GoldenAsif

50-over games:

As the format currently stands, 50-over games have become very predictable.

Bat first and score 280+ and provided you have a decent enough bowling attack you can defend that total 80% of the time. Bowl first and restrict the opposition to below 200 and the game is yours 90% of the time.

Besides not much usu. happens during the mundane period between say overs 15-35 when most sides are merely looking to preserve wickets and are just content with ticking off singles and twos with the odd boundary here and there

I was listening to Ian Chappell during T20 Final and he came up with a very good suggestion of splitting 50-over games into two innings of 25 overs each in order to make them more intriguing and entertaining. It will also mean not one team benefiting entirely from weather and pitch conditions.

say Team A is 110/2 after 25 overs and Team B is 140/4 after 25 overs. Team A has more wickets in hand and can still win it if they bat well in their next 25 overs and so on

T20:

Perhaps not much change is needed there. The next Twenty20 World Cup is being staged in the West Indies in April-May 2010 because the ICC wanted to avoid having two major events in 2011, when the one-day World Cup is scheduled to be played in South Asia. Fair enough...

Thereafter T20 World Cup will be held every two years.

I w'd however like to see the requirement reduced down from 5 to 4 bowlers in both 50-over games and T20. i.e. Your two best bowlers will bowl 13 overs each and the remaining 24 overs will be shared by the other bowlers. Or maybe just reduce the games to 48 overs aside with a maximam of 12 overs per bowler.

In T20 - a maximam of 5 overs per bowler

It would make for a more even contest between bat and ball and also mean the end of bits and pieces cricketers even in the limited overs format.

Each side w'd then be able to field 6 specialist batsmen, one wicket-keeper batsman, one genuine all rounder and three specialist bowlers.

What we are seeing now is each side going with just 2 or 3 specialist bowlers and part-time bits and pieces bowlers doing the remaining job during the mundane period of play (overs 15-35)

TESTS:

David Morgan, the ICC President recently hinted at 4 day test matches
http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/411075.html

My first reaction was, 'Is David Morgan out of his mind? Even 5 days are sometimes not enough to force a result in a test match so what makes him think that 4 days w'd lead to more results/better games?

Because of the mandatory 90-overs per day rule and the Aussie innovation since the mid 90s, 75% of test matches produce results. So one can't really complain too much at the moment

Slow and low pitches are the single most important reason why we still sometimes see dull boring draws in test matches (the recent England-WI series in the Caribbean, Pak-SLA series earlier this year)

That said sometimes a hard-fought draw (the Mohali test in 2005, thanks to Razzaq and Akmal) is more satisfying than a one-sided test victory.

But if you think coolly 4-day test matches might not be such a bad idea IF the no. of overs bowled in a test (450) essentially remains the same. i.e. instead of bowling 90 overs per day you bowl 110-112 overs per day. It would then mean 7.5 hours of play every day (instead of the current 6 hours per day), each session being 2.5 hours (rather than 2) long.

The ICC needs to give all boards more time so they can install flood-lights at all the major test centres around the world and it might be a decade or so before 4-day tests can even be experimented.

The colour of the ball will be an issue. A longer day w'd inevitably mean playing some of the overs under lights each day. At what point in the day do you decide to change from a red to a white ball etc.? or should we play with a different coloured ball e.g. an orange ball? Then there are other issues

Would a longer day mean ==> player burnout+++?

A four-day test w'd definitely miss the intrigue and excitement of a 5th day pitch. So much usu. happens on the final day of a test because of cracks, unpredictable bounce and turn etc.

So perhaps Test cricket should stay as it is. It should not be treated like limited overs games. Innovation is all good but there is no need to break with tradition.

Quality of pitches around the world should be the main focus and the ICC should penalise boards if they make slow, defensive, batting friendly pitches with little or no bounce.

Comments??

cadet018

GoldenAsif

I think 50-overs games should stay. T20 alone w'd miss the thrill of watching a batsman score a hundred/bowler take 4 or 5w in a game.

My 4-bowler rule would ensure a more even tussle between bat and ball in both 50-over games and T20

It w'd also encourage sides to go for specialist bowlers and genuine all-rounders instead of bits and pieces cricketers

Splitting 50-over games into two innings of 25 overs each sounds like a great idea to me

Champions Trophy though should be shelved for ever

Antumul alona

^^^

AOA WRWB

Any suggestion is better than nangee larkiyan with pom poms - I mean really - Game should be for the sport, not to get h***y.

ICC went cheap when they introduced the pompom stuff...IMHO.

For TESTS - let me suggest something radical (from my persp. atleast), ICC can try 60 over limit per innings and wrap it up in 2 days - Use net run rate to decide Tied scores - No more Drawn tests. 60 overs is still a lot of time to show Stroke play as well as skillfull bowling displays. Use 3rd day for Rain interference. Over limit will make the fielding side come in strong as well as Matches will have Result most of the time.

GoldenAsif

AA I w'd politely disagree here

Restricting each side to 60 overs per innings w'd just kill test cricket

No longer will we see batsmen scoring triple hundreds, openers carrying the bat through an innings, no one w'd be able to go for Lara's record, noone however great w'd be able to take 10 wickets in an innings, noone w'd be able to challenge Murali's record in future etc. etc.

As much as winning matters we can't deny the fact that records matter just as much to the great players of every generation. They are an important part of the game. Records are sometimes the sole motivation for great players to continue playing the game!!

I am all for innovation which makes test cricket more entertaining and result-oriented but we should not tinker with the basics of test cricket, something that has stood for 132 long years!!

Draws are only ugly if they are tame affairs on batting paradises. Sometimes a backs-to-the-wall draw is just as absorbing and entertaining as a hard-fought win.

koozager

Since the advent of ODIs Test cricket has already changed considerably. The only certainty in the number of over used to be the mandatory 20 overs at the end of the 5th day, now teams know exactly how many overs they will bowl/bat in a day barring bad light. There used to be a rest day in tests after the third day even in the 80s. The slow paced test of wills and the lazy strategic jousts over 5,6, or even seven days regardless of eventual outcome was no longer commercially viable after the advent of the ODI cash cow so rules changed.

T20 will also change Test cricket and ODI in the coming years. Scary: but only for older fans For some of us its already unrecognizable like Winona Ryder in the new Star trek movie.

GoldenAsif

I think the main world cup has to be 45-50 overs atleast. T20 is just too short to test the relative skills and discipline of various teams

Splitting of 50-over games into two innings of 25 overs each might come into effect before 2015 World Cup - so basically you carry on where you left off but don't have the entire advantage of weather and pitch conditions etc. Ian Chappell is a vociferous supporter of that

Antumul alona

IMHO -
its the whole "records" things that they are good for these days -
the young crowd has no patience for the slow batting that produces those large individual scores - personally I am all for it - however reality is that either ICC shorten the game so the new kids stay interested, otherwise it will die alltogether...
just my Humble opinion.

GoldenAsif

The first Ashes test in Cardiff merely reinforces my viewpoint - that dull & benign pitches and not the number of days is what is killing test cricket

cricinfo:
"And that's stumps on the second day, a superb one for Australia. They had a shocker in the morning when England added 99 runs in just 16.5 overs, but after losing Phillip Hughes, this pair has seen them through safely to stumps and made England's attack look pretty blunt. It was hoped the pitch would offer significant turn, but neither Panesar or Swann looked too threatening on what is an increasingly benign pitch. Quality, intelligent knocks by Katich and Ponting, and they're unbeaten going into the third day - and we hope you'll join us then."

The ECB (like the sub-continental boards barring Sri Lanka) needs to take a serious look at the quality of pitches in England and Wales. Leeds and Nottingham apart most of the other english pitches (The Oval esp.) are full of runs. Pakistan's second highest test score (708) is at The Oval.