It’s almost inevitable now that once we get past debating who should and shouldn’t be on the selectors’ radar, discussion turns to everything that’s wrong with the longest version of the shortest formats of cricket.
Scanning the comments under my piece last week on building an ODI innings and the cricket tab more broadly over the weekend, has turned up some genuinely good ideas that could all – both individually and collectively – have an impact on reinvigorating the 50-over format.
Of course, the argument will be there that exceptional TV ratings mean people quite like one-day cricket exactly as it is, thank you very much.
The evening session for Sunday’s third ODI had a national average of nearly two million viewers and peaked at almost 2.8 million. The Big Bash League has been enjoying average TV audiences of more than a million viewers each game, yet the ODIs have topped them from the outset.
And the figures are very good, of that there is no question. But that’s not to say the product itself couldn’t be better.
So, in no particular order, let the ideas dump commence.
Unpave the roads
The former batsman in me loves the idea of batting on the proverbial highway of a pitch, but even I have to concede the wickets for the first three ODIs were a bit much.
And the scores reflect this. India has batted first in every game, and has posted 309, 308, and then 295 in Melbourne on Sunday – 17-912 to date. In reply, Australia has made 15-915 to win all three matches.
Eight players across the series have topped 100 runs already, with Rohit Sharma north of 300, and Virat Kohli, Steven Smith and George Bailey all beyond 200 runs for the series. In contrast, no Australian bowler has more than five wickets for the series, and no Indian bowler has more than three.
We know it’s all about entertainment, and there were even disturbing concessions from bowlers over the weekend that going for a run-a-ball is now acceptable, but come on, surely some kind assistance for the bowlers would make games better?
The Adelaide Test was the brilliant spectacle it was because of the wicket as much as the match being played under lights. A bit more grass on an ODI pitch would have the same effect, and greatly increase the chances of teams being bowled out. Batsmen already get the benefit of new balls at each end, the ball moving around a bit early on wouldn’t be a bad thing at all.
Less is more: Part 1
‘Meaningless ODIs’ is about as common a phrase around the one-day game these days as ‘we’ll have a bat, thanks’ and it’s certainly a widely held view that we would care about ODIs more if they actually counted for something other than broadcast and advertising revenue.
The World Cup was a fabulous event because it ticked all the boxes: the cricket was great, the crowds were amazing, and the games meant something.
Even being a World Cup year, I was rather astounded to see that there were 146 ODIs played in 2015. That means another 98 ODIs were played outside the World Cup! And yes, the associate nations are included in that 146, with Afghanistan (17 matches), Ireland (15) and Scotland (10) featuring heavily. Even Hong Kong squeezed a couple in.
Who played the most? New Zealand, actually, with 32 ODIs in 2015, followed by Zimbabwe (31), Pakistan (27), England (26) and Sri Lanka (25). Australia played a comparatively miserly 19, though nine of those were during the World Cup (and one of them was abandoned without a ball bowled).
146 ODIs is a lot, but it’s not unusual. Since the start of 2013, 411 ODIs have been played in total. The 2015 figure is only just over one-third of that total and therefore very normal.
One of the reasons the BBL is so popular is because it’s only on for seven weeks of the year. ODIs feel like they’re dime-a-dozen because they’re on all the time. I love one-day cricket, but not an ODI every three days.
Less is more: Part 2
Remember when 40 overs was going to be the future of one-day cricket? It was quickly knocked on the head by those renowned party poopers at the ICC, who muttered something about future World Cups being locked-in at 50 overs and broadcast deals and some such.
The ECB even consolidated their domestic one-day comp and the old Sunday League into one 40-over competition for the 2010 season. But then they caved and went back to 50 overs in 2014.
But now that we’re past the World Cup, why not? Why not look at getting rid of those mundane middle overs? Why not have the games start a little later and finish a bit earlier? It would still allow TV to have a second session in prime time, but mum and dad would also get the kids into a bed a bit earlier.
And one-day cricket hasn’t always been 50 overs, remember.
Domesticate Twenty20s
I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again.
Outside a quadrennial T20 World Cup, just leave the 20-over format to the domestic and franchise leagues. It would make the T20 World Cup all the more special (who won the last three anyway?), and would also add crowd demand to ODIs, being the only way to see the national team in the coloured gear each year.
You know it makes sense.
Restrictions, schmestrictions
Why do we need fielding and bowling restrictions in limited-overs cricket anymore? If we’re worried about unimaginative captains putting nine blokes on the fence, there’s still plenty of room on the field to make a run-a-ball, isn’t there. And batsmen and women are still welcome to take on the boundary.
Why not encourage smart captaincy? Why not make teams think about bowling plans uninhibited by ‘having’ to have so many fielders inside the circle? Why even have a circle? Why aren’t more bouncers allowed? Why not encourage close in fielders and actually allow the bowler to bang a few in? Why not test batspeople against uncomfortable deliveries, instead of allowing them the freedom of a full swing at five in every six balls bowled?
If a bowler has 4-20 after his ten overs, why not let him keep going? Why force teams into finding ten overs out of a couple of part-timers? Batsmen can batter the ball for the full quota, so why do we restrict bowlers?
Why restrict anything?
Toss the toss
The toss is in the crosshairs at the moment in Tests, but why not in ODIs, too?
Think about it. If the idea of allowing the visiting side the choice of whether to bowl or bat first in a Test will force more equally prepared pitches, then of course the same has to apply in the limited-overs game.
If fact, in light of what we’ve seen over the first three days in this series, getting rid of the toss in one-days might be even more important.
The moral to all this is that ODIs don’t need massive changes. But a few tweaks here and there could make a big difference. What else is out there?
Hayden
Guest
12 Changes I would make to One Day Internationals: 1. Australia, New Zealand, India, England, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Pakistan Nations have Bilateral Test & ODI’s Status 2. Make it 55 Overs a Side 3. No Power Plays 4. No Restrictions in the amount of Overs Bowled per Bowler 5. All Boundary Ropes to be pushed back to 2.5 meters before the fence 6. All Series to consist of either a 5 game series or 7 game triangular series 7. All Series squads must consist of 15 players with same regulations re World Cup re Replacements 8. All Series must consist of 2 warm up fixtures by visiting opponents 9. Champions Trophy to start as World Cup qualifiers with semi final winners to automatically qualify for World Cup 10. After Champions Trophy All ODI’s will revert to World Cup Qualifiers including against non-bilateral opponents 11. Bilateral ODI’s to resume once qualified for World Cup 12. 10 Teams to Qualify for World Cup.
My2cents
Guest
I will gladly say that I know more about cricket then Michael Clarke and many of the Chanel 9 commentary team, and would gladly prove it if given the opportunity. Just because you were naturally blessed with athleticism and reflexes to play elite level cricket doesn't mean you understand it any more then an intelligent person who has watched, followed and studied the game for a similar number of years. Just look at how well Michael Jordan did as a general manager of an NBA team. Despite being one of the greatest basketball players ever. He was fired a few years in for incompetence. There is a reason sports teams have large support staffs most of whom have university degrees. as for the channel 9 team. You only need to watch channel 10s far superior BBL coverage. To see what a professional cricket coverage looks like
Gleeso
Guest
Not much wrong with any form of the game except the ridiculous ticket pricing,families are just about excluded from 50 overs and Test cricket as it's too expensive for families to attend,BBL has shown the way ,ACB receives huge amounts from TV rights and other areas,stop being so hungry for the almighty dollar and crowds for the Tests and 50 over games will increase,the increase in attendees will make up for the expected loss from reducing the price of entry.
Bakkies
Guest
'The International matches that exist outside of World Cups exist in their own right – they are not held for the purposes of preparing players for World Cups.' Really then why do Soccer teams stack their benches and allow more subs in Friendlies. That's right to prepare for qualifiers and the big tournaments. Teams like the Socceroos in particularly have to them due to the fact that the European based players are not always available for Asian qualifiers so have to fit them in to the team. Michael Cheika threw away a Bledisloe decider in NZ to experiment with selections leading in to the RWC. 'T20 Internationals can therefore be limited to a T20 World Cup.' Nonsense. There is no chance in hell England would agree to it. They got shown up in Australia when they had to face real pace and there is not a lot of quality spinners there either. There is very little of it in all county competitions so playing no international Cricket won't help them prepare. In fact they are looking ahead to the next 50 overs World Cup but bringing in fresh players ahead of Cook, Broad, Anderson and co.
josh
Roar Rookie
Wouldn't ice be popular in Hell? Given the temperatures, ice would be a perfect repeat produce to sell. It is always in demand.
josh
Roar Rookie
The same thing that happens when a team scores 280 and bowls the other team out for 185. They win. Obviously if a team bowls out a team within the 50 that game stops as soon as the other team beat that score. So if NSW stumble further to be all out 112. and QLD have slowed up knowing they are ahead on 195. They win by X wickets. Or if there is no mathematical chance of a team winning (i.e. run rate above 36 etc..) the other team win (Mercy Rule). spruce moose you are right NSW, Sydney in particular is a horrible place to play cricket. If games were at the Gabba and AB field the ledger is more even. Just an idea. How would teams play it out? Would they be ultra cautious? or go hard from the start?
The Bush
Roar Guru
"It's" as in "it is", not "its"
The Bush
Roar Guru
Well I'm a huge fan and staunch defender of Clarke and a converted believer in Maxwell, so you can't compare my dislike for the present commentary by Nine with that camp. Have to agree to disagree then.
peeeko
Roar Guru
back n the day there was plenty more ODI played. the Australian summer would consist of at least 15 games.
Jarijari
Guest
"Outside a quadrennial T20 World Cup, just leave the 20-over format to the domestic and franchise leagues." No way that will change Brett. Better chance of selling a bag of ice in hell. "The toss is in the crosshairs at the moment in Tests, but why not in ODIs, too?" Cards are marked for next year at the latest.
Nova
Guest
I'd rather see a team fight to 250 than smash 330. Give something back to the bowlers.
Rellum
Roar Guru
One thing I think as change without any comment over the years is the amount of swing the white ball gets compared to what it used too. Back in the 80' and 90's the new white ball would hoop all over the place, so either kookaburra has change how they make the balls or the modern bowler is not very skillful, at least in my opinion. Maybe they should move to 2 piece balls for internationals.
Rellum
Roar Guru
I did wonder one day if we has two bowlers going from the same end whether that would stop the complaints over the long gaps in play. So one bowler is making their way back to their mark whilst the other charges in. Of course the most obvious problem apart from it not being cricket is are they both allowed to field?
Don Freo
Guest
Even when the pitches have been too much in favour of the bat, there has been some excellent bowling. Bowlers that can deliver a sub-6 run economy rate when there are scores of 300, with only 2 and 3 wickets down, are really impressive. John Hastings has done really well as has Joel Paris and Mitch Marsh in the one game where he got a proper bowl. Maxi, also, has done well. Ishant Sharma was pretty good in the last game as well. Tight bowling in a batsman friendly circumstance is great to watch. The Aussie bowling discipline has won this series. Any of 15 Aussie batsmen could have been in this team to score the required runs.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Ropes a set distance from the boundary should be mandated from the ICC. I would love to see someone come up with a pads idea so that we can pad the boundaries to make them just a little bigger.
Rellum
Roar Guru
The strike zone is one of the major problems. Removing restrictions on where the bowler can bowl would be a great start in giving back to the bowlers. Right now if you bowl a bouncer first ball the rest of the over has to fit into a zone not that much bigger that a baseball strike. Bigger yes but not as much as you think.
Rellum
Roar Guru
They were tried in state cricket if I recall and generally disliked.
anon
Guest
I don't think there's much to change with one dayers. This Australia-India series has been fantastic with perfect pitches for one day cricket. Just enough for bowlers if they are good enough, which they aren't. Australia has a second string attack and India's fast bowling is ordinary at its best. I think India has been a bit conservative in the first innings against this weak Aussie pace attack. They should have been aiming for 350. Can't blame the Indians too much since 300 is usually more than enough to defend, but maybe they have misjudged how bad Australia's bowlers, how much batting has improved because of T20, and limited preparation for playing in Australia.
Johnno
Guest
Another point here is many comments on on here,are from real cricket fans with a long history following or playing the game. -Bandwagon fans it seems like meaningless ODI'S and lots of big hitting, as shown by the TV-ratings. They don't want an even contest between bat and ball. Until the bandwagon fans, demand bowlers to have rights, the ICC won't change, as bandwagon fans are the majority TV audience, they treat watching cricket as watching a movie(entertainment purposes) not a sport.
Johnno
Guest
I don't It means teams will play specialist batters(tonker) maybe 8 even, knowing a good front line spinner, can bowl 20-overs. Imagine having to face 20 overs of shane warne in a WC final. But then it might help sides, i just fear all it will do is kill off the all rounder and have top heavy batting line-ups.