- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,991
Waqar Younis has a unique idea.
Guess spoken like a true bowler?
Guess spoken like a true bowler?
-
Contact the PP Team
Waqar Younis wants ICC to discard one ball (of 2) in ODIs after 30 overs to aid reverse swing...
- Thread starter MenInG
- Start date
hitthestump
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2013
- Runs
- 5,353
Well this idea isn't unique at all, it's been spoken about for years.
But yes it would be good and restore some balance to bat and ball.
The reason we don't see it happen is because BCCICC is aware that it would bring Pakistan bowlers back into contention and they are too fearful of this.
But yes it would be good and restore some balance to bat and ball.
The reason we don't see it happen is because BCCICC is aware that it would bring Pakistan bowlers back into contention and they are too fearful of this.
jnaveen1980
ODI Captain
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2016
- Runs
- 46,054
I think he is echoing Mitchell starc's interview about the same topic. SOmething that Sachin brought up a few years back. Most old timers would have struggled with 2 new balls.
mominsaigol
T20I Star
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2021
- Runs
- 30,975
- Post of the Week
- 2
That's a myth, India doesn't fear us bro.
Siraj, Bumrah and Shami would be freaks with one ball instead of 2. They'd be damn near unplayable.
They'd benefit 10x more with one ball rather them 2.
One ball isn't just reverse swing, it makes the game more difficult cause the softer and older ball is harder to hit and maneuver, it also spins 10x more with the 1 ball rather then 2 balls.
And it swings more in general at the end irrespective if reverse swing is in play or not.
If anything India would become 100x stronger then they are now with one ball rather then 2.
shokz1408
First Class Star
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Runs
- 3,677
I agree odi crickets needs that balance between bat and ball as it’s becoming obsolete.
Good suggestion. But isn't it crazy that a 15 over old ball ( one end, total 30 overs)is already reverse swinging in some cases? Never seen that before even when only one ball.was used. That tells.me the balls aren't being made the same as in the past.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2023
- Runs
- 22,196
Mitchell Starc believes cricket must abolish the use of two new balls in one-day matches, saying it has helped tip the format further in batters’ favour.
The Australian quick has taken 10 wickets in eight matches at 43.90 with an economy rate of 6.55 during the 2023 World Cup, well below his best, including the dominant form he showed at the 2015 and 2019 tournaments.
While Starc conceded he hasn’t performed at the level he knows he can reach, the 33-year-old believes the use of a new Kookaburra after 25 overs has limited the ability to gain reverse swing, particularly in the daytime.
Starc has not taken a Powerplay wicket with the sun out during this tournament, but struck against India, England and the Netherlands when bowling at night.
“I still think it should be one ball not two,” Starc told reporters on Monday.
“The ball stays harder for longer. As we’ve seen here, the grounds are quite small, wickets are flat.
“If anything in world cricket wickets have gotten flatter and I think if you look at some of that old footage when they bowled with one ball, reverse swing comes into it a lot more that actually brings the bowlers back into the game, and I don’t think it’s any secret that one day cricket and probably T20 cricket as well is a batter’s game and bowlers just have to hang on.”
He added: “I think there’s a lot of contributing factors, speed’s not the be all and end all over here in India as well.
“So certainly how you go about it (bowling) tactically and whether it’s variations or what time you bowl through a game or whether you win or lose a toss. I think a lot of things contribute to that and certainly haven’t been probably at the level that I would have liked as well.
“So I certainly take some (responsibility) myself there that (I haven’t bowled) to the same level as the last two World Cups anyway, but now have chance at the pointy end to I guess impact again.”
Starc heads into Thursday’s World Cup semi-final against South Africa not at full fitness, having been rested for Australia’s final group stage match.
“I didn’t have much of a say in the decision,” he said.
“I’ve carried a few things from the Ashes and it was a chance to give them an extra chance (to recover) before the semi-finals.”
Fox Sports
The Australian quick has taken 10 wickets in eight matches at 43.90 with an economy rate of 6.55 during the 2023 World Cup, well below his best, including the dominant form he showed at the 2015 and 2019 tournaments.
While Starc conceded he hasn’t performed at the level he knows he can reach, the 33-year-old believes the use of a new Kookaburra after 25 overs has limited the ability to gain reverse swing, particularly in the daytime.
Starc has not taken a Powerplay wicket with the sun out during this tournament, but struck against India, England and the Netherlands when bowling at night.
“I still think it should be one ball not two,” Starc told reporters on Monday.
“The ball stays harder for longer. As we’ve seen here, the grounds are quite small, wickets are flat.
“If anything in world cricket wickets have gotten flatter and I think if you look at some of that old footage when they bowled with one ball, reverse swing comes into it a lot more that actually brings the bowlers back into the game, and I don’t think it’s any secret that one day cricket and probably T20 cricket as well is a batter’s game and bowlers just have to hang on.”
He added: “I think there’s a lot of contributing factors, speed’s not the be all and end all over here in India as well.
“So certainly how you go about it (bowling) tactically and whether it’s variations or what time you bowl through a game or whether you win or lose a toss. I think a lot of things contribute to that and certainly haven’t been probably at the level that I would have liked as well.
“So I certainly take some (responsibility) myself there that (I haven’t bowled) to the same level as the last two World Cups anyway, but now have chance at the pointy end to I guess impact again.”
Starc heads into Thursday’s World Cup semi-final against South Africa not at full fitness, having been rested for Australia’s final group stage match.
“I didn’t have much of a say in the decision,” he said.
“I’ve carried a few things from the Ashes and it was a chance to give them an extra chance (to recover) before the semi-finals.”
Fox Sports
jnaveen1980
ODI Captain
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2016
- Runs
- 46,054
You are damn right. Shami and Umesh are two of the finest reverse swinging exponents in Tests. Shami is next level. He will be unplayable. Also guys like Ashwin will come into picture.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2023
- Runs
- 22,196
Having two new balls in ODI means more trouble for Pakistani bowlers.
sweep_shot
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Runs
- 48,335
Agree with Waqar.
2 new balls have made ODI less appealing. It has made things unfair for the bowlers.
Should go back to 1 new ball.
2 new balls have made ODI less appealing. It has made things unfair for the bowlers.
Should go back to 1 new ball.
Rana
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Runs
- 85,882
Waqar Younis will say anything to keep himself relevant
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2023
- Runs
- 22,196
Cricket World Cup: The changes needed to revitalise the tournament - Steven Finn column
This World Cup has shown glimpses of what could have been.
Not from an England perspective but, in a world game that is dominated (financially) by the big three of England, Australia and India, we have had hints of romantic stories that would have been amazing to witness.
The format of this tournament, with 10 teams, has meant that those amazing feats have been nullified and from at least halfway through the 45-game group phase, we have known who three of the semi-finalists would be.
That is not right.
Afghanistan have played so well to win four games in the group stage, against England, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the Netherlands.
There is absolutely no way they should not be playing a knockout game after those results.
There is also not enough peril for teams losing games.
A World Cup is meant to come with pressure. That is what truly tests teams and sorts out who is the best.
Fourteen teams in the 2027 edition will be a welcome change.
Some of the most iconic moments in World Cup history that I can remember have come from the perceived 'smaller teams' - Ireland beating England in 2011, Dwayne Leverock's catch in 2007 for Bermuda against India, Ireland knocking Pakistan out in the same tournament and Kenya beating West Indies in 1996.
Kenya all-rounder Steve Tikolo was one of my favourite players as a result of him playing in World Cups.
If I'd have been able to find a replica Kenya shirt I'd have almost certainly begged my parents to get me one.
Instead, I opted for an Australia one in 1999 with McGrath on the back but we won't dwell on that.
So, how do we make the next World Cup more interesting and to stop it meandering towards an inevitable conclusion?
Firstly, I think the format should be changed to 40 overs-a-side with eight overs of powerplay and one ball used for the entire innings.
This will narrow the margin between teams and provide us with more close games.
I have been here in India for six weeks and I have not covered one tight game in this entire World Cup.
I was not at Australia's dramatic win over New Zealand, South Africa's one-wicket victory against Pakistan or Glenn Maxwell's epic rescue act for Australia against Afghanistan.
Those were exciting contests but we need more.
An eight-over powerplay provides ample opportunity for batters to make the most of the fielding restrictions and after that I would revert to five fielders outside of the 30-yard circle for the remainder of the innings, rather than the period of four we now have.
As a former bowler, I find nothing more dull than watching a ball that is not moving off the straight disappearing miles over the ropes multiple times an over.
We currently use two balls, one from each end, in 50-over cricket but returning to one for the entirety of an innings would at least throw the bowlers a bone by allowing the balls to be old enough to reverse swing.
Some of the most fascinating passages of play in history have come when the ball is reversing.
Who can forget Wasim Akram getting Allan Lamb and Chris Lewis out with magical reverse swing bowling in the 1992 final?
In the right conditions, bowlers should be able to take advantage of that.
However, as we've changed the format to 40 overs a side, the ball will remain hard on most surfaces and batters should still be able to whack it - negating one of the main reasons the two balls were introduced.
I would also be stricter in imposing the fielding penalties of an extra man inside the circle if teams are too slow in bowling their overs.
This is not me trying to help out the bowlers; it feels necessary to provide a more entertaining spectacle.
Looking at the tournament more widely, I would also introduce a bonus-points system for the group stage.
Too often we have seen games meandering towards an inevitable conclusion with teams batting the overs to help their net run-rate and who can blame them?
A system that rewards attacking cricket should be implemented.
My way to do this would be to introduce a boundary count - and, no, that's not just because England won a World Cup based on one.
In my plan, a bonus point would be awarded if a team scored 35 boundaries in their 40 overs.
It would leave teams with a dilemma if they find themselves in a position where the game is slipping away - play attacking cricket and earn yourself a point that could become important when trying to qualify for the knockout stage, or dig in and hope for a win.
I would also give out a bonus point for teams who take six wickets by the 30th over.
This would encourage teams to continue to attack regardless of the game situation and encourage captains to err on the side of risk when setting fields, and bringing strike bowlers back before this cut-off time.
As for the format, with 14 teams the logical denomination is two groups of seven.
I would then progress to quarter-finals, semi-finals and a final with the top four from each group going through.
This would almost certainly mean that a team performing as Afghanistan have in this tournament would be playing knockout cricket and leave teams losing games dicing with danger with not as much chance of a reprieve.
Instantly it would be more interesting.
This may be slightly radical, but, I feel this is necessary if we are to help keep the format relevant by the time 2027 comes around.
BBC
This World Cup has shown glimpses of what could have been.
Not from an England perspective but, in a world game that is dominated (financially) by the big three of England, Australia and India, we have had hints of romantic stories that would have been amazing to witness.
The format of this tournament, with 10 teams, has meant that those amazing feats have been nullified and from at least halfway through the 45-game group phase, we have known who three of the semi-finalists would be.
That is not right.
Afghanistan have played so well to win four games in the group stage, against England, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the Netherlands.
There is absolutely no way they should not be playing a knockout game after those results.
There is also not enough peril for teams losing games.
A World Cup is meant to come with pressure. That is what truly tests teams and sorts out who is the best.
Fourteen teams in the 2027 edition will be a welcome change.
Some of the most iconic moments in World Cup history that I can remember have come from the perceived 'smaller teams' - Ireland beating England in 2011, Dwayne Leverock's catch in 2007 for Bermuda against India, Ireland knocking Pakistan out in the same tournament and Kenya beating West Indies in 1996.
Kenya all-rounder Steve Tikolo was one of my favourite players as a result of him playing in World Cups.
If I'd have been able to find a replica Kenya shirt I'd have almost certainly begged my parents to get me one.
Instead, I opted for an Australia one in 1999 with McGrath on the back but we won't dwell on that.
So, how do we make the next World Cup more interesting and to stop it meandering towards an inevitable conclusion?
Firstly, I think the format should be changed to 40 overs-a-side with eight overs of powerplay and one ball used for the entire innings.
This will narrow the margin between teams and provide us with more close games.
I have been here in India for six weeks and I have not covered one tight game in this entire World Cup.
I was not at Australia's dramatic win over New Zealand, South Africa's one-wicket victory against Pakistan or Glenn Maxwell's epic rescue act for Australia against Afghanistan.
Those were exciting contests but we need more.
An eight-over powerplay provides ample opportunity for batters to make the most of the fielding restrictions and after that I would revert to five fielders outside of the 30-yard circle for the remainder of the innings, rather than the period of four we now have.
As a former bowler, I find nothing more dull than watching a ball that is not moving off the straight disappearing miles over the ropes multiple times an over.
We currently use two balls, one from each end, in 50-over cricket but returning to one for the entirety of an innings would at least throw the bowlers a bone by allowing the balls to be old enough to reverse swing.
Some of the most fascinating passages of play in history have come when the ball is reversing.
Who can forget Wasim Akram getting Allan Lamb and Chris Lewis out with magical reverse swing bowling in the 1992 final?
In the right conditions, bowlers should be able to take advantage of that.
However, as we've changed the format to 40 overs a side, the ball will remain hard on most surfaces and batters should still be able to whack it - negating one of the main reasons the two balls were introduced.
I would also be stricter in imposing the fielding penalties of an extra man inside the circle if teams are too slow in bowling their overs.
This is not me trying to help out the bowlers; it feels necessary to provide a more entertaining spectacle.
Looking at the tournament more widely, I would also introduce a bonus-points system for the group stage.
Too often we have seen games meandering towards an inevitable conclusion with teams batting the overs to help their net run-rate and who can blame them?
A system that rewards attacking cricket should be implemented.
My way to do this would be to introduce a boundary count - and, no, that's not just because England won a World Cup based on one.
In my plan, a bonus point would be awarded if a team scored 35 boundaries in their 40 overs.
It would leave teams with a dilemma if they find themselves in a position where the game is slipping away - play attacking cricket and earn yourself a point that could become important when trying to qualify for the knockout stage, or dig in and hope for a win.
I would also give out a bonus point for teams who take six wickets by the 30th over.
This would encourage teams to continue to attack regardless of the game situation and encourage captains to err on the side of risk when setting fields, and bringing strike bowlers back before this cut-off time.
As for the format, with 14 teams the logical denomination is two groups of seven.
I would then progress to quarter-finals, semi-finals and a final with the top four from each group going through.
This would almost certainly mean that a team performing as Afghanistan have in this tournament would be playing knockout cricket and leave teams losing games dicing with danger with not as much chance of a reprieve.
Instantly it would be more interesting.
This may be slightly radical, but, I feel this is necessary if we are to help keep the format relevant by the time 2027 comes around.
BBC
RyanRyan10
First Class Star
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2018
- Runs
- 3,769
You are correct. Shami averages 22 in home tests while Umesh averages 25. These two have provided us with timely breakthroughs with the old ball on flat wickets at home which has been the most underrated aspect of our great home record.
JaDed
Test Star
- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Runs
- 39,438
It will benefit India way more right now.
mominsaigol
T20I Star
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2021
- Runs
- 30,975
- Post of the Week
- 2
One ball benefits everyone. If anything bcci would want to advocate for it.
The whole India fears us trend which was started by sohaib Akhtar is a myth.
The players themselves have no issue playing with Pakistan and beating them into pieces over and over.
It's the government that has issues and not sending the team to play in Pakistan has nothing to do with the players themselves. Ik kohli is more then happy to play in Pakistan, rohit would cherish pindi pitches.
One ball is something Australia also advocates for, even NZ.
Only team that doesn't advocate for it is England for very very obvious reasons because their bazzball culture is something that only works In their home ground or on flat belters with 2 new balls in place.
The one ball rule would effectively kill England cricket and send them into the 2015 dark ages.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2010
- Runs
- 30,314
- Post of the Week
- 2
It's a good suggestion. If one day cricket is to survive then we need thrillers where 280ish is a challenging score.
sweep_shot
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Runs
- 48,335
Agree.
ODI is beautiful when both sides score less than 300. It is one reason why I am not liking the current World Cup (far too many 300+ scores).
NishanKonar
Local Club Star
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2018
- Runs
- 2,079
A big reason why ICC introduced 2 new balls is bcoz the middle phase ( 20-40 overs) was becoming boring as the ball got older & difficult to hit. The 2 new balls ( along with Ppwerplay rules) ensures more 6s & 4s during this phase - which appeals more to the fans / spectators
So don't think any chance that this 2 new ball rule will be changed. The high scoring pattern in ODIs is more by design than anything else. ICC thinks 350 plus totals make for better viewing !
So don't think any chance that this 2 new ball rule will be changed. The high scoring pattern in ODIs is more by design than anything else. ICC thinks 350 plus totals make for better viewing !
jnaveen1980
ODI Captain
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2016
- Runs
- 46,054
That is correct. That is why the introduced field restriction as well. Ashwin briefly touched on this subject some time back.
“India’s dominance with spin was choking world cricket”: Ravichandran Ashwin’s bold remarks on ODI powerplay rules
Ravichandran Ashwin opened up on the ODI powerplay rules implemented in 2015. The right-arm spinner has picked up 151 wickets in 113 ODIs.
crickettimes.com
Very good ideas. 40 overs a side and bonus points on boundary counts and wickets taken. It so happens that both teams can get a bonus point in the same inning which is fascinating. But one thing he said is wrong. No, teams aren't meandering towards a target anymore. They wouldn't be helping their NRR in that case. We've seen games complete by 40th over in this world cup for the same reason.
NishanKonar
Local Club Star
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2018
- Runs
- 2,079
More of a by product of T20 revolution. Fans now want more 6s & 4s in ODIs just like T20s. The old fashioned style of picking 1s & 2s in middle phases of an ODI will no longer work with fans & tv audiences who are pampered by big hitting in T20s. So ICC obliged by removing field restrictions & providing 2 new balls. It was never really about white ball getting discolored.That is correct. That is why the introduced field restriction as well. Ashwin briefly touched on this subject some time back.
“India’s dominance with spin was choking world cricket”: Ravichandran Ashwin’s bold remarks on ODI powerplay rules
Ravichandran Ashwin opened up on the ODI powerplay rules implemented in 2015. The right-arm spinner has picked up 151 wickets in 113 ODIs.
hitthestump
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2013
- Runs
- 5,353
I do think you're right.
PPer's represent the more hardcore cricket fan. We are people who would love nothing more than to watch someone grind their way to a brilliant hundred on a tough surface.
But the casual viewer couldn't care less for this. They need instant gratification - and the only way cricket can provide that over 50 overs is to send the ball to the ropes as much as possible.
Ultimately i think this leads to more t20's and less ODI's in the foreseeable future. Eventually the format will wiped from existance.
Mp812
First Class Player
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Runs
- 2,861
Sachin Tendulkar mentioned breaking odi into 2 innings of 25 overs each and included carrying over runs lead to next inning.
Basically a white ball test match of 25 overs each.
I liked that idea
Basically a white ball test match of 25 overs each.
I liked that idea
sweep_shot
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Runs
- 48,335
Mamoon
ATG
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2012
- Runs
- 107,253
- Post of the Week
- 12
Waqar owes his career to ball-tampering. In today's era with two new balls and extreme scrutiny on tampering, he would be averaging 40+ with the ball at an ER of 7+.
No wonder he is a strong advocate of one new ball.
No wonder he is a strong advocate of one new ball.
RehanG
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2008
- Runs
- 5,015
Can you name one Pak player from 90s who did not temper with ball, did match fixing, called their dad's, watched some tv.
Why don't you just focus on your team, they did well this time around, won 4 matches, almost pulled off against Australia. If they stay humble, they can achieve more.
On topic: Yes 2 balls did ruin ODI cricket and should be back to one ball, even if it's pink or any other color.
rickroll
Tape Ball Star
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2022
- Runs
- 727
Isn't his (Mamoon) team also Pakistan or am I missing something here?
Mamoon
ATG
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2012
- Runs
- 107,253
- Post of the Week
- 12
Yes, this is why Pakistan's fast bowling legacy is a sham. Imran, Wasim and Waqar were nothing special and they all be decent at best bowlers in this era.
Shaheen, Naseem, Rauf and even Wasim Jr. would also wreak havoc with the types of balls those guys were bowling with in the 80's and 90's against lineups that basically had 4 number 11s and WKs who could hardly hold a bat.
It is not surprising that Pakistan's fast bowling legacy tanked as soon as there was greater scrutiny on tampering.
Hitman
Senior T20I Player
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Runs
- 17,567
The bigger question is why was it introduced in the first place? To make a joke of out ODI cricket?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2010
- Runs
- 30,314
- Post of the Week
- 2
Who introduced it? I remember it happening but cant remember who was responsible.
hitthestump
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2013
- Runs
- 5,353
There was a time when changes happened so fast it was hard to keep up. Powerplays and fielding restrictions were chopped and changed with impunity and at some point 2 new balls were introduced too.
ODI rule changes all feel like a blur rather than a structured and well thought out process of change.
Last edited by a moderator:
jnaveen1980
ODI Captain
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2016
- Runs
- 46,054
Three things can control the balance
1) Ball
2) Pitch
3) Fielding restriction
If all 3 are in favor of batting that is where you see battathons. But same team can be reduced to 80 all out on a slightly helpful pitch with the exact same rules.
1) Ball
2) Pitch
3) Fielding restriction
If all 3 are in favor of batting that is where you see battathons. But same team can be reduced to 80 all out on a slightly helpful pitch with the exact same rules.
Not wasim. He is special
Last edited by a moderator:
RehanG
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2008
- Runs
- 5,015
It was due to condition of the ball in subcontinent, ball used to lose its color and was so ruff it was hard to see for batsman. If you go back in those years almost in every match there used to be ball change after 30odd overs. They decided to introduce the 2 balls so this was not required anymore.
I think the best solution is pink ball, which does not lose it's color / shape like white ball. (see pink ball tests for instance).
Hitman
Senior T20I Player
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Runs
- 17,567
I'm sure those who collectively in the ICC took the decision aren't ignorant about basic facts on bowling. They knew this rule would eliminate reverse swing, and yet they took that decision to spoil ODI cricket.
Hitman
Senior T20I Player
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Runs
- 17,567
Both Imran and Wasim were fantastic.
Consider a scenario.
If a team only scores about 100-120 in all 10 matches and still wins 8 matches with every match going to the wire, the team could end up with 16 points.
And another team loses all the matches but still scores 35 boundaries in 40 overs and takes 6 six wickets in 30 overs, they will get 20 points even though they have zero wins.
Swashbuckler
First Class Captain
- Joined
- May 19, 2017
- Runs
- 4,672
- Post of the Week
- 3
All Asian sides would love that, SENA lobby will obviously oppose. It was ECB that brought in this two ball menace in the first place.
SalimBhai
First Class Player
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2022
- Runs
- 2,857
Great idea. We need more competition between bat and ball.. I have been watching world cups sin late 80s. This is one boring world cup. Hardly a competitive game. Guess what. 50 sixes being hit a match is not exciting.
Reddy
Tape Ball Captain
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2017
- Runs
- 1,085
It was the ECB who lobbied for it and the idiots in BCCI and PCB didn't revolt at that time.
Nikhil_cric
T20I Star
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2011
- Runs
- 31,330
Lol at those who think BCCI wanted this.
BCCI were more than happy with a deteriorating ball. Brings finger spinners and reverse swing even more into play and Bazball style gimmicks would flop brutally.
Pretty sure the push for 2 new balls came from OZ/NZ.
Bilateral ODI cricket in those 2 countries always had 2 new white balls even in the 80's
BCCI were more than happy with a deteriorating ball. Brings finger spinners and reverse swing even more into play and Bazball style gimmicks would flop brutally.
Pretty sure the push for 2 new balls came from OZ/NZ.
Bilateral ODI cricket in those 2 countries always had 2 new white balls even in the 80's
Statpadder Inc
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2023
- Runs
- 1,560
Lol absolutely no one is afraid of your bowlers, they are an absolute joke. Afghan bowlers scares India way more than pakistani bowlers do. I doubt it if even Zimbabwean batsmen fear your bowlers
IndoorCricket
Local Club Star
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2016
- Runs
- 1,723
This is what I observe with Pakistan fans some one is else the root cause of their problems and someone else is always planning for their demise. I find this attitude to be wrong in so many ways.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2023
- Runs
- 35,358
Definitely a good suggestion under these circumstances. ICC should bring back the balance between the ball and the bat. Ball needs to go after 30 overs surely to give some advantage to the bowlers as well.
I don't think so. We do not have a monopoly on reverse swing. Indian bowlers are probably better.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2023
- Runs
- 22,196
Well if great of the games are agree on it, so i think this change must get it done!
Mp812
First Class Player
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Runs
- 2,861
Sachin, Akram and Waqar have suggested some change for ODI format to make it more viewable, exciting and competitive, This is because attention spans are shorter than ever in the digital age and not all have the time and zeal to spend eight hours for an ODI game.
Their suggestions are as follows:
Akram opined that the format should be reduced to a 40 overs a side while Tendulkar wants to break the ODIs to four innings of 25 overs each to break the "monotony".Waqar suggests 2 new balls to start, take away 1 ball after 30 overs, continue with the other. At the end that ball will only be 35 overs old. We'll see some reverse at the end.
All of them are cricketing greats and I feel that a combination of all their opinions might convert ODI into a fun viewing experience and competitive as well.
Here is wild wild idea I had.
Here is my opinion on how suggestions from all 3 greats can actually increase ODI popularity.
1) Take Sachins suggestion and break it into 2 innings but instead of 25 overs each ...make it 20 overs (not innings) each. This will incorporate Akrams suggestion of making it 40 overs. This will take toss advantage out of equation.
2) The first innings uses just 1 new ball. Second inning continues to use this ball for 10 overs but adds in a new ball for the other 10 overs.
3) In second innings continue with old ball but also add a new ball. Each ball to be used alternatively for 10 overs each. This was batters get a new ball to strike hard but every alternate over reverse swing and spin both stay relevant.
4) In the first inning a maximum of 5 wickets can fall. So if a team gets other teams 5 wickets in 15 overs that innings ends. This will force batting team to be vigilant but to get advantage hitters will also need to be distributed strategically across two innings.
5) In order to make it more exciting, any 1 batter from each team can bat twice. So lets say for example a Warner gets out in first innings for zero, he can still bat in second innings one more time. If Warner stays unbeaten in first innings he can continue batting in second innings but the team can choose one of the other batters that got out in first innings to bat second time as per need of game situation. Teams will then need to decide how to spread out their batters over two innings and strategy and skillset factors will come into play.
6) If Team A scores 120 runs in first 20 overs and team B scores 140, team B gets a lead of 20 runs to start 2nd innings i.e team batting first starts second innings with -20 runs. This will force both teams to be aggressive but at same time be cautious. In end if both teams score exact same at end of first innings, then the game automatically gets converted to a T20 game but with one ball reversing as the ball from 1st innings comes into play.
7) Just like one batter can bat both innings, one bowler gets 6 overs to bowl each innings, instead 5 per bowler one bowlers gets to bowl 6 overs. This will force teams to keep 4 bowlers in a team - 2 pacers and 2 spinners, or if team prefers all pacers then so be it. This will also force modern day batters an incentive to develop skills to bowl a couple of overs to maintain balance.
As for fielding restrictions, powerplay will be first 8 overs in first innings and last 8 overs in second innings, where only 3 players outside ring allowed. (This is debatable on number of overs and fielders)
Suggestions on the WILD idea. Just trying to be innovative to ensure ODI becomes a blend of Test skills + T20 skills but at same time keeps bowlers relevant as well.
Its a very high level plan and will need a lot of modifications obviously but if we can reach a consensus taking everybody's suggestion, maybe the forum owner can at least drop the idea to ICC
Their suggestions are as follows:
Akram opined that the format should be reduced to a 40 overs a side while Tendulkar wants to break the ODIs to four innings of 25 overs each to break the "monotony".Waqar suggests 2 new balls to start, take away 1 ball after 30 overs, continue with the other. At the end that ball will only be 35 overs old. We'll see some reverse at the end.
All of them are cricketing greats and I feel that a combination of all their opinions might convert ODI into a fun viewing experience and competitive as well.
Here is wild wild idea I had.
Here is my opinion on how suggestions from all 3 greats can actually increase ODI popularity.
1) Take Sachins suggestion and break it into 2 innings but instead of 25 overs each ...make it 20 overs (not innings) each. This will incorporate Akrams suggestion of making it 40 overs. This will take toss advantage out of equation.
2) The first innings uses just 1 new ball. Second inning continues to use this ball for 10 overs but adds in a new ball for the other 10 overs.
3) In second innings continue with old ball but also add a new ball. Each ball to be used alternatively for 10 overs each. This was batters get a new ball to strike hard but every alternate over reverse swing and spin both stay relevant.
4) In the first inning a maximum of 5 wickets can fall. So if a team gets other teams 5 wickets in 15 overs that innings ends. This will force batting team to be vigilant but to get advantage hitters will also need to be distributed strategically across two innings.
5) In order to make it more exciting, any 1 batter from each team can bat twice. So lets say for example a Warner gets out in first innings for zero, he can still bat in second innings one more time. If Warner stays unbeaten in first innings he can continue batting in second innings but the team can choose one of the other batters that got out in first innings to bat second time as per need of game situation. Teams will then need to decide how to spread out their batters over two innings and strategy and skillset factors will come into play.
6) If Team A scores 120 runs in first 20 overs and team B scores 140, team B gets a lead of 20 runs to start 2nd innings i.e team batting first starts second innings with -20 runs. This will force both teams to be aggressive but at same time be cautious. In end if both teams score exact same at end of first innings, then the game automatically gets converted to a T20 game but with one ball reversing as the ball from 1st innings comes into play.
7) Just like one batter can bat both innings, one bowler gets 6 overs to bowl each innings, instead 5 per bowler one bowlers gets to bowl 6 overs. This will force teams to keep 4 bowlers in a team - 2 pacers and 2 spinners, or if team prefers all pacers then so be it. This will also force modern day batters an incentive to develop skills to bowl a couple of overs to maintain balance.
As for fielding restrictions, powerplay will be first 8 overs in first innings and last 8 overs in second innings, where only 3 players outside ring allowed. (This is debatable on number of overs and fielders)
Suggestions on the WILD idea. Just trying to be innovative to ensure ODI becomes a blend of Test skills + T20 skills but at same time keeps bowlers relevant as well.
Its a very high level plan and will need a lot of modifications obviously but if we can reach a consensus taking everybody's suggestion, maybe the forum owner can at least drop the idea to ICC
Last edited by a moderator:
Cpt. Rishwat
T20I Captain
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Runs
- 43,439
It's not a bad suggestion, the attempts to wipe out reverse swing by playing an extra ball are definitely changing the game to a batsman's advantage. Nothing wrong with reverse swing either, it's a natural phenomenon which the Pakistan bowlers exploited beautifully and along with the technique of moving the front foot out of the way to hit big shots a couple of decades ago, was a sign of Pakistan ingenuity at the time when they were quite an innovative cricket team.
But apart from bringing back reverse swing, questions also need to be asked, why are Pakistan bowlers so useless with the new ball?
But apart from bringing back reverse swing, questions also need to be asked, why are Pakistan bowlers so useless with the new ball?
Nikhil_cric
T20I Star
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2011
- Runs
- 31,330
They should go back to 1 new ball which lasts 50 overs.
It makes no sense why kookaburra can't make a ball that doesn't discolour too fast
It makes no sense why kookaburra can't make a ball that doesn't discolour too fast
Kianig89
T20I Star
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2012
- Runs
- 32,285
No better sight in cricket than to watch a world class bowler reversing it and making life hell for batsmen as evident by Starc & Co. against the mighty Indians
Shoaib Akhtar snake ball to Michael Vaughan is a hit on Youtube
Shoaib Akhtar snake ball to Michael Vaughan is a hit on Youtube
SpiritOf1903
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Runs
- 9,834
Cummins still made the ball talk through sheer skill. Incredible figures
Similar threads
