C
Coxy
International Captain
- Mar 4, 2008
- 31,212
- 1,886
The debate continues about the relative merits of 20/20 etc. Few people doubt that Twenty20 is capturing a previously untapped market for cricket - the people who just can't be fucked watching a game all day or for five days.
Like it or not (I'm not a fan really), it's going to help make cricket marketable to new countries and markets that wouldn't have a bar of it otherwise (eg USA).
The problem with the format to me is it is almost entirely dependant on the first 5 overs of each innings. If either team loses early wickets then they can't amass or chase a good total. Last night's game was a case in point, Queensland losing 5 wickets quickly, and despite a great unbeaten 6th wicket partnership 149 was never going to be enough if Victoria managed to keep their wickets under control...which they did.
Test cricket simply can't be lost. It's the pinnacle. The enthralling Tests in Sydney in the last few years have shown that. Gripping contests that came down to the wire. Ian Chappell is making suggestions like reducing it to 4 days, making it day/night and play 110 overs a day, 4 sessions. There's some merit to ideas like that.
The big question mark, IMO, is the future of One Day Internationals. Frankly, they're pretty boring. Yeah there's some good ones, but they generally follow a formula:
Team A wins toss and bats.
Team A tries to get off to a quick start while field restrictions are in place.
Team A then consolidates and just knocks the ball around for singles until about the 35th over.
Team A then ups the tempo if they have wickets in hand by having power plays etc in the last 15 overs and go for a bit of a bash.
Team B then bats and tries to not lose early wickets but match pace with Team A.
If Team B loses early wickets it's almost all over.
The only time it gets interesting is if Team B does manage to preserve most of their wickets and match the rate of Team A so then their final 10-15 overs is a tit for tat bashathon with their opponents.
Better yet, the games where the pitch is a mine field and wickets tumble in both innings and it's a dour struggle to chase down say 200 or 180 are even better.
But how do you fix 50-over cricket? Frankly it's not easy. The rules have been tinkered so often with power plays etc etc, and it still tends to be formulaic.
My main suggestion is to get rid of the stupid 5 and 7 match series between 2 teams...they're tedious and drawn out and boring. 3 match series, max, or else have a 3-team series (2 games against each other team + a single final) to at least generate some interest.
I read another suggestion on the Courier Mail today which I'd never thought of but which actually could be very interesting. Split the 50-over games into 4 innings of 25 overs. So it works a bit like a Test.
Team A bats for 25 overs (a bit like Twenty20).
Team B bats for 25 overs.
Team A bats again for 25 overs and sets the target for Team B to chase.
Team B chases.
It's 20-20 in a way, but it also takes away a bit of the luck factor as I described with T20 above.
Anyone else have any thoughts?
Like it or not (I'm not a fan really), it's going to help make cricket marketable to new countries and markets that wouldn't have a bar of it otherwise (eg USA).
The problem with the format to me is it is almost entirely dependant on the first 5 overs of each innings. If either team loses early wickets then they can't amass or chase a good total. Last night's game was a case in point, Queensland losing 5 wickets quickly, and despite a great unbeaten 6th wicket partnership 149 was never going to be enough if Victoria managed to keep their wickets under control...which they did.
Test cricket simply can't be lost. It's the pinnacle. The enthralling Tests in Sydney in the last few years have shown that. Gripping contests that came down to the wire. Ian Chappell is making suggestions like reducing it to 4 days, making it day/night and play 110 overs a day, 4 sessions. There's some merit to ideas like that.
The big question mark, IMO, is the future of One Day Internationals. Frankly, they're pretty boring. Yeah there's some good ones, but they generally follow a formula:
Team A wins toss and bats.
Team A tries to get off to a quick start while field restrictions are in place.
Team A then consolidates and just knocks the ball around for singles until about the 35th over.
Team A then ups the tempo if they have wickets in hand by having power plays etc in the last 15 overs and go for a bit of a bash.
Team B then bats and tries to not lose early wickets but match pace with Team A.
If Team B loses early wickets it's almost all over.
The only time it gets interesting is if Team B does manage to preserve most of their wickets and match the rate of Team A so then their final 10-15 overs is a tit for tat bashathon with their opponents.
Better yet, the games where the pitch is a mine field and wickets tumble in both innings and it's a dour struggle to chase down say 200 or 180 are even better.
But how do you fix 50-over cricket? Frankly it's not easy. The rules have been tinkered so often with power plays etc etc, and it still tends to be formulaic.
My main suggestion is to get rid of the stupid 5 and 7 match series between 2 teams...they're tedious and drawn out and boring. 3 match series, max, or else have a 3-team series (2 games against each other team + a single final) to at least generate some interest.
I read another suggestion on the Courier Mail today which I'd never thought of but which actually could be very interesting. Split the 50-over games into 4 innings of 25 overs. So it works a bit like a Test.
Team A bats for 25 overs (a bit like Twenty20).
Team B bats for 25 overs.
Team A bats again for 25 overs and sets the target for Team B to chase.
Team B chases.
It's 20-20 in a way, but it also takes away a bit of the luck factor as I described with T20 above.
Anyone else have any thoughts?
