40 over cricket. This is the a topic that hasn't just been brought to attention over night. In fact it is a debate that has exploded as a result of the continual concerns Officials have expressed with regards to the looming demise of limited overs cricket, generally known as One Day International cricket, consisting of 50 overs a side.
As a cricket tradtionalist I am fond of One Day cricket as it's the form of the game I was first exposed to growing up. I believe it still sets a massive challenge for the modern day cricketer and that these games still have alot to offer the viewing public. But, there is no doubt that the format is losing popularity. What follows is an analysis of the 40 over vs 50 over debate.
40 over cricket could work very well. Simply strip off 10 overs per innings to make the 100 over game 80 overs in total. This would easily reduce well over an hour's worth of cricket while also ensuring a cricket battle that still has the essence of 50 over cricket, but by being reduced it will just add to the intensity and urgency within the match.
If anything it is a time saver with games probably producing a more difficult outlook for the result, having fewer overs may even level the playing field to keep interest-levels peaked.
The format has been tested and implemented in both the South African and English domestic circuits with successful results. Both these domestic circuits are competitive so having seen positive results emerge is great for the elite level of the game. If games also start at the usual time with shorter lunch/supper intervals, teams batting second may be at less of an advantage come night cricket where dew factors may not be as big an influence. At grounds where dew is an issue, come the Toss in an ODI, the team batting second will often feel discouraged immediately with the knowledge that if their opponents get away with the bat, their chances are minimised.
There are benefits with the 20 over total reduction for time, interest levels and the players energy levels.
I'd be happy to see 40 over cricket introduced as it still has the framework of the One Day game as we currently know it.
Traditional ODI cricketers will still be able to perform as they have done in the Domestic circuits following through the elite level and the Twenty20 specialist can have a blast as well, very much how we see it in 50 over cricket!
The latest innovative idea has been the concept of two innings each, consisting of 20 or 25 overs per side doubled up. So it's the batting structure of Test cricket, only tailored for the limited overs game. Even more analytically, it is two Twenty20 matches in one game.
Sure, it's an interesting enough concept Cricket Australia has come up with, but I do see potential damage with such a format.
Firstly, this wouldn't work at 25 overs per side. The time from switching after each innings, teams still needing decent time out after a total of 50 overs will be needed for their energy levels and the game will still be lengthy.
Secondly, it seems it will still be tailored to the Twenty20 specialists, where elements of the shortest form of the game become predominant in the tactical approach. I think many existing ODI cricketers would find this difficult, assuming teams would start again from scratch come their second innings.
Statistically it won't offer a cricketer the satisfaction they strive for from a performance perspective in reaching that classy century with a blend of aggression and patience or a bowler having sufficient time to work the batsman over.
A bowler has some advantage in the ODI format, where come Twenty20 it's the batsman's zones, generally speaking.
Thirdly, I think the momentum can be lost for both the viewer and the players. It will be testing on a players fitness and I think this is an innovation that would need to be seriously considered from these perspectives. It could even have drastic affects on the current playing field of ODI contenders as we know it.
The positives are there though. The disadvatages regarding conditions get evened out with the dual innings approach. It would give the supporter a chance to see their best players performing twice in a match with their respective strength and it would make for interesting debate during the matches from a tactical perspective as well as seeing how teams strategise. I think it would be safe to consider the realistic fact that we would not be seeing a revamp of ODI cricket but instead a whole new format!
With a new format it concerns me that we would maybe see the demise of ODI cricket for certain as this innovation would destroy every record, every achievement and every memorable game we have seen in ODI cricket. They were brought about within the framwork of ODI cricket. This innovation wouldn't be comparable, it would be unique.
Ultimately all the ODI history would be erased and any achievements that would follow on would be of a different nature and cricketing approach presented by the players.
That is a huge risk and threat to a form of the game the cricket traditionalists are passionate about.
And even if the idea of a dual innings was adopted, it would be in the best interests of everyone to make sure it was only implemented after the 2011 World Cup as this is still the test of 50 over Cricket.
What would happen to World Cup cricket? With 40 over cricket it would still be able to exist but with the innovation once again with Cricket Australia's suggestion, all the history will be tossed away and trampled on.
Killing the legacy and brilliance of a game driven by tradition and intriguing results just shows respect is being disregarded and it angers me to think the 'McDonalds mentality' will be the approach embraced in cricket, where it's about how much you can take as quickly as you can with no care of the consequence
It will be a sad day for Cricket.
The direct reason I hinted at in the introduction that has not helped the defence of ODI cricket is 'Overkill Cricket'.
There is too much Cricket played and ODI cricket tops this chart! Look how many players are injured in the modern game. That should be an indicator that player fatigue isn't a major consideration anymore when it comes to cramming fixtures anywhere and everywhere. With exhausted players playing series after series, where the results don't mean that much at times, the quality deteriorates and we have to suffer through it.
7 ODIs? Why 7? It's because bottom-line is more important to the Cricketing Bodies.
5 ODIs? Surely that's adequate so that people won't get sick of 50 over Cricket?
Having all these ODI games isn't doing any favors to protect this form of the game.
3 ODIs would be the best way to go as a general rule and then depending on the nature of the matches competition it could be pushed to 5 games. I can assure you we wouldn't have to worry about games being poorly attended such as the MCG dealt with last summer! That's just a solution that hopefully the big cheeses of cricket will realise.
Ricky Ponting has also expressed his concerns regarding 'overkill cricket' and how he strongly believes it's affected both the ODI format and the fans interest to show up game after game. In a Cricinfo.com source after the MCG recorded a low showing of supporters for the Australia's final ODI game against the West Indies last summer Ponting stated, "I'm not sure if the lack of contest had anything to do with it all, I just think we've played a whole lot. You look at all the days of cricket that the public have had to pay and go and watch through the summer, I think that's probably the reason why the numbers have dwindled off in the last week." With a problem like this being present, a cause and solution need to be considered quickly especially coming from a Maestro of the modern day game! Ponting himself is a tradionalist and I generally agree with the majority of his statements and take him very seriously on topics such as these.
I do have to laugh though when I see who the majority of these people are that bring forward these ideas or calling for the 50 over game to be put to rest.
It's not the supporters of the teams or the cricket fanatics who pay good money to go and watch games, the ones who leave their beds and forgo sleep in the early morning hours, with dedication to watch their side wanting only the reward of quality cricket.
It's become clear that the fans don't matter as much anymore. The majority of these people we hear from are in fact generally Retired Cricketers or Cricketing Officials who probably don't pay a cent to get into a game or because their time is up they don't care a great deal about the finer details.
I think the supporters, who actually keep the game alive, should be the ones who get considered with these potential changes and what they think. Proper research and a solid strategy from the ICC will be the key to seeing which way the Limited Overs cricket should go, and then see how the Domestic circuits respond globally to see if there is an International prospect.
So, 40 over cricket? I don't think it would be a concern and I'm sure it would work. But this dual over proposal? I wouldn't touch it and I would be gutted if we saw it get introduced for what damage it would do on a qualitative and historical level. I just hope that with these debates, where panic is apparent, that the right choice will be made with the best interests of the supporters, the players and the game of cricket being seriously considered.
Now as for night Test Cricket? Don't even get me started on this daft idea!
13 comments:
It's just more cricket, isn't it? More money for the clubs, but can the players cope with so much?
Interestingly, it's the 40 over game that is being done away with in England. Australia are generally more interested in cricket than the English though (contentious claim) so it might work at our end of the world.
That's the big question the players will have to answer. Is it too much in general?
I followed Englands season last time and some of the scores and results weren't bad, same with South Africa. But it would be more of a time saver than anything else and it still has the framework, so I'm sure 40 overs will work. This other proposal is daft.
The split format would involve the team continuing from where they left of in the 1st innings so it doesn't become two T20 innings. But I agree, would create too much confusion and the benefits don't outweigh the negatives.
40 over games could be alright but I'm sure in 10-20 years we will have the boring middle over period again. It'll be smaller than 50 overs obviously but it'll still be there most likely between 15-35 over mark.
I am definitely a traditionalist so I would also be concerned at the end of continuity with dropping the 50 over game. Although I must say I have been really enjoying the FP T20 (the UK equivalent of the Big Bash).
Although I still sort of consider ODIs as fairly new as I was a kid when Packer first started WSC. All those ODI records, trophies and accumulated runs on the dustheap fill me with dread. What if they get it wrong again? Would we need to find yet another format?
7 ODIs is definitely too many (even I was fatigued watching all that) and then they go and call two tests a series. What's wrong with that picture?
Fans in cricket are becoming much like fans in other sports such as League and Premier League Football - cash cows who can be relied upon to fill coffers whilst the games are organised for the benefit of... I don't know but it must be somebody. It's a general theme with modern culture, this brandism, this over-commercialism. Personally, I like to feel there's something more than a logo and mascott that connects me to my team.
A four innnings 40/40 format does sound like an interesting game in some ways but it would be yet another format rather than a valid replacement and certainly closer to T20 than ODIs. Of course, the idea seems to be to have two split innnings - this idea is a little more acceptable to me.
Perhaps if a limited number of such games could be played over a number of years I might be more confident that anything overlooked has been spotted or any bugs can be ironed out of the format.
Hey Sly. Yeah mate, I wrote it before CA actually confirmed the changes. To fussed to go editting it all. There is contradiction to that with what what James Sutherland said. He stated people feel they miss a teams innings in ODI cricket they miss out. This way they will be able to catch their sides innings again....what if they don't make the first 20? It can happen. Atleast they don't start the innings again, that would have been foolish.
John, thanks a stack for your input there mate. Will read it again but I just thought this was so appropriate in both a modern day view of sport & many peoples attitude's:
"Fans in cricket are becoming much like fans in other sports such as League and Premier League Football - cash cows who can be relied upon to fill coffers whilst the games are organised for the benefit of... I don't know but it must be somebody. It's a general theme with modern culture, this brandism, this over-commercialism. Personally, I like to feel there's something more than a logo and mascott that connects me to my team."
I think that's a big reason I feel a bit lost with these constant changes and panic for cricket. Massive loads of cash being thrown at players for franchising (which is where the money is at)...it's has no quality or integrity which I believe cricket has. Hopefully our emotional connections to the game will be somewhat protected.
Ultimately where the Baggy Green lies.
I guess we sit on a wait and see deck for now.
I don't see what's wrong with 50 over cricket. Just leave the game alone and stop trying to change it
I like 50 over cricket as well. I wouldn't mind 40 over, but I am not so keen on the 4 innings thing, it will make me less likely to follow a whole game unless there is a particular player I want to watch. I'd probably just tune in for the last half.
In other words, I would wind up following it like it is 20/20. so maybe not, as I'm getting fed-up with so much 20/20.
Hey Lou. I tend to feel that way. Being a traditionalist i just think may lose interest in the games format. If it cheapens the game and all the achievements, memories and moments of ODI cricket fall away it will be sad.
The panic the administrators are showing in sad. Especially the way the world is going so screwed up on so many levels driven by false, commercialised outlooks.
I'd like to think the view shown by the majority of you guys here, is that it's not the unwillingness to adapt, but the integrity to fight for the brilliance of tradition.
Just re-read my post. I was falling asleep at the keyboard when I wrote it so sorry for the stream of consciousness-ness of it all.
I lived next to the WACA when the topless girls were planting the first 50 over strip.......didn't miss a move they made. I still never miss a game if I can help it.
There is nothing wrong with 50 over games.!!!
There is a lot wrong with busy body middle management types trying to tell us all what is wrong.
It ain't broke..leave it alone.
Of course 7 games on the trot is silly, the game was designed for a max of five. More frequently less.
Forty over I can live with if I'm forced to but the double 20 overs is just bullshit. Meaningless and with zero benefit that I can see...or want.
Two Test series?....two is not a series it's a pair.
Grrr..this is winding me up!!
Actually thinking more about this some memories pop up.
I was in Port Hedland reroofing houses after a cyclone when the radio announcement came over the air that Packer was taking on the cricket establishment.
Like Ian I run outside and screamed my joy!
Weeks later I resigned my membership of the WACA when they said 50 over cricket would NEVER be played at the WACA.
The fight to make it all work was intense for years, very much supported by the working class types like me.
It was the beginning of modern cricket, a far far better standard of cricket than anybody had ever seen before.
But I'm no old fogey, if the game needs fixing I'm all for it. Change to give change sake I'm all against. The Indians are busy proving that chasing the dollar is bad for sport and profits alone are no reason to alter the format of the worlds oldest team game of stick and ball.
Believe it or not Packer didn't do it for money, he did it from anger....anger at the stupid cricket administrators....who were driving us (supporters) crazy.
Hmmm...rant over....I feel better now.....haha
I could live with 40 overs but I would love to keep 50 overs as we are starting to break into the unknown zone (400s in ODI, 200 by batsmen). 5 ODI matches should be maximum, none of this 7 match series. Even 3 is enough to prevent overkill.
Also with the 4 innings, you would need 3 breaks including a lunch/dinner one. So That is 2 breaks that is about 10-15 minutes and then another one that is 30 minutes. Think back to the IPL where you had that 10 minute break, totally killed the momentum and even had me just go to sleep rather than waiting 10 minutes to resume.
'I lived next to the WACA when the topless girls were planting the first 50 over strip.......didn't miss a move they made.'
Thanks Shaen, had a good laugh at this! Epic.
But thanks though. Always enjoy your stories that you have.
The Packer introduction was done when I was a bit young but I was given a book back in 1994 where I read all about the introduction and changes to limited overs cricket. So great you can inform us of that introduction moment of the game in Aus...given that we have all been experiencing similar anticipation and concern where the game is headed for the time being.
Shows you are a true traditionalist.
Like Sylvester said, the Overkill can be prevented so easily while 40 overs alone could easily work.
Post a Comment