Can we now finally lay to rest 50 over cricket?

[Kroll]

I know some recent Test cricket has been pretty good but it can also be boring and soul destroying.

Take for example Australia being 300/1 and going on to post 600 odd. Then your team rocks up and gets bundled out cheaply cos they can’t play bowling with bounce.

 

[Shazzam]

If we are really talking about numbers than Test cricket is the one that needs to go. Outside of cricket purist nobody really has the time to watch it. Soon 10ten will become a new format in International cricket making Tests even more pointless.

 

[Stewie]

Arrange Pakistan India ODI Series. Even OP will regret what the hell he wrote in past.

That would be terrible. We will get blanked 5-0
By india. You really think we can compete with India in ODIs currently? We have a better shot in T20 and Tests.

 

[Stewie]

Maybe I’m in the minority but still do not understand the obsession of PP’ers regarding the balance between bat and ball..

I want to see big hitting and lots of boundaries with both teams scoring 300-400 runs in their innings. Personally LOI cricket on green or slow dry wickets is boring to me and I’d rather watch a test match in such conditions..

The WC final was great but only because of the occasion. Any such game during a regular bilateral series would have soon been forgotten..

Are you a Pakistan fan? If you are I’ll let you in on a secret. As long as the balance between bat n ball is off and favored towards bat, Pakistan will always continue to lose.. especially against India in the world cups. Snow ball’s chance in hell we can win. Unless the game is played in England where it helps out bowlers there is no chance at all. Pakistan always dominated ODIs because of our supreme bowling which we used to defend even modest totals. That’s why we were such a force in the 80s and 90s. Then in the 2000s the balance shifted and we started seeing over 300 totals scored a d even chased.. and that’s when our downfall began.

But even if it’s not Pakistan playing and losing, I still want to see some advantage to the bowlers bowling vicious and carefree bouncers and making those stumps fly as much as I want to see big hits. What’s wrong with that?

A close game chasing 230-250 and losing is as entertaining as a 300 plus successful chase. They key is to have a mixed bag and not the same flavor of candy over and over again.

 

[UzmanBeast]

The 2019 World Cup was one of the greatest World Cups ever. Far better than the 2000s World Cups.

2011 World Cup was also fantastic, but the 2015 was really poor.

There was no magic in the 90’s. It is only the nostalgia because fans miss the players they grew up with.

Kids growing up today will miss the magic of the 2010s ODI cricket 20-30 years later because they will miss the likes of Kohli, Rohit, Root, Smith, Bumrah, Starc, Buttler etc.

The ODI game has evolved and so should the fans. Those who say it doesn’t expose technically weak batsmen anymore, well neither did the 90s.

A technically weak batsmen like Bevan thrived in ODI cricket in the 90’s even though he couldn’t play the short ball to save his life and flopped badly in Test cricket.

And a nudger like Bevan would be an ordinary ODI batsman today. He benefited from playing in a period where nudgers had a lot of success in ODI cricket because a SR of 70-75 was considered very good.

Younis Khan was a good ODI player in the 2000s but was badly exposed in the 2010s. The likes of Azhar and Pujara would have been great ODI players in the 90s and 2000s. There are many other examples.

It is myth that standards have dropped and batting in ODIs is easier today.

Whilst I agree with what you have said, I think that the ODI format is dying because of the fact that ICC has killed the art of off-spin and reverse swing. I remember a time where the likes of Ajmal, Ashwin, Mendis, Harbhajan, and more bowled fantastic spells and really had captivating cricket. The ball would spin well, and the variations made it interesting to watch ODI games. Low scorers were always fun, and ever since ICC killed the art of off-spin bowling, I find the middle overs in ODI cricket exceptionally boring. There's nothing to watch, no contest between bat and ball, just batsmen scoring runs freely.

I can tell you that there is nothing more captivating than good spin bowling and good reverse swing. These two arts were made for the middle overs, the variations came to make the game much more difficult. Players who had the ability to bat through the challenging middle overs made careers out of their performances, and that's how you know if someone was a great player or just an average player. There are so many average and mediocre players in ODI cricket nowadays, particularly in the middle order where there is no longer any pressure or any likelihood of taking wickets. Most playing nations have dropped all finger spinners from their ranks apart from all-rounders, and that shows the art that ICC has successfully killed. A finger spinner was accurate, built pressure and took wickets through variations, but now they get banned left, right, and center for an arm bending rule. Meanwhile field restrictions and other factors play into the hands of batsmen, who score runs freely.

Perhaps the biggest issue with modern cricket is the fact that no score is impossible. If you were to tell me that some team hit 500 in an ODI, I wouldn't even be surprised. There's no limit to what can happen because everything is in the batsman's favor. From overs 37 - 50, every team in the 2000s had a bowler who could exploit reverse swing and bowl well and take wickets. To negotiate that type of bowling from great bowlers was always exciting to watch, but nowadays, teams score about 80-100 runs in the last 10 overs sometimes, it's just pathetic.

ICC has removed all sense of equality between bat and ball, and that's why ODI Cricket is dying. Test cricket will live on, especially with the introduction of day-night tests because it is watchable, there is always something on offer. The most magnificent fast bowling spells of all time have been done in test cricket, and test cricket will live on due to the fact that there is still a level of equality between bat and ball, something ODI cricket has successfully destroyed.

Batting nowadays is much easier than it was years ago, because the most average players can farm runs. The modern game goes in favor of the batsmen, and ICC is desperately trying to get huge funding from ODI and T20 World Cups.

I for one get bored with watching ODI cricket, too one dimensional and too easy to predict who's gonna win. T20 and Tests are far superior as formats, and ODI cricket is dying quickly.

Watch ICC bring out some random Champions Trophy to keep the format alive, rather than make the appropriate changes and revert back to 1 ball in the match, and show leniency on the rules placed upon spinners. My personal opinion is that low-scoring games on tough tracks are the best, they challenge players to the core and are the true definition of ODI cricket, where you must construct your innings in accordance with the run-rate. To see a format with so much potential die is sad, but if the ICC wants to focus its attention towards getting money for their own braindead Instagram page, let them do so and successfully kill a part of the sport.

 

[UzmanBeast]

Are you a Pakistan fan? If you are I’ll let you in on a secret. As long as the balance between bat n ball is off and favored towards bat, Pakistan will always continue to lose.. especially against India in the world cups. Snow ball’s chance in hell we can win. Unless the game is played in England where it helps out bowlers there is no chance at all. Pakistan always dominated ODIs because of our supreme bowling which we used to defend even modest totals. That’s why we were such a force in the 80s and 90s. Then in the 2000s the balance shifted and we started seeing over 300 totals scored a d even chased.. and that’s when our downfall began.

But even if it’s not Pakistan playing and losing, I still want to see some advantage to the bowlers bowling vicious and carefree bouncers and making those stumps fly as much as I want to see big hits. What’s wrong with that?

A close game chasing 230-250 and losing is as entertaining as a 300 plus successful chase. They key is to have a mixed bag and not the same flavor of candy over and over again.

Yes, I completely agree.

Low-scorers are good games to watch, especially in conditions that favor both bat and ball.

I am also of the opinion that the rule to bring back the 1 ball for the entire game should happen, as reverse swing comes into play.

I also think that off-spinners should get some leniency on the arm bend so that the art of off-spin bowling doesn't die. I remember a time where off-spinners would be threatening in the middle overs, getting spin, drift, and belittling batsmen through variations. The good batsmen will rise above these challenges, but it will remove the mediocre ones from the game.

 

[sam_ahm]

Whilst I agree with what you have said, I think that the ODI format is dying because of the fact that ICC has killed the art of off-spin and reverse swing. I remember a time where the likes of Ajmal, Ashwin, Mendis, Harbhajan, and more bowled fantastic spells and really had captivating cricket. The ball would spin well, and the variations made it interesting to watch ODI games. Low scorers were always fun, and ever since ICC killed the art of off-spin bowling, I find the middle overs in ODI cricket exceptionally boring. There's nothing to watch, no contest between bat and ball, just batsmen scoring runs freely.

I can tell you that there is nothing more captivating than good spin bowling and good reverse swing. These two arts were made for the middle overs, the variations came to make the game much more difficult. Players who had the ability to bat through the challenging middle overs made careers out of their performances, and that's how you know if someone was a great player or just an average player. There are so many average and mediocre players in ODI cricket nowadays, particularly in the middle order where there is no longer any pressure or any likelihood of taking wickets. Most playing nations have dropped all finger spinners from their ranks apart from all-rounders, and that shows the art that ICC has successfully killed. A finger spinner was accurate, built pressure and took wickets through variations, but now they get banned left, right, and center for an arm bending rule. Meanwhile field restrictions and other factors play into the hands of batsmen, who score runs freely.

Perhaps the biggest issue with modern cricket is the fact that no score is impossible. If you were to tell me that some team hit 500 in an ODI, I wouldn't even be surprised. There's no limit to what can happen because everything is in the batsman's favor. From overs 37 - 50, every team in the 2000s had a bowler who could exploit reverse swing and bowl well and take wickets. To negotiate that type of bowling from great bowlers was always exciting to watch, but nowadays, teams score about 80-100 runs in the last 10 overs sometimes, it's just pathetic.

ICC has removed all sense of equality between bat and ball, and that's why ODI Cricket is dying. Test cricket will live on, especially with the introduction of day-night tests because it is watchable, there is always something on offer. The most magnificent fast bowling spells of all time have been done in test cricket, and test cricket will live on due to the fact that there is still a level of equality between bat and ball, something ODI cricket has successfully destroyed.

Batting nowadays is much easier than it was years ago, because the most average players can farm runs. The modern game goes in favor of the batsmen, and ICC is desperately trying to get huge funding from ODI and T20 World Cups.

I for one get bored with watching ODI cricket, too one dimensional and too easy to predict who's gonna win. T20 and Tests are far superior as formats, and ODI cricket is dying quickly.

Watch ICC bring out some random Champions Trophy to keep the format alive, rather than make the appropriate changes and revert back to 1 ball in the match, and show leniency on the rules placed upon spinners. My personal opinion is that low-scoring games on tough tracks are the best, they challenge players to the core and are the true definition of ODI cricket, where you must construct your innings in accordance with the run-rate. To see a format with so much potential die is sad, but if the ICC wants to focus its attention towards getting money for their own braindead Instagram page, let them do so and successfully kill a part of the sport.

Very good post mate, very valid points.

One excellent point you made is that in ODIs these days, no score is impossible, which makes it ridiculous...

 

[mazkhan]

The only reason offpsin was killed off is due to the 2 new ball rule , so the ball doesn't go old and soft and stays hard that way the spinners don't get purchase and reverse swing is out of the door

Other than that icc have made some recent good moves in putting restrictions on the size of bats and getting rid of the bowling powerplay.


But they are fully justified in getting rid of chuckers like ajmal , for spin to comeback just get rid of the 2 ball rule and 1 ball throughout 50 overs and you will see the scores automatically come down .

 

[Thunderbolt14]

Whilst I agree with what you have said, I think that the ODI format is dying because of the fact that ICC has killed the art of off-spin and reverse swing. I remember a time where the likes of Ajmal, Ashwin, Mendis, Harbhajan, and more bowled fantastic spells and really had captivating cricket. The ball would spin well, and the variations made it interesting to watch ODI games. Low scorers were always fun, and ever since ICC killed the art of off-spin bowling, I find the middle overs in ODI cricket exceptionally boring. There's nothing to watch, no contest between bat and ball, just batsmen scoring runs freely.

I can tell you that there is nothing more captivating than good spin bowling and good reverse swing. These two arts were made for the middle overs, the variations came to make the game much more difficult. Players who had the ability to bat through the challenging middle overs made careers out of their performances, and that's how you know if someone was a great player or just an average player. There are so many average and mediocre players in ODI cricket nowadays, particularly in the middle order where there is no longer any pressure or any likelihood of taking wickets. Most playing nations have dropped all finger spinners from their ranks apart from all-rounders, and that shows the art that ICC has successfully killed. A finger spinner was accurate, built pressure and took wickets through variations, but now they get banned left, right, and center for an arm bending rule. Meanwhile field restrictions and other factors play into the hands of batsmen, who score runs freely.

Perhaps the biggest issue with modern cricket is the fact that no score is impossible. If you were to tell me that some team hit 500 in an ODI, I wouldn't even be surprised. There's no limit to what can happen because everything is in the batsman's favor. From overs 37 - 50, every team in the 2000s had a bowler who could exploit reverse swing and bowl well and take wickets. To negotiate that type of bowling from great bowlers was always exciting to watch, but nowadays, teams score about 80-100 runs in the last 10 overs sometimes, it's just pathetic.

ICC has removed all sense of equality between bat and ball, and that's why ODI Cricket is dying. Test cricket will live on, especially with the introduction of day-night tests because it is watchable, there is always something on offer. The most magnificent fast bowling spells of all time have been done in test cricket, and test cricket will live on due to the fact that there is still a level of equality between bat and ball, something ODI cricket has successfully destroyed.

Batting nowadays is much easier than it was years ago, because the most average players can farm runs. The modern game goes in favor of the batsmen, and ICC is desperately trying to get huge funding from ODI and T20 World Cups.

I for one get bored with watching ODI cricket, too one dimensional and too easy to predict who's gonna win. T20 and Tests are far superior as formats, and ODI cricket is dying quickly.

Watch ICC bring out some random Champions Trophy to keep the format alive, rather than make the appropriate changes and revert back to 1 ball in the match, and show leniency on the rules placed upon spinners. My personal opinion is that low-scoring games on tough tracks are the best, they challenge players to the core and are the true definition of ODI cricket, where you must construct your innings in accordance with the run-rate. To see a format with so much potential die is sad, but if the ICC wants to focus its attention towards getting money for their own braindead Instagram page, let them do so and successfully kill a part of the sport.

Potw!

 

[Hasan123]

I enjoy the 50 over format and hope it stays.

 

[UzmanBeast]

Very good post mate, very valid points.

One excellent point you made is that in ODIs these days, no score is impossible, which makes it ridiculous...

That's what's ruined the format.

Watching 50 overs worth of 20 over cricket isn't entertaining, it becomes dull after a while.

ODI 5fers are rare nowadays, and good death bowling is also very hard to see.

This format will die soon if ICC does not revert back to old rules.

 

[UzmanBeast]

Potw!

Thanks bro.

 

[UzmanBeast]

The only reason offpsin was killed off is due to the 2 new ball rule , so the ball doesn't go old and soft and stays hard that way the spinners don't get purchase and reverse swing is out of the door

Other than that icc have made some recent good moves in putting restrictions on the size of bats and getting rid of the bowling powerplay.


But they are fully justified in getting rid of chuckers like ajmal , for spin to comeback just get rid of the 2 ball rule and 1 ball throughout 50 overs and you will see the scores automatically come down .

There are plenty of new ball off-spin bowlers, so the two new ball rule didn't hinder the art of off-spin as much as it did to reverse swing, though it also had a considerable impact on off-spin bowling.

Leniency in spin bowling is required, a whole art of bowling is dying because ICC won't allow an arm bend of a few more degrees.

Though they have put some good rules, ICC is a braindead cricketing body with no sense of awareness for where the game is headed. They have absolutely no forward planning, and are just a bunch of leeches trying to milk the game for money. They deserve no respect, with their corny IG posts and praises of performances to act as if they give a hoot about the game, they're only interested in the revenue stream they generate.

If ICC can allow more leniency on off-spin bowling perhaps 20 degrees, it would go a long way, because the doosra would be back. Similarly, they need to keep it at 1 ball per game, unless of course the ball gets destroyed midway or if it gets hit out of the stadium.

A 300 score is good enough to watch, and these rules will bring down the average scores and strike rates in ODI cricket, making it much more rewarding to good players, and more enjoyable for spectators.

However, we are all entitled to our opinions, and that's just my opinion and viewpoint on the topic.

 

[DeadBall]

Really miss these sorts of ODIs!
Reminds me of the 1999 World Cup in the UK — some of my earliest cricket watching memories — so many thrillers where the chasing team was set around 200-220 to win. Every run counted and the tension was close to unbearable at times.

The NZ-IND and especially the final were so absorbing because they were low scoring thrillers. Every mistake was amplified due to the increasing constriction and everyone had to give their absolute best.

 

[BDfanforever]

Someone saying there are mediocre to average players in ODI.

ODIs has exciting players like Eoin Morgan, Rohit Sharma, KL Rahul, Ross Taylor, Hitmeyer, Pooran, Dhawan, Stonis, Maxwell, Jason Roy, etc.

Yasir Shah smashed the myth that you need to be technically gifted to play test cricket by destroying Aus bowling attack and smashing a century in test.

There is nothing exciting about watching 10 runs off 100 deliveries. Also, why do you need to bat and bowl twice to make it proper cricket? No other sports does that. Imagine soccer was 180 mins long.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

ODI are much more entertaining than T20, kill T20 please.

 

[Square Drive]

No.

ODIs are my favorite format.

Test cricket is cricket in its purest form, but the main problem is the length of time which does not allow a normal adult to follow a whole match end to end.

That is why ODI cricket is so good, because it takes Test cricket and puts it into one day.

T20 cricket just does not have the watch-ability of ODI. It is too short and you do not get the full cricket experience. Very predictable and the only best parts are the opening power-play and death overs.

In ODIs, the first 15 and last 15 overs are very exciting. But from a cricket fan' POV, the middle overs are where you see all of the tactics from the fielding side and how the batting team deals with them. Which is what Test cricket is about. Middle overs in T20s do not have strategy or planning. Fielding sides just stop runs and batting teams just wait until last overs to hit so they rotate strike. But in ODI cricket, middle overs consist of fielding teams attacking to get wickets and restrict scoring rate and batting teams have to know how to maintain the RR while preserving wickets. In T20 there is no attacking cricket from bowling sides and no defensive cricket from batting sides and that is why it is not real cricket.

T20 is fun to watch, but it will never be better than the longer formats because the nature of cricket is that it needs time for the game to be seen.

ODI cricket is a great, unpredictable contest of cricket that a person can watch on an off-day from work.

Well said.

ODIs are personally my favourite too and are here to stay.

 

[Nado_]

Odis are my favourite format, but the ICC need to do something where we get a competition between bat and ball. These days teams are making 350 odd like it’s a joke. Yeah it’s great seeing batsman play shots but it’s also great when you see a batsman play a shot in a close game or when the bowlers are doing well etc.

Also come on man, who remembers the odi series between pak and India the excitement, the matches were legendary.

 

[Nado_]

Miss the days when 250-275 were par scores and you see a batsman score a boundary and appreciate a good shot! Now mishits even go over the ropes. They should do something like only have a road pitch in one of the games out of a 5 match series. Seems like icc have pushed this thing where they want to see high scoring games with lots of boundaries. But seeing bowlers dominate or get upperhands in moments of the game make a match truly special it brings more excitement.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Whilst I agree with what you have said, I think that the ODI format is dying because of the fact that ICC has killed the art of off-spin and reverse swing. I remember a time where the likes of Ajmal, Ashwin, Mendis, Harbhajan, and more bowled fantastic spells and really had captivating cricket. The ball would spin well, and the variations made it interesting to watch ODI games. Low scorers were always fun, and ever since ICC killed the art of off-spin bowling, I find the middle overs in ODI cricket exceptionally boring. There's nothing to watch, no contest between bat and ball, just batsmen scoring runs freely.

I can tell you that there is nothing more captivating than good spin bowling and good reverse swing. These two arts were made for the middle overs, the variations came to make the game much more difficult. Players who had the ability to bat through the challenging middle overs made careers out of their performances, and that's how you know if someone was a great player or just an average player. There are so many average and mediocre players in ODI cricket nowadays, particularly in the middle order where there is no longer any pressure or any likelihood of taking wickets. Most playing nations have dropped all finger spinners from their ranks apart from all-rounders, and that shows the art that ICC has successfully killed. A finger spinner was accurate, built pressure and took wickets through variations, but now they get banned left, right, and center for an arm bending rule. Meanwhile field restrictions and other factors play into the hands of batsmen, who score runs freely.

Perhaps the biggest issue with modern cricket is the fact that no score is impossible. If you were to tell me that some team hit 500 in an ODI, I wouldn't even be surprised. There's no limit to what can happen because everything is in the batsman's favor. From overs 37 - 50, every team in the 2000s had a bowler who could exploit reverse swing and bowl well and take wickets. To negotiate that type of bowling from great bowlers was always exciting to watch, but nowadays, teams score about 80-100 runs in the last 10 overs sometimes, it's just pathetic.

ICC has removed all sense of equality between bat and ball, and that's why ODI Cricket is dying. Test cricket will live on, especially with the introduction of day-night tests because it is watchable, there is always something on offer. The most magnificent fast bowling spells of all time have been done in test cricket, and test cricket will live on due to the fact that there is still a level of equality between bat and ball, something ODI cricket has successfully destroyed.

Batting nowadays is much easier than it was years ago, because the most average players can farm runs. The modern game goes in favor of the batsmen, and ICC is desperately trying to get huge funding from ODI and T20 World Cups.

I for one get bored with watching ODI cricket, too one dimensional and too easy to predict who's gonna win. T20 and Tests are far superior as formats, and ODI cricket is dying quickly.

Watch ICC bring out some random Champions Trophy to keep the format alive, rather than make the appropriate changes and revert back to 1 ball in the match, and show leniency on the rules placed upon spinners. My personal opinion is that low-scoring games on tough tracks are the best, they challenge players to the core and are the true definition of ODI cricket, where you must construct your innings in accordance with the run-rate. To see a format with so much potential die is sad, but if the ICC wants to focus its attention towards getting money for their own braindead Instagram page, let them do so and successfully kill a part of the sport.

Great post. Especially agree with the their is no equality between bat and ball. ICC ruined the format forever.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

For the casual cricket fan T-20 is by the most popular format. Fo the purist its Test Cricket. I dont see ODI as having a good future, and would not mind if it ends.

 

[FastBowlingAllrounder]

Someone saying there are mediocre to average players in ODI.

ODIs has exciting players like Eoin Morgan, Rohit Sharma, KL Rahul, Ross Taylor, Hitmeyer, Pooran, Dhawan, Stonis, Maxwell, Jason Roy, etc.

Yasir Shah smashed the myth that you need to be technically gifted to play test cricket by destroying Aus bowling attack and smashing a century in test.

There is nothing exciting about watching 10 runs off 100 deliveries. Also, why do you need to bat and bowl twice to make it proper cricket? No other sports does that. Imagine soccer was 180 mins long.

180 min soccer game is not a good example.

American football is similar in that teams regularly switch between being the offensive and defensive side depending on who has possession.

And as for Yasir - let's see how many more test centuries he gets against Australia in Australia...

 

[FastBowlingAllrounder]

Whilst I agree with what you have said, I think that the ODI format is dying because of the fact that ICC has killed the art of off-spin and reverse swing. I remember a time where the likes of Ajmal, Ashwin, Mendis, Harbhajan, and more bowled fantastic spells and really had captivating cricket. The ball would spin well, and the variations made it interesting to watch ODI games. Low scorers were always fun, and ever since ICC killed the art of off-spin bowling, I find the middle overs in ODI cricket exceptionally boring. There's nothing to watch, no contest between bat and ball, just batsmen scoring runs freely.

I can tell you that there is nothing more captivating than good spin bowling and good reverse swing. These two arts were made for the middle overs, the variations came to make the game much more difficult. Players who had the ability to bat through the challenging middle overs made careers out of their performances, and that's how you know if someone was a great player or just an average player. There are so many average and mediocre players in ODI cricket nowadays, particularly in the middle order where there is no longer any pressure or any likelihood of taking wickets. Most playing nations have dropped all finger spinners from their ranks apart from all-rounders, and that shows the art that ICC has successfully killed. A finger spinner was accurate, built pressure and took wickets through variations, but now they get banned left, right, and center for an arm bending rule. Meanwhile field restrictions and other factors play into the hands of batsmen, who score runs freely.

Perhaps the biggest issue with modern cricket is the fact that no score is impossible. If you were to tell me that some team hit 500 in an ODI, I wouldn't even be surprised. There's no limit to what can happen because everything is in the batsman's favor. From overs 37 - 50, every team in the 2000s had a bowler who could exploit reverse swing and bowl well and take wickets. To negotiate that type of bowling from great bowlers was always exciting to watch, but nowadays, teams score about 80-100 runs in the last 10 overs sometimes, it's just pathetic.

ICC has removed all sense of equality between bat and ball, and that's why ODI Cricket is dying. Test cricket will live on, especially with the introduction of day-night tests because it is watchable, there is always something on offer. The most magnificent fast bowling spells of all time have been done in test cricket, and test cricket will live on due to the fact that there is still a level of equality between bat and ball, something ODI cricket has successfully destroyed.

Batting nowadays is much easier than it was years ago, because the most average players can farm runs. The modern game goes in favor of the batsmen, and ICC is desperately trying to get huge funding from ODI and T20 World Cups.

I for one get bored with watching ODI cricket, too one dimensional and too easy to predict who's gonna win. T20 and Tests are far superior as formats, and ODI cricket is dying quickly.

Watch ICC bring out some random Champions Trophy to keep the format alive, rather than make the appropriate changes and revert back to 1 ball in the match, and show leniency on the rules placed upon spinners. My personal opinion is that low-scoring games on tough tracks are the best, they challenge players to the core and are the true definition of ODI cricket, where you must construct your innings in accordance with the run-rate. To see a format with so much potential die is sad, but if the ICC wants to focus its attention towards getting money for their own braindead Instagram page, let them do so and successfully kill a part of the sport.

Top stuff. Eliminating the art of good death bowling in ODIs with the batting heavy rules has really killed it.

 

[Kroll]

Whilst I agree with what you have said, I think that the ODI format is dying because of the fact that ICC has killed the art of off-spin and reverse swing. I remember a time where the likes of Ajmal, Ashwin, Mendis, Harbhajan, and more bowled fantastic spells and really had captivating cricket. The ball would spin well, and the variations made it interesting to watch ODI games. Low scorers were always fun, and ever since ICC killed the art of off-spin bowling, I find the middle overs in ODI cricket exceptionally boring. There's nothing to watch, no contest between bat and ball, just batsmen scoring runs freely.

I can tell you that there is nothing more captivating than good spin bowling and good reverse swing. These two arts were made for the middle overs, the variations came to make the game much more difficult. Players who had the ability to bat through the challenging middle overs made careers out of their performances, and that's how you know if someone was a great player or just an average player. There are so many average and mediocre players in ODI cricket nowadays, particularly in the middle order where there is no longer any pressure or any likelihood of taking wickets. Most playing nations have dropped all finger spinners from their ranks apart from all-rounders, and that shows the art that ICC has successfully killed. A finger spinner was accurate, built pressure and took wickets through variations, but now they get banned left, right, and center for an arm bending rule. Meanwhile field restrictions and other factors play into the hands of batsmen, who score runs freely.

Perhaps the biggest issue with modern cricket is the fact that no score is impossible. If you were to tell me that some team hit 500 in an ODI, I wouldn't even be surprised. There's no limit to what can happen because everything is in the batsman's favor. From overs 37 - 50, every team in the 2000s had a bowler who could exploit reverse swing and bowl well and take wickets. To negotiate that type of bowling from great bowlers was always exciting to watch, but nowadays, teams score about 80-100 runs in the last 10 overs sometimes, it's just pathetic.

ICC has removed all sense of equality between bat and ball, and that's why ODI Cricket is dying. Test cricket will live on, especially with the introduction of day-night tests because it is watchable, there is always something on offer. The most magnificent fast bowling spells of all time have been done in test cricket, and test cricket will live on due to the fact that there is still a level of equality between bat and ball, something ODI cricket has successfully destroyed.

Batting nowadays is much easier than it was years ago, because the most average players can farm runs. The modern game goes in favor of the batsmen, and ICC is desperately trying to get huge funding from ODI and T20 World Cups.

I for one get bored with watching ODI cricket, too one dimensional and too easy to predict who's gonna win. T20 and Tests are far superior as formats, and ODI cricket is dying quickly.

Watch ICC bring out some random Champions Trophy to keep the format alive, rather than make the appropriate changes and revert back to 1 ball in the match, and show leniency on the rules placed upon spinners. My personal opinion is that low-scoring games on tough tracks are the best, they challenge players to the core and are the true definition of ODI cricket, where you must construct your innings in accordance with the run-rate. To see a format with so much potential die is sad, but if the ICC wants to focus its attention towards getting money for their own braindead Instagram page, let them do so and successfully kill a part of the sport.

Nice post, I blame Indian for getting in cahoots with the ICC. BCCI knew finger spinner and reverse swing was a key ingredient for Pakistan's past ODI success.

So they did all they could to kill the arts whilst knowing that batting was a strength of Indian to take the resulting benefit.

 

[Bilal_103]

I was always a causal fan of cricket but this year due to the pandemic I have fallen in love with test cricket. Theres no comparison its the best format. But I think ODI should be kept to tournaments only.

 

[poppadoms]

Whilst I agree with what you have said, I think that the ODI format is dying because of the fact that ICC has killed the art of off-spin and reverse swing. I remember a time where the likes of Ajmal, Ashwin, Mendis, Harbhajan, and more bowled fantastic spells and really had captivating cricket. The ball would spin well, and the variations made it interesting to watch ODI games. Low scorers were always fun, and ever since ICC killed the art of off-spin bowling, I find the middle overs in ODI cricket exceptionally boring. There's nothing to watch, no contest between bat and ball, just batsmen scoring runs freely.

I can tell you that there is nothing more captivating than good spin bowling and good reverse swing. These two arts were made for the middle overs, the variations came to make the game much more difficult. Players who had the ability to bat through the challenging middle overs made careers out of their performances, and that's how you know if someone was a great player or just an average player. There are so many average and mediocre players in ODI cricket nowadays, particularly in the middle order where there is no longer any pressure or any likelihood of taking wickets. Most playing nations have dropped all finger spinners from their ranks apart from all-rounders, and that shows the art that ICC has successfully killed. A finger spinner was accurate, built pressure and took wickets through variations, but now they get banned left, right, and center for an arm bending rule. Meanwhile field restrictions and other factors play into the hands of batsmen, who score runs freely.

Perhaps the biggest issue with modern cricket is the fact that no score is impossible. If you were to tell me that some team hit 500 in an ODI, I wouldn't even be surprised. There's no limit to what can happen because everything is in the batsman's favor. From overs 37 - 50, every team in the 2000s had a bowler who could exploit reverse swing and bowl well and take wickets. To negotiate that type of bowling from great bowlers was always exciting to watch, but nowadays, teams score about 80-100 runs in the last 10 overs sometimes, it's just pathetic.

ICC has removed all sense of equality between bat and ball, and that's why ODI Cricket is dying. Test cricket will live on, especially with the introduction of day-night tests because it is watchable, there is always something on offer. The most magnificent fast bowling spells of all time have been done in test cricket, and test cricket will live on due to the fact that there is still a level of equality between bat and ball, something ODI cricket has successfully destroyed.

Batting nowadays is much easier than it was years ago, because the most average players can farm runs. The modern game goes in favor of the batsmen, and ICC is desperately trying to get huge funding from ODI and T20 World Cups.

I for one get bored with watching ODI cricket, too one dimensional and too easy to predict who's gonna win. T20 and Tests are far superior as formats, and ODI cricket is dying quickly.

Watch ICC bring out some random Champions Trophy to keep the format alive, rather than make the appropriate changes and revert back to 1 ball in the match, and show leniency on the rules placed upon spinners. My personal opinion is that low-scoring games on tough tracks are the best, they challenge players to the core and are the true definition of ODI cricket, where you must construct your innings in accordance with the run-rate. To see a format with so much potential die is sad, but if the ICC wants to focus its attention towards getting money for their own braindead Instagram page, let them do so and successfully kill a part of the sport.

That was why the 2019 World Cup was the best ever. It had enough different conditions that all aspects of cricket were tested over the course of the tournament. At one point chasing was a guaranteed win, while at another point chasing was impossible. Seam bowling was favoured, then it was spin bowling, and at times the pitches seemed flat. Going into the final, neither team was sure what strategy would work best, and that probably fed into the confusion that was the teams' tactical approach.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

For me the formats are:
1. Tests
2. ODIs
3. T20is
.
.
.
4. T20 leagues
.
.
.
The below mentioned are not even formats.
Hong Kong Sixes
T10

Tests are and will remain the pinnacle regardless of crowds and interest. Among the purists, it will always be the best format. For pure financial reasons, WCs and T20is are there.
ODIs are a superior format to t20is in my opinion.

ICC has been meddling with ODI cricket and messing it bad for financial reasons. ICC should only be looking after the financial stuff and FTPs while the rules should strictly be made by MCC or some other regulation authority.

The silly rules of two new balls, powerplay restrictions, 35 overs and last 15 overs, all of that they have done since 2005 has been messing up ODI cricket. Now ODIs are basically an extension of t20is where you just need batters with better stamina. It's a batsman based game now and runs are all that matters. The price on the wicket is lower and bowlers are just used as machines.

 

[cric_4life]

Not many 50 over games recently and I have to say I didn’t even miss them at all. Tests and T20s provide me more than my fix of cricket. But really Test cricket is where it’s at... just absorbing stuff. I know they keep talking about test cricket dying and the jury might still be out in that one..

BUT!!! I think 50 over sticker has already died!

Am I the only one who feels that way?

So you are trying to put your own thoughts on everyone else. Like wht you think there are many people who think 50 over cricket is the best format. I love 50 over format and remember 2019 world cup is still the most watched series recent few years.
T20s have replaced ODI's because of Covid.
But doesn't mean 50 over format is dead.

 

[QalandarFan]

No thanks that's my favorite format!

 

[Stewie]

So you are trying to put your own thoughts on everyone else. Like wht you think there are many people who think 50 over cricket is the best format. I love 50 over format and remember 2019 world cup is still the most watched series recent few years.
T20s have replaced ODI's because of Covid.
But doesn't mean 50 over format is dead.

Nobody is shoving anything down your throat, mate. You don’t like reading what’s being discussed here, feel free to go read something else. Cheers!

 

[Stewie]

Yes, I completely agree.

Low-scorers are good games to watch, especially in conditions that favor both bat and ball.

I am also of the opinion that the rule to bring back the 1 ball for the entire game should happen, as reverse swing comes into play.

I also think that off-spinners should get some leniency on the arm bend so that the art of off-spin bowling doesn't die. I remember a time where off-spinners would be threatening in the middle overs, getting spin, drift, and belittling batsmen through variations. The good batsmen will rise above these challenges, but it will remove the mediocre ones from the game.

I love respect the fact a lot of people here actually enjoy the format. Which is fine a d just discussing this here won’t make it disappear, so these pro 50 over guys should simply rest assured.

But this is as good a place as any to gripe, so that’s what I am doing ..

Last thing to add: the three formats are creating an over saturation of cricket and have increased the workload of some players a bit too much. They are forced to choose and end up quitting one format or the other. Too many great players are lost thst way from tests or ODIs because let’s admit it.. nobody would quit T20s. That’s where the money is.

So regardless of how people feel about one format or the other, I think it may not be sustainable in the long run and one format will eventually die a slow slow death. I’ll wager it will be bilateral 50 over games and the World Cup will continue for the time being.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

I love respect the fact a lot of people here actually enjoy the format. Which is fine a d just discussing this here won’t make it disappear, so these pro 50 over guys should simply rest assured.

But this is as good a place as any to gripe, so that’s what I am doing ..

Last thing to add: the three formats are creating an over saturation of cricket and have increased the workload of some players a bit too much. They are forced to choose and end up quitting one format or the other. Too many great players are lost thst way from tests or ODIs because let’s admit it.. nobody would quit T20s. That’s where the money is.

So regardless of how people feel about one format or the other, I think it may not be sustainable in the long run and one format will eventually die a slow slow death. I’ll wager it will be bilateral 50 over games and the World Cup will continue for the time being.

I expect ODI matches to decrease in number (like the last two years) but the World Cup will live on.

You’ll just have less ODIs per year except the year right before the World Cup.

 

[pillionrider]

Is this some kind of quiet resignation to the belief that Pakistan will never beat India in a WC ODI? So let's just shut down the format

 

[Red Devil]

Wait, what? ODIs are going nowhere, it's easily to most entertaining format of the game.

It's obvious that most teams are scheduling more T20s because the Word T20 is coming up.

 

[Stewie]

Is this some kind of quiet resignation to the belief that Pakistan will never beat India in a WC ODI? So let's just shut down the format

We just want to kick more of your butt in tests and T20s that’s all. We had our fill beating you in an ICC ODI final and don’t think anything else will top that feeling now.except maybe a test series win.. a massive one!

 

[pillionrider]

We just want to kick more of your butt in tests and T20s that’s all.

Sure you will

 

[Stewie]

Sure you will

That laugh emoji would go real well next time you beat us in an ICC ODI final, bro. Just hang on to it till then... (might be a while)

 

[Stewie]

Cuz we don’t plan on getting to an ODI final anytime soon.. LMAO!

 

[UzmanBeast]

Great post. Especially agree with the their is no equality between bat and ball. ICC ruined the format forever.

Thanks.

 

[UzmanBeast]

Top stuff. Eliminating the art of good death bowling in ODIs with the batting heavy rules has really killed it.

Thanks. Batting heavy rules make the death overs into T20, and it eliminated the pure art of chasing totals.

 

[UzmanBeast]

Nice post, I blame Indian for getting in cahoots with the ICC. BCCI knew finger spinner and reverse swing was a key ingredient for Pakistan's past ODI success.

So they did all they could to kill the arts whilst knowing that batting was a strength of Indian to take the resulting benefit.

I doubt India would try and cut out finger-spin, because they had some top finger spinners.

They didn't have good bowlers of reverse swing, but I highly doubt they had anything to do with this.

It's mostly just ICC trying to get mainstream media revenue from selling high flying games.

 

[UzmanBeast]

That was why the 2019 World Cup was the best ever. It had enough different conditions that all aspects of cricket were tested over the course of the tournament. At one point chasing was a guaranteed win, while at another point chasing was impossible. Seam bowling was favoured, then it was spin bowling, and at times the pitches seemed flat. Going into the final, neither team was sure what strategy would work best, and that probably fed into the confusion that was the teams' tactical approach.

True. See, I don't have anything against World Cups, they're entertaining. Bilateral ODI series are going to die out now, it's a format that needs a revamp.

Most teams make flat decks and batting scores are going upwards quite quickly.

Making 300 isn't even enough sometimes, and that just shows how tough bowling has become.

 

[someone21]

World Cup ODI happens every 4 years, and that makes it unique and exciting. If T20s WC happens every 4 years, the aura and fame will be better than ODI WC.

It's test cricket which needs to go. A format which the common man never plays. I have played some amateur T20s, and even a close ODI format game. But 5 day cricket, is a big no, both as a player and a viewer.

 

[ayemgilani86]

No thanks

T20i has no value and importance

That needs to go!

yes, T20 is just less time consuming doesnt mean its fun always, especially in flat track its boring as anything.
the last 2 50 over World cups had amazing games

 

[Hitman]

I remember Shane Warne giving the same suggestion years ago, to scrap ODI cricket and keep Tests and T20s going.

 

[naseem]

I want all...but the consumption of t20 must be limited....nd franchise tournaments must have some restrictions..... Cap for a single player to feature....esp active player.....also ICC need to be strict towards India and Australia

 

[naseem]

I remember Shane Warne giving the same suggestion years ago, to scrap ODI cricket and keep Tests and T20s going.

ODi is better than t20....... Need to organise ODI TRIseries. to raise interst

 

[azimiqbal]

I love 50 over
Cricket we must preserve it , personally would get rid of t-20 at international level

 

[andy0204]

World Cup ODI happens every 4 years, and that makes it unique and exciting. If T20s WC happens every 4 years, the aura and fame will be better than ODI WC.

It's test cricket which needs to go. A format which the common man never plays. I have played some amateur T20s, and even a close ODI format game. But 5 day cricket, is a big no, both as a player and a viewer.

What rubbish last week I played 5 day 60 overs match.

 

[hadi123]

No. ODIs are a perfect medium, some may find Tests too long while some may find T20Is too short.

 

[Markhor]

Whilst I agree with what you have said, I think that the ODI format is dying because of the fact that ICC has killed the art of off-spin and reverse swing. I remember a time where the likes of Ajmal, Ashwin, Mendis, Harbhajan, and more bowled fantastic spells and really had captivating cricket. The ball would spin well, and the variations made it interesting to watch ODI games. Low scorers were always fun, and ever since ICC killed the art of off-spin bowling, I find the middle overs in ODI cricket exceptionally boring. There's nothing to watch, no contest between bat and ball, just batsmen scoring runs freely.

I can tell you that there is nothing more captivating than good spin bowling and good reverse swing. These two arts were made for the middle overs, the variations came to make the game much more difficult. Players who had the ability to bat through the challenging middle overs made careers out of their performances, and that's how you know if someone was a great player or just an average player. There are so many average and mediocre players in ODI cricket nowadays, particularly in the middle order where there is no longer any pressure or any likelihood of taking wickets. Most playing nations have dropped all finger spinners from their ranks apart from all-rounders, and that shows the art that ICC has successfully killed. A finger spinner was accurate, built pressure and took wickets through variations, but now they get banned left, right, and center for an arm bending rule. Meanwhile field restrictions and other factors play into the hands of batsmen, who score runs freely.

Perhaps the biggest issue with modern cricket is the fact that no score is impossible. If you were to tell me that some team hit 500 in an ODI, I wouldn't even be surprised. There's no limit to what can happen because everything is in the batsman's favor. From overs 37 - 50, every team in the 2000s had a bowler who could exploit reverse swing and bowl well and take wickets. To negotiate that type of bowling from great bowlers was always exciting to watch, but nowadays, teams score about 80-100 runs in the last 10 overs sometimes, it's just pathetic.

ICC has removed all sense of equality between bat and ball, and that's why ODI Cricket is dying. Test cricket will live on, especially with the introduction of day-night tests because it is watchable, there is always something on offer. The most magnificent fast bowling spells of all time have been done in test cricket, and test cricket will live on due to the fact that there is still a level of equality between bat and ball, something ODI cricket has successfully destroyed.

Batting nowadays is much easier than it was years ago, because the most average players can farm runs. The modern game goes in favor of the batsmen, and ICC is desperately trying to get huge funding from ODI and T20 World Cups.

I for one get bored with watching ODI cricket, too one dimensional and too easy to predict who's gonna win. T20 and Tests are far superior as formats, and ODI cricket is dying quickly.

Watch ICC bring out some random Champions Trophy to keep the format alive, rather than make the appropriate changes and revert back to 1 ball in the match, and show leniency on the rules placed upon spinners. My personal opinion is that low-scoring games on tough tracks are the best, they challenge players to the core and are the true definition of ODI cricket, where you must construct your innings in accordance with the run-rate. To see a format with so much potential die is sad, but if the ICC wants to focus its attention towards getting money for their own braindead Instagram page, let them do so and successfully kill a part of the sport.

POTW. I think ODI bat-ball balance can be restored by switching to the white Dukes ball which was used in 99 WC. It can be modified as per local climate.

The white Kookaburra barely swings an inch.

 

[UzmanBeast]

POTW. I think ODI bat-ball balance can be restored by switching to the white Dukes ball which was used in 99 WC. It can be modified as per local climate.

The white Kookaburra barely swings an inch.

True, the white dukes will swing a lot more.

However, keeping the art of reverse swing alive is also important, along with off-spin bowling.

If the ball is changed to the Dukes, we must also revert back to the 1 match ball per game, so that the art of reverse swing still exists in white ball cricket. With a softer ball, spinners are also in play during the middle overs, and hopefully we see these rules be implemented soon.

 

[HappyWarsFan]

Lmao
.ODI cricket is way better than that rubbish t20.

But obviously no where near Tests.

 

[ssuhaide]

I think there a place for all three formats.

Grew up as a kid in the 80's watching test cricket. It was always be my favourate format. Most test matches these seem to be result orientated. When crowds are allowed to return some venues will always pack out like Lords and the MCG for test cricket and yes we will see empty stadia for most others. Test cricket is the ultimate challenge and a true test of a variety of disciplines.

I have no issue with T20. Its brilliant for kids to get interested into cricket. I took my son to his first T20 at the age of 3 and we have been to many since and is now interested in cricket. Its a revenue filler and it gets the crowds in.

I also have no issue with ODI's but agree that perhaps outside of World Cups and perhaps 12 months before a World cup they should not be played nearly as often. I mean haven't we just had the greatest ODI of all time, in the last World Cup, if that doesn't get people interested then nothing will. People say ODI's are one dimensional and too predictable and that can be true and there is a very valid point to lower scoring ODI's being the best games. I did think an idea to possible make things interesting would be split the 50 overs into 25 over segments. Team A bats first scores 127-5 off 25 overs. Team B then bats and scores 158-3. Team A knows they have to take risks and lower order tees off and manages to add 152 runs making a total of 277. Leaving Team B needing 120 to win. Maybe an idea. I'd hate to see the end of 50 over cricket, the World Cup is a tournament that most people cherish and we have had some classic games over the years.

 

[Dulex9]

The 90s was pure magic, so was the 2000s. The world cup 2015 was just plain boring, too many 350+ scores and so many 300 scores being posted is becoming a bore fest.

The two greatest games happened to be low scoring games, absolute nerve wrecking, thrilling, edge of the seat stuff.

Odi cricket at its best was when 270 felt like a winning score and 290 was quite imposing to reach. Even 240 can be challenging.

The 2003 WC had some great games, the first games for SA and the last game were they got themselves back into the game and just missed out on tie again. Even 2007 world cup, despite being long had some great games, India chasing 250 odd was quite tense, that's what we want cricket to be like.

Not 250 'meh' its easy to chase down.

So many magical Sharjah tournaments.

I just loved watching odi cricket because it used to be very exciting to watch.

As an England fan myself, I was relieved to be chasing 242, I honestly thought chasing 262 would have been too much, that's the feeling I want. Early wickets and its so much tension.

Even in 2015 wc final, if B McCullum had put that second slip when Warner edged it, it would have been 26-2 and a very nervous Aussies dressing room even chasing 183.

That's odi cricket at its best.

 

[Mamoon]

[MENTION=153791]UzmanBeast[/MENTION]

I really enjoyed reading your post. These days, there are only a handful of posters whose posts I always read, and I have to say you are one of them.

I agree with a lot of what you said there and my personal preference is the same. However, we also need to understand that the concept of balance between bat and ball is down to perception.

It is a subjective construct; there is no definition of balance, it based on what we perceive it to be.

We are from a generation of cricket viewers who grew up in an era where scores of 250-270 were considered match-winning in ODIs, and a score of 300 was a massive deal.

If any team could cross 320, it was considered miracle. When England scored 325 in the Natwest 2002 final and India chased it down, it felt like India had pulled-off a miracle.

The first ODI between Pakistan and India in Karachi in 2004 is another such example. It was hard to believe India put up 349 and it was even harder to believe that Pakistan managed 344 in response.

Sri Lanka’s 398 was the highest ODI total for a long time and people wondered if any team would ever cross 400, especially against a quality attack.

As a result, our perception of balance between bat and ball is based on the average scores that we grew up.

We decided that a score of 250-270 represents balance.

This balance has now shifted from an average score of 270 to an average score of 300. It is part of the evolution of ODI cricket. It is not everyone’s cup of tea, but it is what it is.

As a result, instead of trying to restrict the game and stop the evolution, cricket fans need to evolve themselves.

Young children getting into the game of cricket today or who grew up watching in the 2010s do not have a problem with the high scores in ODIs today, because that is what they are used to. Their perception of balance between bat and ball is different than ours.

We cricket fans in general are very stubborn to change. We hate evolution and we want the game to stay in the same place because that is what we like and want.

We want ODI cricket to stay where it was in the 80s, 90s, 00s and we want franchise cricket to die out because we don’t like it and did not grow up with it.

However, the next generation of fans embrace franchise cricket and they will not consider it a threat to international cricket, and neither do they have a problem with the high scores in ODI cricket because their definition and perception of balance has now shifted.

If 20-30 years down the line, the average score in ODIs becomes 500, then a score of 500 will become a balanced score for that generation of fans.

An economy rate of 10-11 will no longer appear to be high, and a run a ball hundred will suddenly appear to be slow.

The fan perception will change accordingly.

We cricket fans from 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, need to realize that the game will not stay where we want it to stay.

 

[Mamoon]

Great post. Especially agree with the their is no equality between bat and ball. ICC ruined the format forever.

POTW. I think ODI bat-ball balance can be restored by switching to the white Dukes ball which was used in 99 WC. It can be modified as per local climate.

The white Kookaburra barely swings an inch.

But you see, this is the problem.

Who defines what balance and equality is?

We all unanimously decided that a score of 250-270 represents balance and this is thus the official definition.

It is all about perception. Fan perception evolves with the time because the game also evolves.

Cricket fans growing up today have a different perception of balance. They do not view 320 as a very high score and they consider 270 to be a below par total.

Hence, the perception and thus the definition of balance is changing.

 

[someone21]

What rubbish last week I played 5 day 60 overs match.

Huh? And yet what is point?

Test cricket as a format, is not even played by the common man and the fans. It's only for the elites.

It's the other formats which is enjoyed more, in terms of both viewership ratings and even amateur matches. And even as a sport, its T20 which requires stronger body, athleticism, and emphasis on all 3 aspects of the game.

 

[Mamoon]

Another problem with Test purists is the logical fallacy that Test cricket is the toughest and most challenging format.

If this assessment was true, all players who are/were great at Tests would breeze through ODI and T20s, but that is not the case at all.

Ask Test greats like Cook, Pujara, Younis and even Azhar how challenging and difficult Limited Overs cricket is.

No format is harder than the other. They simply test different skills of the game and the truly best cricketers in the world are those who excel in all three formats at the same time.

That is why the league of cricketers who are world class in all formats is very small. Very few cricketers have the skill to do it all.

Someone like Pujara is by no means a better batsman than someone like KL Rahul.

While Pujara is clearly a far better Test batsman, KL Rahul can be very good at Test cricket himself but there is no way Pujara has the skill and the talent to be an explosive Limited Overs batsman.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Get rid of all Pyjama Leagues and save cricket.

 

[Markhor]

But you see, this is the problem.

Who defines what balance and equality is?

We all unanimously decided that a score of 250-270 represents balance and this is thus the official definition.

It is all about perception. Fan perception evolves with the time because the game also evolves.

Cricket fans growing up today have a different perception of balance. They do not view 320 as a very high score and they consider 270 to be a below par total.

Hence, the perception and thus the definition of balance is changing.

It's a fair comment. I think my biggest issue with recent ODIs, moreso than bat-ball balance, is how uniform the pitches are.

That's why the 2019 World Cup was the best I've ever seen. There were something in the conditions for everyone - flat tracks, slow pitches, green pitches, bouncy pitches, turning pitches. And when you look at the overall batting and bowling charts - the best cricketers in the world topped the lists.

If every pitch is a road, or every surface a greentop - it allows mediocre cricketers to look far better than they actually are.

I'm not against high scoring matches - the 2004 Karachi PAK-IND match is my favourite ODI of all time. I have never, ever heard raw emotion from a live crowd like that in my life, the crowd was nearly hysterical as Pakistan inched closer to the target. But that's because we simply didn't see many matches like that in that era. Now 340+ scores are commonplace and nobody would bat an eyelid. So variety is the key rather than balance itself.

 

[Stewie]

[MENTION=153791]UzmanBeast[/MENTION]

I really enjoyed reading your post. These days, there are only a handful of posters whose posts I always read, and I have to say you are one of them.

I agree with a lot of what you said there and my personal preference is the same. However, we also need to understand that the concept of balance between bat and ball is down to perception.

It is a subjective construct; there is no definition of balance, it based on what we perceive it to be.

We are from a generation of cricket viewers who grew up in an era where scores of 250-270 were considered match-winning in ODIs, and a score of 300 was a massive deal.

If any team could cross 320, it was considered miracle. When England scored 325 in the Natwest 2002 final and India chased it down, it felt like India had pulled-off a miracle.

The first ODI between Pakistan and India in Karachi in 2004 is another such example. It was hard to believe India put up 349 and it was even harder to believe that Pakistan managed 344 in response.

Sri Lanka’s 398 was the highest ODI total for a long time and people wondered if any team would ever cross 400, especially against a quality attack.

As a result, our perception of balance between bat and ball is based on the average scores that we grew up.

We decided that a score of 250-270 represents balance.

This balance has now shifted from an average score of 270 to an average score of 300. It is part of the evolution of ODI cricket. It is not everyone’s cup of tea, but it is what it is.

As a result, instead of trying to restrict the game and stop the evolution, cricket fans need to evolve themselves.

Young children getting into the game of cricket today or who grew up watching in the 2010s do not have a problem with the high scores in ODIs today, because that is what they are used to. Their perception of balance between bat and ball is different than ours.

We cricket fans in general are very stubborn to change. We hate evolution and we want the game to stay in the same place because that is what we like and want.

We want ODI cricket to stay where it was in the 80s, 90s, 00s and we want franchise cricket to die out because we don’t like it and did not grow up with it.

However, the next generation of fans embrace franchise cricket and they will not consider it a threat to international cricket, and neither do they have a problem with the high scores in ODI cricket because their definition and perception of balance has now shifted.

If 20-30 years down the line, the average score in ODIs becomes 500, then a score of 500 will become a balanced score for that generation of fans.

An economy rate of 10-11 will no longer appear to be high, and a run a ball hundred will suddenly appear to be slow.

The fan perception will change accordingly.

We cricket fans from 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, need to realize that the game will not stay where we want it to stay.

While some of what you say is correct, IMO, disagree about the perception part.

Modern day ODI cricket is about batting and bowlers being at the mercy of the batsmen and the rules. The bats are bigger, boundaries shorter.. advantage batsman. Bowlers could use reverse swing before not anymore.. advantage batsmen.

Bowlers cannot bowl down leg anymore since everything is a wide compared to previous years where you had some leeway to bowl on legs. Advantage batsmen.

Limited bouncers.. advantage batsmen.

Fielding restrictions.. advantage batsmen.

All the above: These are tangible changes not a a subjective argument or a matter of perception.

Now let’s look at it from a different angle. In test cricket, you need to take 20 wickets to win. Bowlers are the offensive. Batsmen need to not just score runs but first they have to survive. Or in the case of last day sessions, just survive. So the bowlers have a very important role here. They are weapons for the team just like batsmen who the team relies on to score hundreds.

What happens in ODIs these days the bowler’s role is “pitna kum hai” lol. I mean yes they go for wickets in certain overs but if that doesn’t work immediately it becomes a war of simply containing the batsmen from racking up boundaries. Singles are ok. Nobody is going for wickets. That’s how it is. Is that perception? I think not. The difference in the value of bowlers is clear as day. So that’s what we refer to when we talk about balance!

The ODI game these days is not won by bowlers. How often do we see a situation where they say “you got 200-230 on the board. The only way you can win this is by bowling them out” and then you see them actually do it or even try to do it? Because you can’t.

These days in ODIS, team cannot even fathom bowling out the opposition in 50 overs. My guess is this happens less than 2% of international matches.

Hope that made sense.

 

[Mamoon]

While some of what you say is correct, IMO, disagree about the perception part.

Modern day ODI cricket is about batting and bowlers being at the mercy of the batsmen and the rules. The bats are bigger, boundaries shorter.. advantage batsman. Bowlers could use reverse swing before not anymore.. advantage batsmen.

Bowlers cannot bowl down leg anymore since everything is a wide compared to previous years where you had some leeway to bowl on legs. Advantage batsmen.

Limited bouncers.. advantage batsmen.

Fielding restrictions.. advantage batsmen.

All the above: These are tangible changes not a a subjective argument or a matter of perception.

Now let’s look at it from a different angle. In test cricket, you need to take 20 wickets to win. Bowlers are the offensive. Batsmen need to not just score runs but first they have to survive. Or in the case of last day sessions, just survive. So the bowlers have a very important role here. They are weapons for the team just like batsmen who the team relies on to score hundreds.

What happens in ODIs these days the bowler’s role is “pitna kum hai” lol. I mean yes they go for wickets in certain overs but if that doesn’t work immediately it becomes a war of simply containing the batsmen from racking up boundaries. Singles are ok. Nobody is going for wickets. That’s how it is. Is that perception? I think not. The difference in the value of bowlers is clear as day. So that’s what we refer to when we talk about balance!

The ODI game these days is not won by bowlers. How often do we see a situation where they say “you got 200-230 on the board. The only way you can win this is by bowling them out” and then you see them actually do it or even try to do it? Because you can’t.

These days in ODIS, team cannot even fathom bowling out the opposition in 50 overs. My guess is this happens less than 2% of international matches.

Hope that made sense.

World class ODI bowlers are still thriving in this era. Starc, Archer, Rabada, Cummins, Boult, Bumrah, Shami etc. etc. have all produced great performances and have great numbers.

If we go by what you are saying, would you agree that these bowlers are far better than the likes of Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Pollock, Imran, Holding, Marshall, Roberts, Hadlee etc. because they are producing great performances in an era of flat wickets, short boundaries, big bats and all the rules stacked against them?

I am okay with people discrediting modern day great ODI batsmen because scoring big runs has become easier. However, people are not willing to extend the same logic to the bowlers.

If modern ODI batsmen are overrated then modern ODI bowlers are underrated and deserve to be rated higher than ODI bowlers of the past.

I am happy to agree that Miandad was a better ODI batsman than Joe Root, if you agree that Bumrah is a better ODI bowler than Wasim Akram.

If Joe Root is averaging 50 at a SR of 87 because of flat pitches, big bats, small boundaries and favorable rules, then imagine how good Bumrah must be, he has comparable stats to Wasim Akram in spite of playing in an era of flat pitches, big bats, small boundaries and favorable rules.

 

[ElRaja]

Another problem with Test purists is the logical fallacy that Test cricket is the toughest and most challenging format.

If this assessment was true, all players who are/were great at Tests would breeze through ODI and T20s, but that is not the case at all.

Ask Test greats like Cook, Pujara, Younis and even Azhar how challenging and difficult Limited Overs cricket is.

No format is harder than the other. They simply test different skills of the game and the truly best cricketers in the world are those who excel in all three formats at the same time.

That is why the league of cricketers who are world class in all formats is very small. Very few cricketers have the skill to do it all.

Someone like Pujara is by no means a better batsman than someone like KL Rahul.

While Pujara is clearly a far better Test batsman, KL Rahul can be very good at Test cricket himself but there is no way Pujara has the skill and the talent to be an explosive Limited Overs batsman.

your right in terms of skill, what one format demands in technique, the other demands in athleticism, etc, so one could argue difficulty is relative to the level of competition, but objectively i would think a 5 day test in mentally a lot tougher than a 3 hour t20i.

you do anything competitively and the longer it takes the more draining it is mentally and emotionally from my experience, and sometimes exponentially so.

 

[Canistani Hero]

Too many changes, just leave things how they are.

 

[UzmanBeast]

[MENTION=153791]UzmanBeast[/MENTION]

I really enjoyed reading your post. These days, there are only a handful of posters whose posts I always read, and I have to say you are one of them.

I agree with a lot of what you said there and my personal preference is the same. However, we also need to understand that the concept of balance between bat and ball is down to perception.

It is a subjective construct; there is no definition of balance, it based on what we perceive it to be.

We are from a generation of cricket viewers who grew up in an era where scores of 250-270 were considered match-winning in ODIs, and a score of 300 was a massive deal.

If any team could cross 320, it was considered miracle. When England scored 325 in the Natwest 2002 final and India chased it down, it felt like India had pulled-off a miracle.

The first ODI between Pakistan and India in Karachi in 2004 is another such example. It was hard to believe India put up 349 and it was even harder to believe that Pakistan managed 344 in response.

Sri Lanka’s 398 was the highest ODI total for a long time and people wondered if any team would ever cross 400, especially against a quality attack.

As a result, our perception of balance between bat and ball is based on the average scores that we grew up.

We decided that a score of 250-270 represents balance.

This balance has now shifted from an average score of 270 to an average score of 300. It is part of the evolution of ODI cricket. It is not everyone’s cup of tea, but it is what it is.

As a result, instead of trying to restrict the game and stop the evolution, cricket fans need to evolve themselves.

Young children getting into the game of cricket today or who grew up watching in the 2010s do not have a problem with the high scores in ODIs today, because that is what they are used to. Their perception of balance between bat and ball is different than ours.

We cricket fans in general are very stubborn to change. We hate evolution and we want the game to stay in the same place because that is what we like and want.

We want ODI cricket to stay where it was in the 80s, 90s, 00s and we want franchise cricket to die out because we don’t like it and did not grow up with it.

However, the next generation of fans embrace franchise cricket and they will not consider it a threat to international cricket, and neither do they have a problem with the high scores in ODI cricket because their definition and perception of balance has now shifted.

If 20-30 years down the line, the average score in ODIs becomes 500, then a score of 500 will become a balanced score for that generation of fans.

An economy rate of 10-11 will no longer appear to be high, and a run a ball hundred will suddenly appear to be slow.

The fan perception will change accordingly.

We cricket fans from 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, need to realize that the game will not stay where we want it to stay.

Thanks. You brought some great insights.

It's true that we can be stubborn to change, and I do agree that these high flyers can sometimes be quite entertaining, especially in tense situations.

The only problem I have is the fact that we are slowly and gradually losing two of the finest arts of bowling invented, being reverse swing and off-spin bowling. You look at those two bowling arts, and this is just my opinion, but they were wonderful to watch. I grew up with Ajmal, Mendis, and Harbhajan bowling, and I was truly mesmerized. Similarly, I used to go to my friends house just to watch videos of the greats like Waqar and Wasim bowl reverse swing, and even during that time period there was a lot to watch, especially around the 2010s. To see those two arts die off in white ball cricket is the part I don't stand with, and it simply comes down to the game being marketed for high-scoring games.

There is no doubt that batsmen nowadays are also run-machines, they have solid techniques and all the temperament to score big. You could have reverse swing and be in a time where there was only one ball per game, but people like Rohit Sharma would still hit you for 200 on their day. That's the beauty of the game, those players who have the quality to perform will do so at any stage.

It's clearly a biased opinion, but I don't like seeing a part of the game's history being destroyed for marketing, tarnishing the legacy of this great sport. Surely there can be some leniency for off-spinners, even if it's by a few degrees at most. Similarly, instead of two new balls, maybe the second new ball can be semi-new condition, to at least show some reverse swing down the line.

The kids nowadays I see growing up have no recollection nor memory of the art of reverse swing and off-spin bowling. Sure there's a few finger spinners here and there keeping it alive (Mujeeb ur Rahman is one I like), but the balance in the game was shifted towards batsmen solely because spin bowling became less relevant due to the strictness ICC implemented.

We will never see another Wasim Akram, nor another Sachin Tendulkar. That I can guarantee you. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but it is sad watching a part of the game slowly disappear, and what's worse is that after a few years or so, we might not even remember the beauty of off-spin, which is already being referred to as "a part-timers bowling".

Like you said, the perception of balance between bat and ball varies from individuals, it's too subjective to mention collectively in a world where individuals have great differences in thinking and interpretation. I was just sharing my piece of the pie, but I understand that there are other pieces as well, which is what makes this game a full meal.

T20, whether we like it, whether I like it, will be the next big thing. I personally watch test cricket, it brings back some of the bowling that I miss seeing in ODI cricket.

ODI cricket will continue to prosper, especially if ICC can tap into the youthful fan-base. Our youth is very indulged in cricket as a sport, football is yet to even take off in Pakistan. Viewership, for one, will not be lost but I will reiterate my sole point that losing two arts and crafts of bowling are not worth the added viewership.

 

[Technics 1210]

Oh dear. Oh dear. Oh dear.

Firstly Cricket is a unique sport. Not because as a team sport there are uneven players on the field (11 v 2), but because the sport has multiple formats : Test, ODI, T20, T10, and soon to be, the 100.

Each format has a set of different rules. A leg side delivery is a wide in ODi, but a legitimate delivery in Test. Fielding restrictions in limited over formats are different from Tests. (Test only has one fielding restriction - no more than 2 players behind square leg). 2 set of balls in ODI, vs 1 ball for 80 over in Tests, with an option to change the ball after 80 overs.

For those of you have been watching cricket pre 2000, will realise how the limited overs game has changed and the rules favour the batsman (with exception of bouncer rule in Tests).

One aspect hasn't changed - Cricket was, and always is, a thinking man's game. Test cricket is not about score board pressure, it's about strategy, and knowing when to accelerate and deccelerate an innings. Time is quality. Tests will remain king.

ODI was born out of the Test format. A rained off test in the 70s (I think) led to a single days play - ODI was born. Started with 60 overs, now is 50 overs. It's all about time.

T20 was created to appeal to those who didn't have time to sit through 9 hours of an ODI, let alone 5 days of a Test, and with the new format in T10 and the 100, in a few years fans will be questioning why the need for T20.

Bowlers have been hit hard by the most. First of all, the 2 ball rule in ODI means a bowler cannot develop the skill set based on the condition of the ball, or at least, not enough time in a match.

Also, the riches of T20 means players rather player shorter formats for less time and more money. This isn't quality, this is mercenary.

We all awed at Jimmy's reverse swing ability vs India. Do you think he developed this skill in T20? No. Tests and ODI, where a bowler has enough time to hone in on skills.

ODI is the second best best format in Cricket after Tests. If you are not in for the riches and as a player want to develop skills, then the longer the format, the better.

As for spectators. You dislike/like for a format depends on your standard of quality and the time you have to watch a game. How is it possible someone like the OP loves Tests, but not ODIs? Time? You can spend 5 days, but not one day watching cricket?

You want pyjama quality go for T20, you want optimal quality, ODI is the best, you want the king of quality then it is Tests.

ODI isn't going anywhere, but ICC must change the rules to balance the ODI game between bat and ball.

 

[Stewie]

World class ODI bowlers are still thriving in this era. Starc, Archer, Rabada, Cummins, Boult, Bumrah, Shami etc. etc. have all produced great performances and have great numbers.

If we go by what you are saying, would you agree that these bowlers are far better than the likes of Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Pollock, Imran, Holding, Marshall, Roberts, Hadlee etc. because they are producing great performances in an era of flat wickets, short boundaries, big bats and all the rules stacked against them?

I am okay with people discrediting modern day great ODI batsmen because scoring big runs has become easier. However, people are not willing to extend the same logic to the bowlers.

If modern ODI batsmen are overrated then modern ODI bowlers are underrated and deserve to be rated higher than ODI bowlers of the past.

I am happy to agree that Miandad was a better ODI batsman than Joe Root, if you agree that Bumrah is a better ODI bowler than Wasim Akram.

If Joe Root is averaging 50 at a SR of 87 because of flat pitches, big bats, small boundaries and favorable rules, then imagine how good Bumrah must be, he has comparable stats to Wasim Akram in spite of playing in an era of flat pitches, big bats, small boundaries and favorable rules.

I would actually absolutely say yes to most of it, believe it or not. But it depends on how you describe thriving? I would have to look at their stats to make that determination. Strike rates, economy rates, average this all comes into play so if it’s better than bowlers of yesteryears, sure these are better bowlers than them.

 

[Stewie]

Let me add a caveat to this though. England is an exception. The conditions there still help the bowlers and they use Duke balls which help the bowlers. The kookaburras used by ICC is world cups and such have a very depressed seam which aids zero movement off the air or the pitch. So england home games are definitely an exception not the norm here.

 

[Ami]

Personally, love any format where Pakistan wins.
Even if I don't initially, I'll change my mind quickly.
End of.

 

[msb314]

Are you a Pakistan fan? If you are I’ll let you in on a secret. As long as the balance between bat n ball is off and favored towards bat, Pakistan will always continue to lose.. especially against India in the world cups. Snow ball’s chance in hell we can win. Unless the game is played in England where it helps out bowlers there is no chance at all. Pakistan always dominated ODIs because of our supreme bowling which we used to defend even modest totals. That’s why we were such a force in the 80s and 90s. Then in the 2000s the balance shifted and we started seeing over 300 totals scored a d even chased.. and that’s when our downfall began.

But even if it’s not Pakistan playing and losing, I still want to see some advantage to the bowlers bowling vicious and carefree bouncers and making those stumps fly as much as I want to see big hits. What’s wrong with that?

A close game chasing 230-250 and losing is as entertaining as a 300 plus successful chase. They key is to have a mixed bag and not the same flavor of candy over and over again.

Not sure I agree with this.

We won the CT final by batting first and scoring big on a flat wicket - even our batting is capable of scoring 300+ runs if we play more on flatter surfaces rather than the dustbowls we are used to..

 

[Stewie]

Not sure I agree with this.

We won the CT final by batting first and scoring big on a flat wicket - even our batting is capable of scoring 300+ runs if we play more on flatter surfaces rather than the dustbowls we are used to..

It won’t happen every day. They have beaten us consistently in ODIs and I think any top team will. You can look at the data. It’s a combination of dwindling talent + the growing imbalance between bat and ball.

Of course anything can happen in cricket but it’s more about the consostent trends and patterns.

 

[msb314]

It won’t happen every day. They have beaten us consistently in ODIs and I think any top team will. You can look at the data. It’s a combination of dwindling talent + the growing imbalance between bat and ball.

Of course anything can happen in cricket but it’s more about the consostent trends and patterns.

You do have a point that flat batting wickets have favored India in recent years - as their batting is very strong.

However - I look at the Asia Cup in 2018 and we still got outplayed on slow, turning wickets as we had no answer to Chahal and Kuldeep..

During ICC tournaments such as the 2015 WC game, 2017 CT Group Stage game and also the 2019 WC game - India batted first and scored 300+. Scoreboard pressure did the rest..

So I still think that batting first and scoring big on flat wickets is the way to go and we have done it recently too.. The pressure of an India - Pakistan game and also being in an ICC tournament should be enough to beat India as they try to chase anything above 300.

Not saying we are better than them - since we clearly are not.. But we have been unlucky in losing the toss and having to chase 3 out of the last 4 times we have played India in an ICC tournament. I think we would have fared better had we batted first..

Just my opinion so please feel free to disagree.

 

[Stewie]

You do have a point that flat batting wickets have favored India in recent years - as their batting is very strong.

However - I look at the Asia Cup in 2018 and we still got outplayed on slow, turning wickets as we had no answer to Chahal and Kuldeep..

During ICC tournaments such as the 2015 WC game, 2017 CT Group Stage game and also the 2019 WC game - India batted first and scored 300+. Scoreboard pressure did the rest..

So I still think that batting first and scoring big on flat wickets is the way to go and we have done it recently too.. The pressure of an India - Pakistan game and also being in an ICC tournament should be enough to beat India as they try to chase anything above 300.

Not saying we are better than them - since we clearly are not.. But we have been unlucky in losing the toss and having to chase 3 out of the last 4 times we have played India in an ICC tournament. I think we would have fared better had we batted first..

Just my opinion so please feel free to disagree.

I don’t completely disagree. India has become an overall better team due to a solid game plan they have developed over the years due to the changing standards. Pakistan has not. Our batting is still stuck in the 80s and we never go full tilt at the start of the innings like indians do.

I think this is all part of the problem here. We always always had below par batting. Our quick bowling is what always bailed us out. So if it’s slow spin pitch or batting pitch, we were always less potent than we were on fast or seaming pitches.

But over the last 20 years or so, we have become so fragile we don’t want green surfaces because 1. We don’t have the same fearsome bowling 2. Our batting is even more fragile.

But as a case in point, let’s think back to the last bilateral ODI series we had vs India in India. We won 2-1 I believe because they have us one green pitch and Junaid wreaked havoc on it.

 

[MenInG]

50 over cricket allows good batsmen to show their skills and the same for bowlers - to me that is a great format to see some good cricket being played.