Suggestion to make ODIs more interesting

[Stewie]

Here is my raw and perhaps lame attempt to suggest a format change so ODIs become more interesting, this will be a bit of a painful and lengthy read, but I am hopeful most readers will post their views and perhaps suggest improvements to this first draft. This might be an exercise in futility but is interests a lot of the people here, perhaps the site owners and managers can bump it up to whomever willing to consider the proposal.

So here goes nothing:

THE BASICS: PART UNO
- Maximum 90 overs in the game
- Teams have a number of options to decide how to approach the structure of the game, such as a single innings or double innings:
-- IN case of a single innings, one team can bat a maximum of 48 overs if they are NOT bowled out.
***** This is meant to incentivize staying on the wicket and rewards good batting while at the same time encourages the bowling side to go all out for wickets. Also if the bowling side is unable to bowl out the opposition, they get lesser number of overs to chase the total (90-48=42 overs) *****

-- In case the team is bowled out before 45 overs are overs, the bowling team gets to utilize the remaining overs when they are chasing the target. Example: Team A bats first and gets bowled out after 40 overs. Then Team B gets 50 overs to chase down the total.
***** Once again this incentivizes attacking cricket by the bowling side with aggressive bowling and field tactics ******


THE NITTY GRITTY
- After the PP, (6 or 7 overs, can be debated separately), no field restrictions for the bowling side. Gives them flexibility but most likely teams will want wickets and choose to attack, so this will be a moot issue.
- Bowling quotas: 5 bowlers to bowl at least 3 overs each during the match. The bowling captain can utilize his bowlers as he sees fit for the remaining overs. This allows the bowling team the luxury of using its key bowlers more and play more attacking cricket.

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS:
1. If the team bowling first is unable to bowl out the opposition within 45 overs, it may or may not put them at a significant disadvantage. For example, this may address the unfair advantage of bowling first due to the due factor at night in some cases and kind of evens it out for the team that bowls second.
2. Another approach could be to take away the no field restrictions clause from the team that bats first and bats a maximum# of overs (48) in the first innings. If they declare their innings at the end of 45 overs, then they can retain their no field restrictions benefit, because it provides for a more even contest.


---- Up next: the second split innings option, but I would like to hear some thoughts on the proposal so far before I jump down that rabbit hole ------

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Here is my raw and perhaps lame attempt to suggest a format change so ODIs become more interesting, this will be a bit of a painful and lengthy read, but I am hopeful most readers will post their views and perhaps suggest improvements to this first draft. This might be an exercise in futility but is interests a lot of the people here, perhaps the site owners and managers can bump it up to whomever willing to consider the proposal.

So here goes nothing:

THE BASICS: PART UNO
- Maximum 90 overs in the game
- Teams have a number of options to decide how to approach the structure of the game, such as a single innings or double innings:
-- IN case of a single innings, one team can bat a maximum of 48 overs if they are NOT bowled out.
***** This is meant to incentivize staying on the wicket and rewards good batting while at the same time encourages the bowling side to go all out for wickets. Also if the bowling side is unable to bowl out the opposition, they get lesser number of overs to chase the total (90-48=42 overs) *****

-- In case the team is bowled out before 45 overs are overs, the bowling team gets to utilize the remaining overs when they are chasing the target. Example: Team A bats first and gets bowled out after 40 overs. Then Team B gets 50 overs to chase down the total.
***** Once again this incentivizes attacking cricket by the bowling side with aggressive bowling and field tactics ******


THE NITTY GRITTY
- After the PP, (6 or 7 overs, can be debated separately), no field restrictions for the bowling side. Gives them flexibility but most likely teams will want wickets and choose to attack, so this will be a moot issue.
- Bowling quotas: 5 bowlers to bowl at least 3 overs each during the match. The bowling captain can utilize his bowlers as he sees fit for the remaining overs. This allows the bowling team the luxury of using its key bowlers more and play more attacking cricket.

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS:
1. If the team bowling first is unable to bowl out the opposition within 45 overs, it may or may not put them at a significant disadvantage. For example, this may address the unfair advantage of bowling first due to the due factor at night in some cases and kind of evens it out for the team that bowls second.
2. Another approach could be to take away the no field restrictions clause from the team that bats first and bats a maximum# of overs (48) in the first innings. If they declare their innings at the end of 45 overs, then they can retain their no field restrictions benefit, because it provides for a more even contest.


---- Up next: the second split innings option, but I would like to hear some thoughts on the proposal so far before I jump down that rabbit hole ------

I'll be brutally honest here.

I wrote a long post about how this was a dumb idea and risked over complicating a simple game.

Before pressing submit I reread your theory, as you are an esteemed poster and thought hmmm it could quite work - particularly the bolded.

It would add a whole new tactical dimension to the game, it would make shrewd captaincy a bigger factor and reward aggressive cricket.

Sadly, I think it only works as a thought experiment but would be difficult to execute in practice.

 

[Stewie]

I'll be brutally honest here.

I wrote a long post about how this was a dumb idea and risked over complicating a simple game.

Before pressing submit I reread your theory, as you are an esteemed poster and thought hmmm it could quite work - particularly the bolded.

It would add a whole new tactical dimension to the game, it would make shrewd captaincy a bigger factor and reward aggressive cricket.

Sadly, I think it only works as a thought experiment but would be difficult to execute in practice.

Appreciate the kind sentiment. And you are spot on. It gives a lot of room for tactics maneuvering and such and challenges captains to make some smart decisions and also keep the fans guessing and interested.

And you are right, this could be be a thought experiment in the end, but doesn’t mean it can’t be fun ..

Fire away folks!

 

[hitthestump]

Unfortunately i think this will lead to too many games which become obvious really early. If a team does well with the bat then losing 6 overs is going to prove too much of a disadvantage to most chasing sides and also vice versa with extra overs to chase a below par total.

Also if a team has a really poor start then the rest of the game will see them incentivised to block out up to the quota of 48 overs. I know teams usually build partnerships anyway but this eliminates the possibility of a brave counter attacking cameo hoping something comes off.

What do you think?

 

[Mamoon]

Nothing can be done.

I love ODI cricket, it was what attracted me to the game in the first place. However, the fact is that it is rapidly becoming a unnecessary format.

T20s have made the format pointless. It serves no purpose. It is just an extended version of T20s and why would you want that when you can get your fill in 3 hours.

3 hours is more than enough time to entertain yourself with sports and then get on with the rest of your day.

In today’s fast paced and busy world, no one has the time to spend 8-9 hours watching a game of cricket.

If you can afford to watch an entire ODI game consistently, then that means you are not doing anything productive in life. If a game is too long to be watched from start to finish, then there is no point in having that game to begin with.

 

[Stewie]

Unfortunately i think this will lead to too many games which become obvious really early. If a team does well with the bat then losing 6 overs is going to prove too much of a disadvantage to most chasing sides and also vice versa with a ton of overs to chase a small total.

Also if a team has a really poor start then the rest of the game will seem them incentivised to block out up to the quota of 48 overs. I know teams usually build partnerships anyway but this eliminates the possibility of a brave counter attacking cameo hoping something comes off.

What do you think?

I’ll write about PART DEUX: the split innings option which may make this idea in a grander scheme more logical. Just gotta find time to write it.. I think it will make more sense and only the brave ones will choose the PART UNO for single innings. Stay tuned!

P.S : my thought is to incorporate the interesting parts of all three formats into one. The split innings idea will make it essentially a two inning T20s contest.. with some caveats.

 

[Stewie]

Nothing can be done.

I love ODI cricket, it was what attracted me to the game in the first place. However, the fact is that it is rapidly becoming a unnecessary format.

T20s have made the format pointless. It serves no purpose. It is just an extended version of T20s and why would you want that when you can get your fill in 3 hours.

3 hours is more than enough time to entertain yourself with sports and then get on with the rest of your day.

In today’s fast paced and busy world, no one has the time to spend 8-9 hours watching a game of cricket.

If you can afford to watch an entire ODI game consistently, then that means you are not doing anything productive in life. If a game is too long to be watched from start to finish, then there is no point in having that game to begin with.

I think we can still salvage ODIs if we give them two t20s for the price of one. Lol. I’ll write a detailed follow up soon, IA.

 

[Local.Dada]

Play T20s and Tests.

Keep ODIs to champions trophy and World Cup as it’s the perfect bridge between the 2 formats.
That will automatically raise its profile.

Useless bilateral ODIs are awful.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Nothing can be done.

I love ODI cricket, it was what attracted me to the game in the first place. However, the fact is that it is rapidly becoming a unnecessary format.

T20s have made the format pointless. It serves no purpose. It is just an extended version of T20s and why would you want that when you can get your fill in 3 hours.

3 hours is more than enough time to entertain yourself with sports and then get on with the rest of your day.

In today’s fast paced and busy world, no one has the time to spend 8-9 hours watching a game of cricket.

If you can afford to watch an entire ODI game consistently, then that means you are not doing anything productive in life. If a game is too long to be watched from start to finish, then there is no point in having that game to begin with.

On the contrary most have more free time now as they can watch the match anywhere. Work, home, restaurant. You don't really have to watch from start to finish something which we hardly did even in the 90s. Most of them work from home. Subcontinent countries don't have any other sports to cling to. Sure they appreciate Federer, Nadal, Messi, Ronaldo. But at the end of the day they are not playing for your country. So whenever cricket is played by their country most of them will take time to watch regardless of the format. At least they will follow on cricinfo. Cricket leagues are more popular than international T20. Generally bilateral T20s are used for experiment. There is generally a distinct lack of competitiveness due to that. I am sure BBL had more viewers than some of the world T20 matches with the exception of India/Pakistan match. Couple of seasons back BBL final shattered the record in viewership. Even during COVID 500000 people attended BBL.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Play T20s and Tests.

Keep ODIs to champions trophy and World Cup as it’s the perfect bridge between the 2 formats.
That will automatically raise its profile.

Useless bilateral ODIs are awful.

But you need practice for it right? You need to identify who is in form. You have to test new players right? Even though stadium is empty India continues having Vijay Hazare trophy, Deodar Trophy. This is a necessary evil. Fans don't have to watch if they don't have time. It is the players that play not fans. I am not sure why fans are inconvenienced by this.

 

[Stewie]

Just FYI:
While your thoughts on ODIs are greatly appreciated, I will request all to keep the discussion focused on the proposal. Your opinions regarding the modern day feasibility of ODI cricket can be shared through a thread of its own if necessary.

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[TheNightWatchman]

Nothing can be done.

I love ODI cricket, it was what attracted me to the game in the first place. However, the fact is that it is rapidly becoming a unnecessary format.

T20s have made the format pointless. It serves no purpose. It is just an extended version of T20s and why would you want that when you can get your fill in 3 hours.

3 hours is more than enough time to entertain yourself with sports and then get on with the rest of your day.

In today’s fast paced and busy world, no one has the time to spend 8-9 hours watching a game of cricket.

If you can afford to watch an entire ODI game consistently, then that means you are not doing anything productive in life. If a game is too long to be watched from start to finish, then there is no point in having that game to begin with.

I love ODI cricket too. It is a completely different format. You can make the same argument for someone who watches test cricket the whole day or all 5 days.

But people don't. We follow the game and watch it in sections. You don't have to be consistently glued to the screen. Is it profitable in terms of the variable viewership? That's a different argument. Do I think it's interesting? Yea I do. Because you can follow the game through out the day.

 

[TheNightWatchman]

The only thing I have an issue with is the balance between bat and ball.

I think the 2nd new ball rule should be removed. Bring reverse back into the game.

 

[Smudger]

I personally like the idea of 40 over ODIs and 4 day tests

 

[happydavy]

The only way to make one days interesting is by reducing it to 20 overs a side to be played within 3 hours! I hav started getting bored during the overs 7-15 in T20s, how the hell can one watch a full day game in today's world.

 

[happydavy]

I love ODI cricket too. It is a completely different format. You can make the same argument for someone who watches test cricket the whole day or all 5 days.

But people don't. We follow the game and watch it in sections. You don't have to be consistently glued to the screen. Is it profitable in terms of the variable viewership? That's a different argument. Do I think it's interesting? Yea I do. Because you can follow the game through out the day.

And by watching it in sections you would mean first 10 overs and the last 10 overs. That's exactly why T20 was invented so that you don't have to watch the game in sections.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Would only like to get that 2 new balls from both ends done away with. And maybe just restrict the last 15 overs restrictions to last 10.

 

[emranabbas]

How about playing 100 overs in 4 innings all in one day

Team 1 bats 25 overs
Team 2 bats 25 overs
Team 1 bats again 25 overs
Team 2 bats again 25 overs

If a player is out in first innings he can play again in the 2nd innings

T20/test = odi

 

[jnaveen1980]

How about playing 100 overs in 4 innings all in one day

Team 1 bats 25 overs
Team 2 bats 25 overs
Team 1 bats again 25 overs
Team 2 bats again 25 overs

If a player is out in first innings he can play again in the 2nd innings

T20/test = odi

100 overs with 4 breaks with 40 wickets? Asbolutely not possible.

 

[BDfanforever]

It's actually T20 that need to change its rules. Why do you need 11 batsmen for T20?

Also, this fascination about multiple innings need to stop. Why do you need to play the game twice? Pretty meaningless to do so.

 

[TheNightWatchman]

And by watching it in sections you would mean first 10 overs and the last 10 overs. That's exactly why T20 was invented so that you don't have to watch the game in sections.

I personally love the middle overs. Because that makes or breaks a game. Interesting assumption though

 

[Justcrazy]

Play T20s and Tests.

Keep ODIs to champions trophy and World Cup as it’s the perfect bridge between the 2 formats.
That will automatically raise its profile.

Useless bilateral ODIs are awful.

You cannor play OD in just two tournaments , you need preparation , thus if you want to keep this format relevant , need to have some series in between.

 

[jnaveen1980]

I personally love the middle overs. Because that makes or breaks a game. Interesting assumption though

That tests various facets of your game not just swinging from the hips. Not that you can't accelerate in the middle phase as you have only 4 fielders outside the circle. Teams consciously use this as building phase.
A certain Dhoni's finishing skills would have never come to be known but for ODI
s building+finishing skills. It is an art. Taking the game deep witout losing your head.
I quiet enjoy it especially the days when Dhoni/Yuvi/Raina built the innings in their hey days.

 

[jnaveen1980]

It's actually T20 that need to change its rules. Why do you need 11 batsmen for T20?

Also, this fascination about multiple innings need to stop. Why do you need to play the game twice? Pretty meaningless to do so.

Buttler as great a T20 player he is, has played 18 balls per innings on average. That is woefully low. Here we have highly paid, highly skilled players playing. You just want 18 balls of them? People couldn't get enough of Lara, Tendulkar in the 2000s. Imagine them playing 20 balls every match

 

[Stewie]

Buttler as great a T20 player he is, has played 18 balls per innings on average. That is woefully low. Here we have highly paid, highly skilled players playing. You just want 18 balls of them? People couldn't get enough of Lara, Tendulkar in the 2000s. Imagine them playing 20 balls every match

I think this is a very valid point, and more in support of my view that ODIs in their current form are boring and T20s are preferred but it does not mean people dont want to watch quality players and cricket if the contest is engaging. Its become too predictable and if we do not fix it, ODIs will eventually die out. We gotta keep making them unpredictable, interesting and strike the balance between bat and ball. It is too bat friendly right now.

 

[Sirris]

We need a 30 or 35 overs format. Anything else wont work.

It is not like the number 50 was chosen by the holy god of cricket and can’t be adjusted

 

[hitthestump]

Minor suggestions for 2023 (that don't involve a complete revamp):

- Use two new balls until 25 overs. After that, pick one and you are stuck with it (barring exceptional circs)

- All boundaries must be pushed back to create bigger grounds

- Powerplay rules must include some use in the middle overs

- Back to four men inside the ring in the last 10.

We want ODI's to be bowler friendly and batsmen fighting for their runs.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Fielding restriction between 10 and 40th over is the only reason why England started adopting all-out-attack approach. That is the only thing they can revisit. I don't think this two new ball is going away due to poor quality balls they make. We can live with that. Other than that no change. Cricket itself is an unpredictable sports. You cannot design a game to provide entertainment for 50 overs straight. Even the definition of entertainment is ambiguous. Building an innings is considered "boring" these days. Certain Dhoni fans will disagree with that.

 

[BDfanforever]

I think this is a very valid point, and more in support of my view that ODIs in their current form are boring and T20s are preferred but it does not mean people dont want to watch quality players and cricket if the contest is engaging. Its become too predictable and if we do not fix it, ODIs will eventually die out. We gotta keep making them unpredictable, interesting and strike the balance between bat and ball. It is too bat friendly right now.

Contrary to popular belief, T20 is actually quite predictable compared to other two formats, and it is also heavily batting friendly. After certain overs are played you can pretty much predict with 90%+ accuracy in T20. I think something like 30 overs would be good for LOI tho.

 

[Ami]

Simple solution.

Just as Shane Warne nentioned a few years back...

No bilateral series what so ever, just the World Cup and ICC Trophy.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Simple solution.

Just as Shane Warne nentioned a few years back...

No bilateral series what so ever, just the World Cup and ICC Trophy.

They can very well stop playing cricket instead of waiting for cricket every 4 years. Some may not like tests. So let us stop tests too as it interferes with someone's "busy life". Let us just play cricket leagues and move on. Reducing frequency is one thing. But completely canceling it is another thing. Overloaded T20 schedule will make cricket even more boring. Some random sloggers will be representing most of the countries. Not elite cricketers.

 

[Stewie]

Contrary to popular belief, T20 is actually quite predictable compared to other two formats, and it is also heavily batting friendly. After certain overs are played you can pretty much predict with 90%+ accuracy in T20. I think something like 30 overs would be good for LOI tho.

That’s true, this is the era of instant gratification.

But T20s do get sudden twists if not more unpredictability. How else would you explain more upsets in this format?
I am not hating it, just trying to do something about ODIs. Either you kill them or you kill T20 and or kill both and bring a new variant around that’s more engaging and leave the T20s for franchise cricket

I fear in another decade or so, once my generation (70s and 80s and maybe even 90s) is outnumbered by the millenials ODIs will go the way of the dodo.

They will protect tests as the purest form but don’t think they will do the same for ODIs.

 

[hitthestump]

Simple solution.

Just as Shane Warne nentioned a few years back...

No bilateral series what so ever, just the World Cup and ICC Trophy.

It would mean players actually have to turn up for their own domestic seasons which is good. But how would the broke boards make any money?

A lot of good ideas in cricket stop for this rea$on and we get others which are purely designed to make more.

 

[Stewie]

It would mean players actually have to turn up for their own domestic seasons which is good. But how would the broke boards make any money?

A lot of good ideas in cricket stop for this rea$on and we get others which are purely designed to make more.

If you think about it, how was cricket commercialized. The Aussies and the English did it first with Packer and the ODI format respectively.

The English did it again with T20 which they experimented with at first domestically. Point is if the format is fun and engaging, it clicks, it will make you money. You just have to find that sweet spot where it’s not too lengthy, not too boring and not too predictable and captures all audience, not just a niche group.

Which is what I hoped to do here (and not actually discuss and loan about how ODIs are dead, but somehow that’s the direction this thread took). I was thinking if we (tons of PPers across the board from Pakistan, England, Australia, India, Bangla, Sri Lanka, etc) here start brainstorming a format with some innovation, maybe… just maybe it will catch the attention of some board willing to trial it domestically. If it clicks, it clicks… if not what the hell you gotta lose. Trial it in place of your regular List A cricket at home and maybe it will catch fire.

I believe we got plenty of passion, fandom and brainpower here to get the job done. Use my first post as a starting point and tweak it with your own ideas and see what others say. We hardly all agree on something so if even 40% of us agree on a prosposal, we might have a viable solution.

 

[Mamoon]

Simple solution.

Just as Shane Warne nentioned a few years back...

No bilateral series what so ever, just the World Cup and ICC Trophy.

And that is the most pathetic & ridiculous idea ever. You cannot play a format in tournaments only. You need to use bilateral cricket to prepare for them.

How do you expect teams to build a team for the format & develop strategies, tactics etc. when you are playing the format in 4 year intervals?

Either scrap ODI cricket altogether or keep it as it is. Please spare us from drunk ideas like above.

 

[gazza619]

Nothing can be done.

I love ODI cricket, it was what attracted me to the game in the first place. However, the fact is that it is rapidly becoming a unnecessary format.

T20s have made the format pointless. It serves no purpose. It is just an extended version of T20s and why would you want that when you can get your fill in 3 hours.

3 hours is more than enough time to entertain yourself with sports and then get on with the rest of your day.

In today’s fast paced and busy world, no one has the time to spend 8-9 hours watching a game of cricket.

If you can afford to watch an entire ODI game consistently, then that means you are not doing anything productive in life. If a game is too long to be watched from start to finish, then there is no point in having that game to begin with.

Lets be honest. The entire 50 overs of an innings is only interesting if you openers are someone like Sehwag & Anwar, middle order have Lara & Viv Richards, and later order sloggers are the likes of Razzaq & Klusener.

The truth is that I switch the channel as soon as I soon that the batting would be at a snail’s pace or bowlers are not interesting to watch. 50% of the innings is usually boring.

 

[shamaan]

Simple solution.

Just as Shane Warne nentioned a few years back...

No bilateral series what so ever, just the World Cup and ICC Trophy.

That's a stupid idea.

 

[hitthestump]

That's a stupid idea.

I think there's potential in the idea. Certainly there's no golden rule that ODI's must be played in 5 game JAMSERIES which nobody is watching.

We could easily have ODI's played by only in 'tournament' format. Each country hosting one multiteam tournament during their home season like the old Natwest Trophy or Asia Cup, with the pinnacles of Champions Trophy and World Cup taking place every 2 years.

By reducing the amount of ODI's played boards would be forced to improve their own brand of List A cricket and ensure their big players turn up as this will now be an even bigger basis for international selection.

I think there's potential in the idea....but it'll stop abruptly short due to the fact that less international cricket makes less money.

 

[hitthestump]

And that is the most pathetic & ridiculous idea ever. You cannot play a format in tournaments only. You need to use bilateral cricket to prepare for them.

How do you expect teams to build a team for the format & develop strategies, tactics etc. when you are playing the format in 4 year intervals?

Perhaps a bit of mystery is just what the ODI format needs.

Let's say a country only plays 5-7 ODI's a year. On the eve of the WC you have a struggling established batsmen under pressure from a young List A upstarter who averaged 60 in his first season of domestics with no international experience.

Without any chance to 'cook' players, teams would have to consider throwing more raw talent into the biggest stages which might just provide ODI's with a bit of extra spice.

Building teams and strategies is cool. But ODI's could do with some unpredictability.