game around that point. Now lets take the score as is and split them into 25 over innings this is how it would have looked India (1st inning) - ~160/3 Aus (1st inning) - ~120/4 At this point yes aussies are behind but if they bowled well there was hope of pulling things back Then India explode and ppl got there moneys worth till 75th over India (2st inning) - 354/7 Australia in their second innings would need over 230+ to win with 6 wickets in hand; game more or less over but with 10 overs of power play (spliting powerplay across 2 innings) all it took was a freak innings from Shaun marsh. In the end it would still be a one sided game but atleast it was alive till the 83rd- 85th over. Instead of 40 over of dragging on we just had 15 which i think isnt such a bad thing for the game.

One can argue that we already have a form of the game (Test cricket) that addresses this particular issue - which is really about giving a side a chance to come back. One-day cricket over the years has worked pretty well just the way it is. And just to extend your argument, why not have 3 innings per side? Or 4? Or have two innings of 10 overs each in a 20-20 game? I am not against the idea, just playing devil's advocate. The main reason you would want to have two 25-over innings in ODIs is to balance out the impact of conditions (early morning moisture, late evening dew etc.).

[bunny]

Lets look at todays game; as soon as australia lost ponting in the 11th over the game was more or less over. A 100 over game over by 61st over; the only reason why Indians stuck around was because you dont beat aus this big every day. Had it been the other way around most would have stopped following the game around that point. Now lets take the score as is and split them into 25 over innings this is how it would have looked India (1st inning) - ~160/3 Aus (1st inning) - ~120/4 At this point yes aussies are behind but if they bowled well there was hope of pulling things back Then India explode and ppl got there moneys worth till 75th over India (2st inning) - 354/7 Australia in their second innings would need over 230+ to win with 6 wickets in hand; game more or less over but with 10 overs of power play (spliting powerplay across 2 innings) all it took was a freak innings from Shaun marsh. In the end it would still be a one sided game but atleast it was alive till the 83rd- 85th over. Instead of 40 over of dragging on we just had 15 which i think isnt such a bad thing for the game.

+1. Good thought. It'd give sides batting/bowling first enough context in the 2nd half.

[ViruRulez]

2 innings of 20 overs would not bring out the actual talent of the batsmen as it would again be an extension of t20 or t25 and it would be a lottery cricket again. ODIs are great in the form they are. And the crowds still love ODIs which was evident in the last two games.

[Params7]

Would we see anything like Dhoni's innings today in that double 25 innings mode? Wasn't posting the biggest total any team ever has against Australia after being 97-3 in 15 overs with Yuvi, Sachin, Sehwag gone a super comeback in itself? Or how about Bhajji and PK's innings in the 1st ODI? I grew up watching 50 Over ODI's and its all I care about really. Even T20's are getting old now, even if every 2nd game is a close one, it doesn't feel special anymore because it happens so often. Close matches in ODI's will always be more intense because its a harder fought battle.

[SachDan]

Lets look at todays game; as soon as australia lost ponting in the 11th over the game was more or less over. A 100 over game over by 61st over; the only reason why Indians stuck around was because you dont beat aus this big every day. Had it been the other way around most would have stopped following the game around that point. Now lets take the score as is and split them into 25 over innings this is how it would have looked India (1st inning) - ~160/3 Aus (1st inning) - ~120/4 At this point yes aussies are behind but if they bowled well there was hope of pulling things back Then India explode and ppl got there moneys worth till 75th over India (2st inning) - 354/7 Australia in their second innings would need over 230+ to win with 6 wickets in hand; game more or less over but with 10 overs of power play (spliting powerplay across 2 innings) all it took was a freak innings from Shaun marsh. In the end it would still be a one sided game but atleast it was alive till the 83rd- 85th over. Instead of 40 over of dragging on we just had 15 which i think isnt such a bad thing for the game.

Excellent thoughts.

[flamy]

Excellent OP. :hatsoff: And, I kinda also agree with Viru about the temperament of batters being put to different tests.

[urbestfriend]

I would like to see this as an additional format. It can't replace current ODI format. ODI is not a bang bang cricket , a cricketer with proper cricketing shots can excel in ODI , but 25-25-25-25 will just become an extension to 20-20 where hard hitters have more chance of succeeding. But anyway I am interested to see One day test internationals as it would be more exciting than ODI.

[cowboysfan]

the kotla game will illustrate why this is a good idea.

[champ]

we will not see big scores from batsmen in ODI at all .. do u prefer that ?

[kabira]

good idea. if it was 25 an over, the team batting seond, their first target would have been 147, and I suppose their game plan would have been to get as close as possible. Then the game becomes 25 an over really, so its same thing as 20-20 but only difference is you don't have all 10 wickets in hand.

[SachDan]

good idea. if it was 25 an over, the team batting seond, their first target would have been 147, and I suppose their game plan would have been to get as close as possible. Then the game becomes 25 an over really, so its same thing as 20-20 but only difference is you don't have all 10 wickets in hand.

Only disadvantage is the break in momentum for both batsmen and bowlers. For eg. If a batsman was batting on 70 or 80 at the end of first set of 25 overs, he needs to start from the scratch in the 2nd set after such a LONG break.

[kabira]

^yes thats right. it becomes tactical game.and another thing is that all bowlers can only bowl 5 overs each so that makes lot of difference.