|Split innings in ODI's?|
Split innings in ODI's?
Sep. 4th, 2009 @ 02:16 pm
I think this idea
put forth by Tendulkar is a lovely idea. It might just save 50 over cricket.
It's not at all a new idea - in fact, Lancashire played a
non-List A match against Yorkshire in exactly this style back in 1997
- but it's interesting to see Tendulkar come out so strongly in favour. Are any other current top players known to support this?
I'm undecided - I don't think there's any point in making ODIs too much like T20, since then why bother playing them at all? But weather and light conditions undeniably play a part. Of course, day/night matches are often tricky in England anyway - in midsummer sunset is at 9.30pm, and late in the season the weather is dodgy, as we're seeing right now.Edited at 2009-09-04 11:31 pm (UTC)
|Date:||September 5th, 2009 12:22 am (UTC)|| |
They'll probably have to cut down each inning from 25 to 20 overs to account for the innings breaks etc which will make it a T20 Test Match!
But seriously, ODIs have started looking neither here not there. Especially long drawn 7 match series shouldn't be held anymore. This idea is worth experimenting with, considering other ideas that ICC has had in the past.
Especially long drawn 7 match series shouldn't be held anymore.
Agreed 100%. In England at least, there should not be more ODIs than Tests in any one tour. Obviously countries which can't attract big crowds for Test cricket would have to change that a bit, but even so I think five should be the maximum for one series.
It's not at all a new idea
This is correct, and it even pre-dates your 1997 example - this game
was played in quarters in 1994/5 (and is classified List A!).
I don't think it'd save 50-over cricket. Playing an innings in two halves doesn't change the overall pattern of the innings much - you'll still want to attack when the field's up, nudge singles in the middle overs, then slog at the end. The only difference now will be that the batsmen have to get their eye in again at over 26.
Tendulkar's point about evening up the conditions for both sides is in my opinion the best part of the proposal. But
, I'm not sure if it would negate the advantage of the toss. Day ODI's skew more heavily in favour of the team batting second than day-nighters in favour of the team batting first. The main reason for this is almost certainly that knowing how much you have to chase is a huge advantage.
Splitting the innings into quarters would certainly decrease the advantage for the team batting first in day-nighters, but it might swing too far the other way. But it'd have to be trialled for a decade before you could get much certainty.
|Date:||September 5th, 2009 03:35 am (UTC)|| |
|(Link)|Playing an innings in two halves doesn't change the overall pattern of the innings much - you'll still want to attack when the field's up, nudge singles in the middle overs, then slog at the end. The only difference now will be that the batsmen have to get their eye in again at over 26
Or, you might have teams going slam-dunk in both the half - like in 20-20. You could divide your batting into some kind of halves and have them going in each half of the innings. I donno.. I'm just throwing ideas out there. You're right, this kind of thing will need to be trialled for a bit. But I think its an interesting idea nonetheless.
Or, you might have teams going slam-dunk in both the half - like in 20-20.
Only if instead of splitting the innings, you have a two-innings match. The reason why run rates are so high in T20 cricket is because they have 10 wickets to burn through in only 20 overs. If you have 50 overs but still only 10 wickets, then the run rates are going to be lower, what we see in 50-over cricket. Putting in an artificial pause at the 25-over mark isn't going to make them bat faster.
I just read another article on the same topic, and now I'm not sure what the proposal is. Both loganberrybunny and I assumed it was splitting a one-innings game into quarters, but other people are interpreting it as a two-innings game.
|Top of Page
||Powered by LiveJournal.com|