Down with formula

Example case-India vs New Zealand in an ODI. India wins toss in a belter & bat first.After their 1st block of 25 overs,they score 125/2.Then they go off.New Zealand come in to bat,& are reduced to 75/5 in their 1st block of 25 overs.Game over !!! So there is only an Indian win possible,& the result is predictable fully after 50 overs !!! The game's over in half of it's time !!!At least the spectators could have been able to wonder what may happen had India batted their full 50 overs first & scored 300/8 in their 50 overs.Even if New Zealand were reduced to 75/5 after 25 overs,the game would have been meaningful for 75 of the 100 overs rather than 50 of the 100 overs. About the bowling restrictions,I would rather say that you need to use at least 5 bowlers & not specify any over limits.Isn't this better ? & yes,why not employ compulsory powerplays,with at least 1 catching man & 7 fielders in the circle,in the 1st 10 overs,21st-25th,31st to 35th,& 41st to 45th overs?

Hi Ian, the suggestions you have given are wonderful. I fully agree with all your points. Playing 2 segments is the better way than playing 2 innings. The Second batting segment should be a continuance of the first segment from the number of wickets already gone down.It will then give a whole new dimension to ODI's in terms of strategies, teams placing themselves for the second segment, which gives more chances for a captain to show his tactical skills. The good bowlers getting more overs to bowl without any restrictions is also a great idea which will please the bowling community especially Mcgrath & Warne Ltd if they had the chance to do it in their days. If all these ideas are put in to effect ODI' s have the potential to surpass the thrill, intensity,fun, popularity of T20'S by giving more value for your money than T20'S by a long distance. Come on Mr.ICC get moving fast to make any real contribution to the greatest game of them all to survive in its 2nd avatar.

I wasn't aware that conditions changed so radically for teams that it would force some weird, arbitrary curtailing of an innings just so eveyone faces exactly the same situation... there might be some grounds conducive to evening dew but inventing a whole game predicated on it seems to be going too far. If a game is going to be decided at the toss, then there is obviously something not quite right about the way the ground has been set up - the pitch, lights, etc. So why change the game to suit a dodgy stadium/pitch? Maybe instead prepare the pitch differently?

Just like a test that lasts 3 days, one day games can be one sided, then they can be exciting. I went to a Sth Africa V Australia 20/20 game It was one side too. You cant change with rules to make a game to be exciting. it might seem to work sometimes. The problem is the choice of when to take the powerplays has stuffed one day cricket. The problem seems to be the consoliidation period between 15th over & 35th overs No more power plays have more restrictions of fielders out side the ring. Have 2 fielders out of the circle only from over 1 to 15, Have 3 fielders only outside the circle to overs 16 to 30, Overs 31 to 40 have 4 fielders outside the circle but restrict them to two on the off & two on the on side. For overs 40 to 50 allow 5 fielders out side maximum 3 on one side, Teams will still risk quick runs in the final overs no matter what. As for free hits keep em... Overs 31 to 40 4 fielders

I see merit in almost every point, but there are still some aspects to be tweaked. For instance, 20 overs from a murali will shift the game to much in favour of a bowling team - people do want to see 4's and 6's. We would need to find a balance where games are regularly hitting the 250-260 mark, but where teams can possibly defend a run a ball in the last ten (which thanks to 20-20 is now nigh on impossible). I think there is merit in splitting the innings into 2 parts, but not 2 innings. This will however cause shifts in momentum, as players will have to restart their innings. I would start by enforcing a change in powerplays, where one cannot take the second powerplay within 5 overs of the first, and the 3rd (usually batting) powerplay cannot be taken within the last 10 overs. In this way the slow middle overs will be broken up more effectively. Perhaps a bonus bowling scheme should be used, where keeping fielders in the ring outside of powerplays earns your premier bowlers new overs

the idea from chappell sir s really good...!!! we still feel the 50 over format to b good...!!! i doubt the bowlers hv to b given additional overs because it would b not so good considerin that one waits to b scorin of other bowlers when the good bowler spell s finished...!!! and the thing that s really true s the boundary as to b increased in the sense it has to b neasly a minimum of 80-85yrds then only the real spice of running between wickets and the fieldin wll b tested...!! not only that the batsman can b really teted for pickin gaps and bowler to b bowlin to his field rather than just sloggin or just containin wth yorkers....!!!!! kArth!ckeYan

I had mentioned long back that 'ODI' as a 50 over format is doomed and 20-20 is probably hastening it. How much 'money bag' India is going to strangle the golden goose is the question. As much as Ian is talking of 'even contest', the administrators who are looking for 'yearly' returns, forget about the game. So 'star's scoring centuries is more important than bowlers picking wickets. We also dont have 'good bowlers' in the World in Test cricket, forget ODIs. What makes a 'good game' of cricket is 'stars performing' and NOT a good contest between bat and ball. If Sehwag or Sachin were to run their way to a 50 and ball not going to spectators even once, it is bore - that will the 'judgement' of media :o

ODIs are the heart of interesting cricket and some changes shd be made in them to make it more interesting and competitive. To make them more competitive - the batting power play for 7 overs should be only between over 20 and 40 thus infusing life to the comparitively monotonus part of the game - the bowling power play can be anytime when the fielding captain wants it - any two bowlers may be allowed bowl 12-13 overs instead of 10 overs so that the part time bowlers are minimised. example - Australia / SA normally play test cricket with 4 specialist bowlers then why push for 5 bowlers in ODIs - allow one substitution/replacement (either a bowler or batsman) after the play starts - get rid of D/L method - No team can play more than 20 ODIs per year - Monetary fines and bans for umpires making mistakes

I don understand why 50 over cricket needs to be changed.There is too much talk about the improvisations needed for change in 50 ov cricket.I still don't see a deserted stadium for 50 ov match except in the west indies.50 ov cricket is definitely a good form of cricket.In test matches when wickets fall quickly,atleast the batsman can take his time but in 50 ov cricket he has to preserve his wicket and also score runs which makes for an interesting viewing which we will not be able to get in T20s or four 25 over innings or even in 40 ov cricket.I think in 10 yrs time people will get bored of T20s and people will say we will play 10-10 cricket.

Test Cricket is 'cricket.' All other forms of 'cricket' are paltry in comparison. Now, I love ODI cricket; nonetheless, I feel that most of the methods posted would just serve to make the game into more of a gimmick, essentially devaluing it of all subtelty: the essence of cricket. ODI cricket obviously has the most resemblence 'real' cricket. While not being the real thing, nonetheless, I embrace it as a different form of the game, which still offers some of the same elements which make test cricket so rewarding. By changing things so drastically from the original, and even from modern ODI cricket, we risk changing the nature of cricket itself. Having said that, the commercial side of things does come in as a factor. To attract wider audiences and revenue, such changes will be made. Its a sad thing, but these seem inevitable, despite the fact that these new audiences are attracted by a form of cricket devoid of what made the original so great.