Every now and then an article will appear on The Roar, which discusses how one day cricket is dying and how it should be banished from the international cricket scene.
I don’t like these articles because I believe that one day cricket has a place in international cricket and deserves to stay.
Now I will admit, I do sometimes (but very rarely) find them a bit boring at times. Although I’ll watch a Test match from start to finish, I still can’t watch an ODI for the entire day.
It adds something more that T20 cricket doesn’t. Test cricket is a patience game, while T20 is hit out or get out. One day cricket adds a good mix between aggression and defence. Building a solid innings but not taking ages to do so helps develop important skills for both Test and T20 cricket.
So instead of bagging the 50 over game, I’ve come up with a solution. England unlike Australia, don’t have a 50-over domestic competition. Instead they only have 40 overs per side.
Why don’t we take off 10 overs each and do the same?
It would mean more aggressive play that could bring in more people to the games, which have suffered disappointing crowds recently.
It would be more exciting for the T20 fans that love seeing their heroes smashing sixes to all parts of the ground. It would also involve a little more patience and the need to build pressure.
A lot of people say that there is no need for the one day format. I think there is, as long as we tweak it a little.
If there were only two formats of cricket (test and T20) it would be too big of a gap between the traditional game played across five days, to the big hitting game played in three hours.
AlanKC
Guest
Imo the problem with 50 over cricket is the formulaic approach that now dominates the game - knocking 10 overs off might help but eventually it'll develop a similar problem - you might as well watch the first 10 overs and the last 10 because everyone looks for singles from over 11 through 39. Maybe a compromise, get rid of 20/20 and 50 over cricket and try 30 overs a side?
brian
Guest
In my opinion, odi definitely has a place in international cricket and should stay at 50 overs. The series between Australia and India,honestly was an amazing series, incredibly high scoring and we saw some extraordinary run chases. I think the high scoring games have been extremely entertaining and with t20 cricket evolving, players are more gainly to play unorthodox shots like reverse sweeps or ramps and take more risks and we saw totals like 350,360 being chased down. The series between Australia and England earlier this year also showed that low scoring games can be entertaining. The 5th odi in Adelaide saw Australia defend 221 and was an amazing game of cricket that went right down to the last over. It was up there with the 2nd odi in Brisbane where Faulkner singlehandedly won the game for Australia chasing 300. The series between new Zealand and India too was thoroughly entertaining and thrilling. I do think however the boundaries especially in the sub continent and grounds like the Adelaide oval need to be pushed and have a minimum of 65m and can't be less than 60m I think the SCG is the perfect ground for cricket as the long boundary isn't too long at around 75m but the short boundaries aren't too short either at round 65m Fielding restrictions need to be less strict in the middle overs. 5 fieldsmen can be out rather than 4. But overall odi cricket I think is alive and well and the crowds during the recent series between Australia and England showed people still enjoy odi cricket
Shouts Chen
Guest
Good idea. That way it can reduce the timing and the no of drink breaks, particularly in extreme hot temperatures. I feel that the 40-over match will be a new way to eliminate the stress for the cricket players. On some occasions, there will be a lot of games where they finish before the 40-overs.
dubblebubble
Guest
Id like to keep it a 50 overs and relax the fielding restrictions. Currently ODI's are the worst of both worlds: they lack the brevity of T20 and the complex drama of tests. If they could get back to more what they were like in the late 80's to mid 90's I'd start watching them again.
Lachlan Doyle
Roar Pro
I don't mind T20 cricket. Although the novelty is starting to wear off. The one thing I can't stand about T20 cricket and the one dayers in the sub continent is that the boundaries are just so small. I remember when scoring a limited overs ton was an amazing accomplishment, but during the India v Australia 7 game series just before the Ashes started, 600 to 800 runs per game seemed to be happening all the time and people were getting close to 200 (if my memory is right, I believe an Indian scored a double ton in that series) It's an interesting idea Santos and I think it has some merit, but I couldn't see it happening in the future.
Santos
Guest
Twenty20 Cricket should be scrapped by all administrative bodies that are aligned with the ICC. A separate body should be set-up for T20 Cricket - the same way that Rugby League and Rugby Union split in 1908. T20 Club leagues can still exist in India (and maybe the USA - eventually) and T20 National comps can still exist for minnow nations. But our elite Test / ODI playing nations / players should not be part of these leagues or this shortened game. Any ICC aligned Cricketers wanting to play T20 will have to either retire or defect to the T20 game permanently, like Shane Warne has done.
Lachlan Doyle
Roar Pro
Okay thanks for the information Johnno. Should have done a little bit more research.
Johnno
Guest
England scrapped there Pro-40 comp, and have gone back to 50-over one-day cricket for county sides, starting this season. They found pro-40 wasn't preparing players for 50-over cricket, and was to much like T20 it wasn't differentiating to cricket fans in the market.