Cricket Australia board meeting June 11, 2010

CA confirms split-innings one-dayers

88

One-day cricket in its familiar form could soon become a thing of the past after the Cricket Australia board gave the green light to a trial of split-innings state games next summer. If the new format is successful, Cricket Australia will take the idea to the ICC as a plan to keep ODIs alive, meaning the 2015 World Cup could feature a split-innings format.

Although there has been no decision on how many overs each innings would be - four innings of either 20 or 25 overs are the most likely - CA will finalise their concept in the coming weeks. The first four rounds of the FR Cup will be played under the existing rules before the new format is introduced for the remaining six rounds, which will start in February.

By then, Australia's World Cup squad will have departed, so their preparations will not be affected. James Sutherland, the CA chief executive, said the innovation was intended as a way to retain all three formats of the game, with the middle portion of 50-over innings having become largely predictable.

"It provides a mechanism by which in the eyes of the consumer we can distinguish the one-day game a little bit more from the Twenty20 format of the game," Sutherland said. "There's no doubt that there's some feedback there that suggests that parts of the one-day game are a little bit predictable. That's certainly something that we are looking to address.

"One of the things that's come back as the feedback from fans and also from a television audience perspective is that by having a split innings, after the dinner break, no matter, you will get to see both teams bat in the evening. That is something that people who might be going to the game after work or coming home after work see as being a very significant plus for this format."

The popularity of Twenty20 cricket has left ODIs in a difficult position, somewhere between the dynamic shortest format and the traditional Test matches. England and South Africa have already reduced their one-day domestic competitions to 40 overs a side, in an effort to eliminate some of the less exciting middle overs.

The ICC has been searching for ways to keep 50-over cricket relevant, and next year's World Cup on the subcontinent could feasibly be the last one played in the existing format. Sutherland said it was hard to predict how one-day cricket would look by the time of the 2015 World Cup in Australia and New Zealand.

"If you're suggesting that the current playing conditions that one-day international cricket is being played under today is going to be the same in 2015, then I would suggest that it's probably not the case," Sutherland said. "There's a question there about how radically the playing conditions may have developed or changed. I honestly don't know the answer to that but what we at Cricket Australia are looking to do is to find a landing spot with a new format.

"We have also been encouraged to innovate through the ICC cricket committee, who met not long ago. They were very, very encouraging of full members looking to explore innovations within the playing conditions and certainly that's been raised at chief executive committee level in recent times."

Cricket Australia will now move to finalise the details, although it seems certain that teams will resume their second innings from the point where their first innings concluded. Sutherland said feedback from fans had played a major role in the split-innings concept, which has also been trialled this year in England's county 2nd XI competition.

Brydon Coverdale is a staff writer at Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • sunilvaidya on June 17, 2010, 6:46 GMT

    splitting odi into 25-25 overs is a silly idea. i am sure it will die like that innovation of super sub. that was a silly change and died quickly and splitting the odi idea is also going to prove silly. there will be more questions than answers if this change is made. what are you going to do if there is rain interruption? already in current state of odi there is a lot of uncertainty when there are only 2 innings. if there are 4 innings to be considered it is only going to increase the headache. already duckworth lewis system is being criticized. the 4 innings concept is only going to add to the difficulties in case of rain.

  • sony_sr on June 16, 2010, 16:12 GMT

    The second innings will be a continuation of the 1st innings or a new innings. If its a new innings, then its not ODI cricket and they are just killing ODI cricket for money.

    Better they can arrange 2 T20's in the same day and call it with some other name and leave ODI cricket alone. If it die itself, let it be. But please don't kill it today just coz you think it will die tomorrow.

  • MZahid on June 16, 2010, 10:33 GMT

    To me, a person who finds test cricket boring does not really understand the philosophy of this sport and hence not a true fan of cricket. There is nothing more thrilling to see someone like Dravid, Lara, S Waugh, Inzimam, trying to sit out a whole session or a day-in order to save a match- against bowlers like Warne, Murali, McGrath, W Akram. In my opinion, T20 has already ruined this unique sport. Even the cricketers who have been brought up to look upto the purest form of the game, are obviously switching their loyalties to money; yes, I have little doubt that the international players who retire prematurely from tests and prefer playing T20 are dirven by money. The generation of cricketers that's been born and grown up in the era of T20 are yet to be seen and I can see that they will only play for money. I can understand that you need innovation to make this game "thrilling" for common viewers but for goodness sake don't talk about changing the test formate of this beautiful game.

  • on June 16, 2010, 4:49 GMT

    Seriously. If anyones suggesting 20/20 is the pinnacle they've got rocks in their head. Its like comparing Britney Spears to the Rolling Stones. One looks pretty, sounds pretty, but has no substance, talent, authenticity, credibility. It seems that the ppl who embrace it are up for a short term fix to the fact their teams are useless, and that by playing a watered down version of a real game, they can be competitive. A sign of the times I guess. Not willing to do the hard work to fix a problem, so lets get into the easy way out... Having said that, the topic of split 50 over games sounds promising. Hopefully it will take off, and the 20/20 fad, like Britney, will fade into oblivion...

  • stuartk319 on June 16, 2010, 4:44 GMT

    What happens when Team A are 2/130 from their 25 overs, and Team B are 5/80 from theirs. We're all going to go home or switch off the telly!! This was trialled by English team in 1994/5 on tour matches, and quickly put away for that reason (short memories). Wake up, the 50 over format is dull because 80% of the matches mean nothing to 90% of the players. Lets simply save them for truly competitive situations; like the World Cup, and to help sort out good club players from worthy first-class cricketers as in the Ford Ranger Cup.

  • on June 15, 2010, 14:57 GMT

    @Paullie: I understood that only ten wickets are over the two "halves". Otherwise it'd become a twenty20 doubleheader, not resembling in any way an ODI...

  • lucyferr on June 15, 2010, 6:00 GMT

    Finally! It's about time someone tried out the 2 innings 20 over format. I hope they also try both ABBA and ABAB versions (A = team batting 1st, B = team batting second - ABAB is like a regular Test, ABBA is like a follow-on). I personally would rather see 20 rather than 25 overs in an innings, but that can be sorted out later. Although - we are viewing this as a way to save ODIs and the Cricket World Cup, right? And not a way to improve T20s? Because T20s don't need any improvement (other than allowing bouncers, giving bowlers an extra over for every two wickets they take, etc). But hallelujah - the traditional 50 over format is dead. Now if Tests could just hurry up and die as well, we'd all be happy. (Okay, I take that back - Tests are a useful testing ground for cricketers who need a slower form of cricket to improve their technique before they're ready T20s. That's why they're called Tests, after all.)

  • Kirk-at-Lords on June 15, 2010, 5:40 GMT

    Kudos to CA for showing courage and good judgment, balancing change with the need to keep stability in the ODI side. Now the revolution in cricket is well and truly under weigh! The sport practically stumbled into T20. Recall how uninterested India were until they won the first T20 World Cup? Then came the IPL and we were off... but with no clear destination in mind. Now that the money frenzy has dampened down a bit, this is the perfect time to find a way forward that preserves and promotes the elements of cricket that make it such a unique and strategic game. Two-innings-a-side is perhaps the most essential of these elements. It may take considerable tweaking, but CA has firmly launched the sport down an essential path to the future. As for things like statistical comparability, is this really what cricket is all about? Despite the apparent stability of Test cricket, how >do< you compare Bradman to Ponting, Tendulkar, or indeed any modern player? Priorities have to be set.

  • Bigbanger666 on June 14, 2010, 5:40 GMT

    Surely Warner must get a regular game now??? He is a match winner in ODI and would be a gun in this format.

  • eyballfallenout on June 14, 2010, 2:57 GMT

    chris_b85, is 100% right. no need to change the game, just the wickets. A sporting pitch will make the middle exciting,bring back the fast men for a couple and those batsman can be hopping all over the place, Way better than seeing a great bowler at 150 get smacked back over his head from an average bat. Sporting wickets 220 as a par score = nice cricket.

  • sunilvaidya on June 17, 2010, 6:46 GMT

    splitting odi into 25-25 overs is a silly idea. i am sure it will die like that innovation of super sub. that was a silly change and died quickly and splitting the odi idea is also going to prove silly. there will be more questions than answers if this change is made. what are you going to do if there is rain interruption? already in current state of odi there is a lot of uncertainty when there are only 2 innings. if there are 4 innings to be considered it is only going to increase the headache. already duckworth lewis system is being criticized. the 4 innings concept is only going to add to the difficulties in case of rain.

  • sony_sr on June 16, 2010, 16:12 GMT

    The second innings will be a continuation of the 1st innings or a new innings. If its a new innings, then its not ODI cricket and they are just killing ODI cricket for money.

    Better they can arrange 2 T20's in the same day and call it with some other name and leave ODI cricket alone. If it die itself, let it be. But please don't kill it today just coz you think it will die tomorrow.

  • MZahid on June 16, 2010, 10:33 GMT

    To me, a person who finds test cricket boring does not really understand the philosophy of this sport and hence not a true fan of cricket. There is nothing more thrilling to see someone like Dravid, Lara, S Waugh, Inzimam, trying to sit out a whole session or a day-in order to save a match- against bowlers like Warne, Murali, McGrath, W Akram. In my opinion, T20 has already ruined this unique sport. Even the cricketers who have been brought up to look upto the purest form of the game, are obviously switching their loyalties to money; yes, I have little doubt that the international players who retire prematurely from tests and prefer playing T20 are dirven by money. The generation of cricketers that's been born and grown up in the era of T20 are yet to be seen and I can see that they will only play for money. I can understand that you need innovation to make this game "thrilling" for common viewers but for goodness sake don't talk about changing the test formate of this beautiful game.

  • on June 16, 2010, 4:49 GMT

    Seriously. If anyones suggesting 20/20 is the pinnacle they've got rocks in their head. Its like comparing Britney Spears to the Rolling Stones. One looks pretty, sounds pretty, but has no substance, talent, authenticity, credibility. It seems that the ppl who embrace it are up for a short term fix to the fact their teams are useless, and that by playing a watered down version of a real game, they can be competitive. A sign of the times I guess. Not willing to do the hard work to fix a problem, so lets get into the easy way out... Having said that, the topic of split 50 over games sounds promising. Hopefully it will take off, and the 20/20 fad, like Britney, will fade into oblivion...

  • stuartk319 on June 16, 2010, 4:44 GMT

    What happens when Team A are 2/130 from their 25 overs, and Team B are 5/80 from theirs. We're all going to go home or switch off the telly!! This was trialled by English team in 1994/5 on tour matches, and quickly put away for that reason (short memories). Wake up, the 50 over format is dull because 80% of the matches mean nothing to 90% of the players. Lets simply save them for truly competitive situations; like the World Cup, and to help sort out good club players from worthy first-class cricketers as in the Ford Ranger Cup.

  • on June 15, 2010, 14:57 GMT

    @Paullie: I understood that only ten wickets are over the two "halves". Otherwise it'd become a twenty20 doubleheader, not resembling in any way an ODI...

  • lucyferr on June 15, 2010, 6:00 GMT

    Finally! It's about time someone tried out the 2 innings 20 over format. I hope they also try both ABBA and ABAB versions (A = team batting 1st, B = team batting second - ABAB is like a regular Test, ABBA is like a follow-on). I personally would rather see 20 rather than 25 overs in an innings, but that can be sorted out later. Although - we are viewing this as a way to save ODIs and the Cricket World Cup, right? And not a way to improve T20s? Because T20s don't need any improvement (other than allowing bouncers, giving bowlers an extra over for every two wickets they take, etc). But hallelujah - the traditional 50 over format is dead. Now if Tests could just hurry up and die as well, we'd all be happy. (Okay, I take that back - Tests are a useful testing ground for cricketers who need a slower form of cricket to improve their technique before they're ready T20s. That's why they're called Tests, after all.)

  • Kirk-at-Lords on June 15, 2010, 5:40 GMT

    Kudos to CA for showing courage and good judgment, balancing change with the need to keep stability in the ODI side. Now the revolution in cricket is well and truly under weigh! The sport practically stumbled into T20. Recall how uninterested India were until they won the first T20 World Cup? Then came the IPL and we were off... but with no clear destination in mind. Now that the money frenzy has dampened down a bit, this is the perfect time to find a way forward that preserves and promotes the elements of cricket that make it such a unique and strategic game. Two-innings-a-side is perhaps the most essential of these elements. It may take considerable tweaking, but CA has firmly launched the sport down an essential path to the future. As for things like statistical comparability, is this really what cricket is all about? Despite the apparent stability of Test cricket, how >do< you compare Bradman to Ponting, Tendulkar, or indeed any modern player? Priorities have to be set.

  • Bigbanger666 on June 14, 2010, 5:40 GMT

    Surely Warner must get a regular game now??? He is a match winner in ODI and would be a gun in this format.

  • eyballfallenout on June 14, 2010, 2:57 GMT

    chris_b85, is 100% right. no need to change the game, just the wickets. A sporting pitch will make the middle exciting,bring back the fast men for a couple and those batsman can be hopping all over the place, Way better than seeing a great bowler at 150 get smacked back over his head from an average bat. Sporting wickets 220 as a par score = nice cricket.

  • FiddyHolt on June 13, 2010, 12:15 GMT

    @ that_guy: do you even like cricket? The format of test cricket has remained basically unchanged since it's inception some 130+ years ago.. & for a very good reason!

  • FiddyHolt on June 13, 2010, 11:23 GMT

    @ that_guy: do you even like cricket? The format of test cricket has remained basically unchanged since it's inception some 130+ years ago.. & for a very good reason!

  • kisho_3 on June 13, 2010, 9:51 GMT

    This needs proper scrutiny before implementation. After the implementation of split innings system, the so called ODIs (50 over matches) will be out of the planet. Because obviously these 2 are not comparables. (Ex: Highest team score of an ODI cannot be compared with the highest score of a split inning). This will result in ODIs becoming history and new version will be established. So what I think is, establishing split innings system is a new format of cricket. It is not a substitute for ODIs.

  • __PK on June 13, 2010, 9:16 GMT

    James Sutherland mentioned a "split innings" but I think this is misleading. My understanding was that the teams would have all 10 wickets available in the second innings. I hope so, otherwise teams will bat catiously in the first innings to conserve wickets for the second.

  • Markus971 on June 13, 2010, 6:45 GMT

    25 overs each side x2? O.K. Might need a New Ball each innings! otherwise u may see a 'keeping wickets in hand' approach for the 1st inn's.. leading to a 25 over 20/20 slog in the 2nd inn's. Which may be the general approach anyway! -But it might be a little better for the spectator, also enabling the Statistics to be recorded the same way as Now.

  • that_guy on June 13, 2010, 3:00 GMT

    Without a doubt tests will become limited overs of 4 innings of 50 overs (2 Days), one dayers will be 4 X 25 overs and 20/20 will be domestic only... it is the only way forward.

  • slugworth on June 13, 2010, 1:53 GMT

    I like the idea. I think it is important to remember that teams will only have availible to them 10 wickets across their split innings. If we look at the game between Pak and Ire during the 07 world cup at the half way point it would have looked like this. Pak Ovr 20 68-5 Malik 5* Akmal 0* RR 3.4 Ire Ovr 20 57-2 Portersfield 13* O'Brien 34* RR 2.85

  • BionicBowler on June 13, 2010, 0:24 GMT

    …/continued 5) Have each split inning phase be bowled from only one end (alternate this so that both teams play at both ends), and thus create a bit of rough for the spinners to come into the game in the third and fourth phase, and importantly save time with fielders changing every over (only batsmen change ends at end of each over). In this format of the game there is not the same need to keep changing the field every over. 6) 20 overs of powerplays, 10 of which will be the first 10 overs, with the other 10 split into two blocks of five, one taken at the fielding team's discretion, the other at the batting team's discretion. 7) No drinks breaks, just breaks of 10 minutes at the end of each split inning phase and 20 minutes at 'half time'. The advantage with this format is that most games will ebb and flow where teams are of similar quality and that one sided games will be concluded much sooner, making them less drawn out to watch for all concerned.

  • BionicBowler on June 13, 2010, 0:18 GMT

    This great idea for ODIs would virtually eradicate any inequities, in that both sides have to bat under similar conditions e.g. cope with evening dew on the outfield. For this format to work best I recommend the following improvements: 1) If 50Fifty consider 20 overs per side in first half of the game so that by D/L rules it can be considered a 'result' game (i.e. 40% for both sides). Then have second 'half' played with 30 overs each for the remaining wickets left for both sides. 2) Prepare pitches that encourage an even contest. If the limited-overs game constantly features teams chasing huge targets then there's very little likelihood of a close finish. 3) Five bowlers have to deliver a minimum of five overs each. Apart from that the captain can utilise his bowlers how he sees fit. The more overs available to the better bowlers, the more likely a captain will attack. Reward your best bowlers! 4) 4 fielders in the circle in last 5 overs of an innings, not all on boundary

  • Phoarey on June 12, 2010, 23:14 GMT

    Guys I find irony in the fight to save the 'traditional' one day game. Folks over age 50 remember how it was ridiculed by some when popularised by Packer. Particularly by the greatest leg spinner, Bill O'Reilly (Bradman's assessment). 50 over cricket was never quite the answer. If it was it would have been viable at sub-international level. It wasn't. Finally cricket has a game that on a Saturday night at the Gabba, at state level, where the Queensland Bulls is a comparable night out to the AFL Lions or the Brisbane Broncos. An astonishing twist in the evolution is that in T20 the most skillful succeed. In 50 overs there is a place for trundlers and nudgers. 50 over cricket will fade out I think like the early 2G phones - great in their day.

  • ygkd on June 12, 2010, 22:55 GMT

    In their current format OD matches are stuck between a rock & a hard place. Either scrap them completely or make them more of a test and less of a lesser all-rounders' playground. Let 2 specialist bowlers have 13 overs each. Make 2 slip fielders mandatory & let the rest field anywhere the captain chooses. And give the pitches some life. Then you can split the innings if the public wants it (it may help in rain-shortened matches), but splitting alone will not resurrect a format which has largely run its course, mostly due to too many restrictions and flat tracks. It's hard enough explaining test cricket to the uninitiated, but 50-over games with power-plays, circles & free hits are ridiculously overly-complicated. Simplify it, don't just add another layer of unnecessary rules.

  • phermon on June 12, 2010, 20:43 GMT

    The game gets dumber - and the Australian players are unhappy they haven't been consulted. Fancy playing up to an audience with the attention span of a sparrow [sorry sparrows]. How about a toss before lunch, mexican waves during lunch, and another toss after lunch. If both teams are equal after two tosses. there will be an immediate third toss to decide the match. Teams do not need to appear at the ground which will save a lot of emissions.

  • on June 12, 2010, 15:32 GMT

    this would just make the starting two innings pointless and boring and everyone will want to watch the last two innings...however it should be tried because ODIs are becoming pathetic day by day.

  • shaen on June 12, 2010, 15:13 GMT

    Although there has been no decision on how many overs each innings would be - four innings of either 20 or 25 overs are the most likely

    So they've decided to do it, but still can't even telll us what they are going to do....or why. 50 over cricket is fine, it ain't broke, it doesn't need fixing. I watched the first Packer one dayer and have missed none by choice since. So I know what I'm talking about which is more than CA can say today.

  • on June 12, 2010, 13:59 GMT

    This will not work. For so many obvious (and the not so obvious) reasons.

  • LALITHKURUWITA on June 12, 2010, 13:54 GMT

    THIS IS A CRAP. THEY WANT TO KILL 50 OVER GAME. THEN TOO MUCH 20-20 CRICKET. ULTIMATELY THIS WILL BE REPLACED BY BASEBALL.

  • Phoarey on June 12, 2010, 11:51 GMT

    Cricket has the incomparable long game, test cricket and a cracker short game of similar duration to a night at the footy,T20. ODIs occupy the space of the early mobile phones. Revolutionary in it's day. Now the "iPhone" T20 has made them redundant. Let it go.

  • on June 12, 2010, 10:55 GMT

    How would the split format affect the batting line-up? I hope that the second innings would continue where the first one ended. Instead of the openers starting the second innings the batsmen who were batting at the end of the first innings should start the second innings. And the ball that was being used at the end of the first should be used in the second.

  • PrasanthBalakrishnan on June 12, 2010, 10:32 GMT

    Please dont do this. This is not fair. The game will lose the interest.

  • ADXI on June 12, 2010, 10:08 GMT

    Why have an in between format at all......we have T20 criket for the thrill seekers & Test Cricket for the Skill Connoisseurs.....do away wid 50 over cricket....its not that I hate it...i have grown up watching & loving it....but we now hav something else (T20 cricket) to serve the purpose of creation of the 50 over game.... it would be huge boost to the strained test calendar & a gr8 challenge for the players to swing between the extremes (Tests & T20)...There could be a league format - yearly test championship with home & away games against each of the ten test nations in division - I & another 8-10 test teams in division - II, with yearly relegations & promotions....T20 champioships could be held once each year at the end of the test season involving about 20-25 teams...This model would also complete domestic cricket models of most countries....with a prolonged test season & a T20 tournament at the end.

  • Srikolith on June 12, 2010, 10:00 GMT

    I don't think this is a good idea.If this will happen , then that will be the end of 50 over cricket. We still love ODI & test. Because we can see real cricket in those formats. I'm not telling that t20 should not be played. But in shorter format, we only see hard hitting & defensive balling. The batsmen & ballers don't have sufficient time to show their talents. Longer format ( even 50 over) teach players about patience. Now the worlds trend is to see quick results. Bcz they don't have the patience. I think cricket is one of games that teach patience. We love it. So in future real cricket lovers won't have matches to watch. so sad..If ICC wanna hold these new format matches, there should be balance between them & traditional cricket. At least one country should have 9-10 test matches & 30 ODI per year. I hope that people will realize the hazard of shorter format soon . If not that will be the end of real cricket.

  • Maestro_of_Cricket on June 12, 2010, 9:55 GMT

    I don't know why all the new ideas brought onto the field by Aussies are highly regarded by everyone. I mean, even the Aussies haven't tried it out yet, but already there are predictions that 2015 WC would be played under this new format. If some subcontinental country announced about this kind of a domestic format before the Aussies did, surely they'd have become a laughing stock among the cricketing nations. True that almost every new radical idea has come from Australia for the past few decades, but just give it a little bit more time, people. Let the Aussies test it out for 4-5 years, then, if successful, other nations could try it out as well, and then we can go to the international level.

  • TrevorN on June 12, 2010, 9:44 GMT

    In a few years' time we will have nine two over innings each and we will be able to call the game Caseball. Pitchers and pinch-hitters and specialist catchers, goodness me, we could have a hit on our hands.

  • IlMagnifico on June 12, 2010, 7:49 GMT

    "It provides a mechanism by which in the eyes of the consumer we can distinguish the one-day game ..."

    What-the-cluck??? Too many MBAs in the board room and not enough cricketers. Someone tell this empty suit that this is not pork rinds he's selling to the public that he should feel the need to spice it up every so often. Next up from CA -- Cricketers allowed to wear only one pant leg to "liven it up a little bit". Also on agenda -- Round red noses and size 24 shoes for everyone.

  • Beavin on June 12, 2010, 6:44 GMT

    I have played games in a similar format before with the innings being split into tw0 20 over segments.

    I am not sure who actually pays attention to these comments but the games tend too: - drag out with multiple changes of innings - be lower scoring as players have to play themselves in - be less exciting to play and watch

    I do however believe the 40 over format that has recently been introduced in South Africa with 20 of those overs being power plays to be a step up on the 50 over format for entertainment value.

  • CricFan78 on June 12, 2010, 5:16 GMT

    CA is killing cricket for its selfish reasons

  • on June 12, 2010, 4:07 GMT

    splitting innings is a good idea.

    and maybe you can also optionally retire at a score of 50, and allow yourself to continue in the second innings. if you're out , you're out , and do not get to bat in the second innings. i think this will restore some control on the batting. and keep the format distinct from t20s, ODIs and baseball.

    i dont like the idea of the entire team batting twice - coz that makes it too much like two t20s back to back.

    finally, after this experiment can we vote and decide on the medium-length formant we want to follow (50-50 or 25x4). i think future cricketers need some stability. this is a slippery slope - once we accept all this change, there is no end to the experiments that can be done.

  • cass10au on June 12, 2010, 2:31 GMT

    I`m all for tinkering with the 50 over format.But to turn the one day format& it`s values iinto a mini fast forward Test Match on steriods is ridiculous. The 50 over format can be tinkered in so many ways .Extend the power plays ,Especially the 1st compulsory 10 overs ,maybe 15 etc.Return to the days of 25 overs per interval so both teams have to bat & bowl in daylight & at night .Plus also use a ball at each end & scrap the mandatory 34 over change of the ball .Making such a drastic change to the format of 1 day cricket much of the concept is going to be lost as well the player`s true skills & be more treated & played like Baseball .The game already has the 20/20 concept such a radical change is surely not needed .Alot of the problem with everyone wanting to change the one day format is cause there is alot of pointless One Day matches a overkill .Reducing ODI series`s to 3 games(max) with a more meaning concept to winning.Maybe a 2 Tier System where lesser nations can start out

  • SuperGLS on June 12, 2010, 2:17 GMT

    Love the idea. The back and forth nature of test cricket with the shortness of one day cricket. In fact, this is the logical way one day cricket should have started, isn't it?

  • sunnynsw on June 12, 2010, 2:10 GMT

    We are living in a world that we dont have time for long format of game except student or retiree. So any short form of the game is the way. Most people dont like change. But without try you will never know.

  • sabirshah on June 12, 2010, 2:03 GMT

    splittig 50/50s is not a good idea,,but just like what Tendulkar suggested 20/20 can be splitted and thats going to bring good to PROMOTION of cricket but notfor Traiditional cricket.Cricket isfamous for its patience..5 days and the result is draw! thats the only game in the world which has this kind of long boring result, but this is cricket! and we love it. No other game can teach this much patience ichallange. WE USE A FORMAT IN CHINA AND PAKISTAN KNOWN AS 10/10/10/10. EACH TEAM HAS TWO FULL INNINGS LIKE A TEST MATCH, BUT THEIR INNINGS ARELIMITED TO 10 OVERS. SAME RULES OF 'FOLLOW ON' JUST LIKE TEST CRICKET. AND AFTER FIRST INNINGS THE'LEAD ' IS TAKEN TO SECOND INNINGS AND THEN UNLIKE A TEST MATCH, THE 2ND INNINGS HAS TO BE DECISIVE(LIKE ODIs). BRINGS MORE FUN TO 20/20 FORMAT. AND AUDIENCE CAN ACTUALLY SEE THEIR FAVORITE PLAYERS IN ACTION TWICE WITHIN 20/20 TIME. But i still stick to 'real' cricket which is Test matches and ODIs(50 overs)..plz don't change this!!!

  • on June 12, 2010, 2:00 GMT

    terrible idea i think. when they implement this, a team's innings should continue. ie if they are 5/80 after the first 20/25 overs they shoudl continue from this. but what this also means is that from about over 16-20 and then 20-30, i wil be the 'bornign middle overs' just like current odis. the only diff is, the boringness will be split in two.

    much better to fiddle with the rules to liven up that period, than to split the innings'.

  • bobmartin on June 12, 2010, 0:34 GMT

    It's ridiculous this constant tinkering with different formats.. in England this year we have.. 5 day tests, 4 day county games, 40 over domestic ODIs, 50 over international ODIs, domestic and international T20 matches.. It's just crazy..

  • on June 12, 2010, 0:05 GMT

    Oh my god why are people trying to kill off my beloved Cricket, god isn't 20/20 enough for the people with no attention span!

  • on June 12, 2010, 0:02 GMT

    This was done once years back one time in New Zealand. Never been used since http://static.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2002-03/NZ_LOCAL/OTHER/N-ISLD_S-ISLD_SOR_02FEB2003.html

  • on_the_level on June 11, 2010, 23:23 GMT

    ....and they will call it 20/twenty/twenty/20.......

  • Avery_Mann on June 11, 2010, 23:06 GMT

    There is nothing wrong with the one day format. There were a lot of great games in the last Champions Trophy. There are one-sided and predictable tests and 20/20 matches as well, but we don't hear about those formats being changed. The ODI is great because all aspects of the came come into play - both aggressive and defensive - and bowlers can dominate for periods of play. It seems that some people think cricket is all about hitting sixes all day long. I have a suggestion for a game they may like - it's called baseball.

  • AnasNZ on June 11, 2010, 23:05 GMT

    Well done CA, this is exactly what I suggested to Greg Chappell and Tony Greg a while ago via one of their CricInfo online talk show. I further suggested a format for mini tests for different levels of test status via which nations could qualify for the larger version of test cricket.

    1. Two 20/25 over innings each side to complete the test in one day 2. Two 45/50 over innings each side to complete the test in two days 3. Two 70/75 over innings each side to complete the test in three days 4. Two 90/100 over innings each side to complete the test in 4+ days

    This will be a very good mechanism to groom national sides and have a grading system for them to qualify to full test status (the 4th suggestion above).

  • Meety on June 11, 2010, 22:11 GMT

    Stupid idea. I've said in other blogs on the topic that T20 is great for promoting cricket in new frontiers & for Olympic qualification. But as far as judging who the best team in the world is, quite frankly crap. Pakistan have made Final twice & nearly a 3rd time, yet they are an absolute rabble in any other format. 40/40 may be a good concept to get crowds to domestic cricket but it is a further dilution of the contest between bat & ball. England play 40/40 & they have never won a 50 over multi nation tournament, (50/50). That says something. Keep T20, limit the amount of 50/50 played. Have tour programs look like this, (Ashes excepted), 3 Tests, 3 ODIs (50/50) & 3 T20s. I must say I wouldn't mind a trial of the 10 over maximum overs a bowler could bowl as per Damieninfrance - but maybe capped at 12/13 overs - & say 6 bowlers must be used. I don't mind the middle overs in ODI it is still absorbing. Perhaps the powerplays should be made to be taken between overs 20 to 40????

  • lukeegga on June 11, 2010, 21:52 GMT

    why cant you post a comment on players or officials profiles. I want to write "gold digger" next to james sutherland. all about the cash not the cricket.

  • Mohan367 on June 11, 2010, 21:47 GMT

    Wasn't this promoted by Sachin last year? Ricky Ponting was not amenable to this idea at that time. Looks like he changed his mind!

  • SnowSnake on June 11, 2010, 21:44 GMT

    Some statistics need to be kept on injuries. I think 20/20, due to its intensity, causes more injuries to cricket players than 1-day cricket, which may appear boring in middle overs but may be actually beneficial to the health of players. Also, why would audience find first 2 innings interesting, if the game is decided in last 2 innings. In last two innings is what matters then isn't that a 20/20 game?

  • DamieninFrance on June 11, 2010, 20:51 GMT

    If CA is concerned about the predictability of the middle overs, it's because the batmen milk runs from spread fields and bowlers 'chucking darts'. They've already played with the fielding restrictions, and that's helped a bit. Why not just loosen the bowling restrictions? If any bowler can bowl as many overs from one end as the captain wants, then a team could pick a Shaun Tait for impact in the first ten, then come back for the death, while using a Graeme Swann and Morne Morkel to fill in the other overs. Teams could stack their batting and risk a short bowling selection not getting collared, or go for depth in bowling options and pick a few all-rounders as back-up (like they do now). If ODIs are going to fit between T20 and test, why not adopt more 'test-like' rules like these?

  • AnthoniJi on June 11, 2010, 20:34 GMT

    The Cricket Cartel's greed for money continues to ruin the game. There it goes again.....

  • SnowSnake on June 11, 2010, 19:44 GMT

    Cricket is the first sport that is telling audience what to like. This thing is forced down upon cricket audience. This is what happens when administrators take business decisions.

  • mukultdh on June 11, 2010, 19:37 GMT

    I like the idea, the point is to see through that Cricket gets played and promoted by more countries other than 10-12. People in todays world don't have much time to enjoy 7 hour ODI game, so new people could potentially buy this new format. This proposal might just arise curiosity among other countries specially US continent. Other than that ODI has become boring and predictable and change might just revive the dying enthusiasm for cricket in the world.

  • RodStark on June 11, 2010, 19:26 GMT

    I'm all for trying new things--and no one knows what will come of this idea until it's tested. When 20/20 came in, few if any foresaw how skills and tactics would develop.

    Any attempt to improve the one-day game should deal with the three main problems: The boring middle-over innings; the unfair advantage of the toss now that so many games are day/night; and imcomprehensible results based on obscure D/L calculations in rain-affected games.

    The idea of alternating innings would certainly help address the last two and possibly the first. In fact, I'd even like to see a format tried where each team bats for, say, five or ten overs in turn. Yes, it's more like baseball, but that's ok if it works.

  • KiwiInOz on June 11, 2010, 19:07 GMT

    Back in the 90's Martin Crowe the former Black Caps captain introduced a 20/20 version called Cricket Max. So this isn't a new concept introducing split innings. In the Cricket Max version both teams had 2 innings of 10 overs and the batsman were encouraged to hit straight by the use of the Max zone - all runs were doubled if the ball reached the zone ie 4 became 8 & 6 became 12. Also no fielders were allowed inside the zone unless they were running in to complete a catch - runs counted but batsman wasn't out - or field the ball. This was an exciting concept back then & should be reused!

  • MuraliUK on June 11, 2010, 18:29 GMT

    Thats nice. Would there be a follow on if the 2nd team was all out with 75 runs behind?

  • Narayan on June 11, 2010, 18:20 GMT

    Also, somebody, either Sunny or Sachin had suggested a different kind of a 2-innings format. Team 1 bats first for 25 overs. Team 2 bats for 50 overs. Team 1 bats again for 25 overs. This way, the advantage of toss may be reduced to a great extent, especially for matches in the subcontinent, where the widely prevalent mantra is "Win the toss, win the match". Having said that, I feel such formats (the one in this article, the one I quoted, the one quoted by several others who have commented) will only add to the already existing formats, but can never erase the existent formats.

  • rdmahale on June 11, 2010, 16:48 GMT

    I remember Sachin promoting this idea of ODI last year.

  • Omarrz on June 11, 2010, 16:47 GMT

    Horrible!! It is like having 2 T20s in a single day!! There won't be many centuries...middle order, lower middle order might never get a chance to bat.. there won't be any new Wasims/McGraths/Walshs... Everybody would want to become an opener or 1 down batsman..even the ones who are naturally bowlers... Don't ruin ODI cricket...please!!

    I am the kind of fan, who enjoys the little wait (that ODI offers) to see the result...unlike T20 where you get results within a blink of an eye and in tests where you have to wait for your second life to see the result..

  • PMithani on June 11, 2010, 16:47 GMT

    I think this is a ridiculous idea, it will disrupt the momentum of the game just to eliminate a few slow overs in the middle. With the introduction of twenty20, there's hardly any proper ODI's being played, which is such a waste of talent as it takes a lot more skill to be a good ODI and test player than a twenty20 player. Classy cricket is not about hitting the ball as hard as is possible!

  • S.N.Singh on June 11, 2010, 16:44 GMT

    TENDULKAR HAD ALREADY MAD E THAT PROPASAL LAST YEAR. I ALSO THINK THAT THE TWO 25 OVERS WILL BE MORE IDEAL PLAYING DAY AND NIGHT. THE PERSON WINNING THE TOSS HAVE THE EDGE BECAUSE OF THE NIGHT PART. ATLEASE SACHIN WILL BE HAPPY SOME ONE TAKE UP THE PROPOSAL AND ITS AUSTRALIA. AUSTRALIA WAS THE FIRST WITH KERRY PAKER.

  • on June 11, 2010, 16:33 GMT

    This new format can co-exist with current ODI format. But replacing ODIs with new format? NO WAY.

  • on June 11, 2010, 16:22 GMT

    Why split the innings at all? How about, say... Two innings of 30, no powerplays? Each team gets 100 minutes to bowl 180 balls, they can only score with the bat off the number of balls bowled in the 100 minute session, 20 minutes between. Afternoon session 1pm to 4:40pm, evening session 6:30 to 9:10. My phone's waiting to ring, CA.

  • AjmalSK on June 11, 2010, 14:58 GMT

    I daresay that I had mooted the idea of splitting the ODI innings in my post of Jan 23, 2005 which is copied and pasted below, and which the Aussies seem to have worked upon and modified :

    Feedback with proposed changes to the ODI format 'Nullify the toss advantage' - Readers respond Cricinfo staff January 23, 2005

    Readers responded to Sambit Bal's column on changes to make one-dayers more interesting with suggestions of their own. Here are a few ideas mailed to us:

    "In my opinion, if the toss advantage is nullified, it would revamp the one-day game. It could be done by introducing the splicing option: the captain who wins the toss can decide if he wants to bat or field, but his counterpart should then be able to decide how he wants to play his 50 overs - either split or continuous. That would ensure that the chances are more even and that natural conditions or the pitch do not play a major role, and that matches are not settled by the toss." Ajmal Syed Khader

  • Arvian on June 11, 2010, 14:30 GMT

    I think this format won't help. Imagine Ind vs Aus match and Sachin and Sehwag batting, either of them may reach 90's in the 17-18 overs and they don't want to get out in 19-20 overs so they will just play to survive and Indian fans has to wait for 20 more overs to watch Sachin or Sehwag getting to 100. Two things to consider here, one is losing momentum of the batting side as they will play cautiously in the end overs and starting of the second innings; second is fans will be frustrated as they are asked to wait for 20 overs to watch Sachin/Sehwag getting to 100. What if India is at like 100/4 at 20 overs, you are giving them some breathing space to recover and start freshly after 20 overs. This will frustrate Aussie bowlers because the opposition is in pressure situation as they lost 4 wickets in 20 overs and break is not helping the bowlers to continue the pressure and bowl them out. Either way you will be frustrating the fans may be its Indian fans or Aussies.

  • soajay on June 11, 2010, 14:22 GMT

    So, would it be like this way.. Team 1 batting first, Team 2 second, Team 1 third and Team 2 fourth.. How about having toss for two times.. For instance if team 1 wins the toss elects to bat, scores 200 runs in 25 overs and team 2 scores 190 runs in 25 overs.. If there is a second toss, team 2 has the chance of continuing the batting... or if team 1 has bowled well they have the chance of bowling.. The decision would entirely depend on the conditions.. I am sure this can make the game more interesting...

  • NewYorkCricket on June 11, 2010, 13:40 GMT

    Nothing wrong with the format. There are a lot of positives. Why reduce the total number of overs in international cricket though? Time can be saved doing things like changing bowling end once in two overs and not every over. The batsmen can just cross over.

  • JustIPL on June 11, 2010, 13:27 GMT

    It will definitely add some excitement to ODIs. One more variation can be tried where there are four innings of 50 overs each spanning on two days. It may be interestig to allow not out bats man agian in the second innings. It means that if a team has left 3 not out batsmen then they can bat 14 batsmen in the second. Similar variations can be tried and it will give taste of the test matches.

  • Robbo1985 on June 11, 2010, 12:57 GMT

    Crap idea. Reduce it to 40 overs and go from there. we do not need a 20/20 test hybrid it will ruin odis

  • dougie78 on June 11, 2010, 12:50 GMT

    I'm certain this has been trialled before in aussie domestic cricket, some 10 15 years ago and got a resounding thumbs down from players and spectators?

  • Jamisudha on June 11, 2010, 12:44 GMT

    I think CA plans to dominate in ICC. This move is pathetic and non sense, i believe if a change has to be made, it would be to change the ODI game from 50 overs to 40 overs. Cricketers will come and try to hit as hard they can hit the ball in Each innings, So we miss classy cricket.

  • on June 11, 2010, 12:37 GMT

    @mcheckley: that's exactly what I think. I believe that there is too few "proper" one day cricket played around and that should be played much more. I do not know how one day declaration matches are suitable for professionals (I can foresee only draws...) but that's why test cricket exists, essentially.

  • on June 11, 2010, 12:18 GMT

    It's not right to judge something if you haven't experienced it. So just give it a try, change isn't bad.

  • tfjones1978 on June 11, 2010, 11:34 GMT

    "although it seems certain that teams will resume their second innings from the point where their first innings concluded".

    Brilliant, just call it 4 sessions of cricket, instead of 4 innings. As long as its 10 wickets per side over 50 overs and not 20 wickets per side then I am happy.

    This will make it more interesting and easier to see how the ODI match is progressing.

    IF ODI as 4 sessions of cricket (instead of 2 sessions), THEN perhaps Test Cricket could look at having 20 wickets per side, alternating each session between each side.

    I think switching sides per session will be a great idea, similar to most other sports. It will make matches more interesting, and will decrease boring parts in Tests, if they do it for Test cricket (one sided matches done in 2 days, close matches neck & neck on runs each day).

    What a game that would be!

  • on June 11, 2010, 11:25 GMT

    This is non sense. What is CA thinking about? ppl need to get over t20s, its good fun, its good for gettign new viewers, but is it cricket talented? "Hey guys lets c how hard he can hit the ball?".. obviously test cricket is the pinicle, but ODI cricket is still good to watch. there are skills involved. if you take those so called t20 players and try them in ODIs, half would fail cuz they dont cant cope with playing 50 overs. I feel this is a bogus move by CA, theirs no need to mess around with ODI cricket. If you are that concerned just get rid of it. I m ashamed of ICC. Becuz of 1 bad WC in 2007, where the admins of the WI din do well, and the cup was too long.. ODI cricket is boring. The champions trophy last year was exciting. wasnt it? I cant wait for the 2011 WC in ASIA. ppl who think t20 is the only cricket that should be played.. go watch BASEBALL and stay out of our game.

  • bobagorof on June 11, 2010, 11:18 GMT

    So half the competition will be played by one set of rules, and the other half by another. Brilliant...

  • on June 11, 2010, 11:06 GMT

    i guess, this is a amazing move considering the way the 50 over matches are appreciated by the crowds, im thriled and pretty exicited about it.....

  • on June 11, 2010, 10:36 GMT

    Honestly i believe if a change has to be made, it would be to change the ODI game from 50 overs to 40 overs. in this version,the split two innings, is like 4 twenty20 innings in one day,and it would have the same appeal as a twenty20 game except longer and more tiring. Bowlers also would not be able to bowl long and subastantial spells, while batsmen do not neccesarily require the skill of mixing the art of aggression and that of developing an innings, which are key parts of batting as a skill. But of course i have been wrong many times in the past, so maybe OD cricket can thrive under this new format and evolve enough to accomadate all of what we associate with top level cricket, only time will tell.

  • on June 11, 2010, 9:40 GMT

    I think New idea wont work here 50Over is a beauty of Cricket But Administration should focus on how to make it interesting instead of making format changes he sould think of something better then that.

  • on June 11, 2010, 9:37 GMT

    This will be a great move. Will make the game more interesting and more competitive.

  • Gizza on June 11, 2010, 9:29 GMT

    Other features can be introduced eg. If the team batting first scores 175 in their 25 overs and say the other team are at 5/74 after 25 overs, the first team should enforce a "follow-on" and try to win by an innings. It will lead to more aggressive lmited over bowling and fielding which is what we want to see.

  • mcheckley on June 11, 2010, 9:24 GMT

    All yet another attempt to introduce more gimmickry which will, by it's very nature, become dated quite quickly. 50 / 50 is now predictable - go fast at the start with the field restrictions, consolidate in the middle, go mad atthe end. 20 / 20 is incredibly predictable - everyone slogs, and the team luckiest with its slogging wins the game. Too much chocolate cake makes people sick; the ball disappearing into the middle distance every other delivery will become "proedctable" in time, and is even now losing its appeal. To hold a proper cricket match in a single day, one does what English Club and School cricket did for decades. One starts at 11 am, one has only one iniings per side rather than two, but otherwise the game is played out precisely as a Test Match, with the team bowling last needing to bowl the batting side out to secure a win. Declarations and run-chases, tailenders hoding out for a draw in fading light with fielders round the bat. What more excitement could anyone want ?

  • lukeegga on June 11, 2010, 9:19 GMT

    what a joke. cricket is doing everything possible to lose its fan base. i went to the 2003 world cup and loved the one day format. test cricket is the only thing worth watching now. two twenty over innings. why not make it nine and call it baseball?

  • JarrodPotter on June 11, 2010, 8:49 GMT

    Push the final nail in 50 over cricket coffin. I hate to think of what kind of cricketers will be playing in Tests for Australia with only FC , T20 and this T20 x 2 format to teach them the necessary skills.

  • chris_b85 on June 11, 2010, 8:49 GMT

    who'd have thought Under 11's quarter cricket would become part of the national competition....puh-lease. At least the current generation have had some practice! By the way CA - ITS NOT THE 50 OVERS THAT THE ISSUE ITS THE RUBBISH OVERLY BATSMAN FRIENDLY "WICKETS" (I think the highway to surfers has more life in it). MAKE BATSMAN STRUGGLE, ITS ENTERTAINING!!!

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • chris_b85 on June 11, 2010, 8:49 GMT

    who'd have thought Under 11's quarter cricket would become part of the national competition....puh-lease. At least the current generation have had some practice! By the way CA - ITS NOT THE 50 OVERS THAT THE ISSUE ITS THE RUBBISH OVERLY BATSMAN FRIENDLY "WICKETS" (I think the highway to surfers has more life in it). MAKE BATSMAN STRUGGLE, ITS ENTERTAINING!!!

  • JarrodPotter on June 11, 2010, 8:49 GMT

    Push the final nail in 50 over cricket coffin. I hate to think of what kind of cricketers will be playing in Tests for Australia with only FC , T20 and this T20 x 2 format to teach them the necessary skills.

  • lukeegga on June 11, 2010, 9:19 GMT

    what a joke. cricket is doing everything possible to lose its fan base. i went to the 2003 world cup and loved the one day format. test cricket is the only thing worth watching now. two twenty over innings. why not make it nine and call it baseball?

  • mcheckley on June 11, 2010, 9:24 GMT

    All yet another attempt to introduce more gimmickry which will, by it's very nature, become dated quite quickly. 50 / 50 is now predictable - go fast at the start with the field restrictions, consolidate in the middle, go mad atthe end. 20 / 20 is incredibly predictable - everyone slogs, and the team luckiest with its slogging wins the game. Too much chocolate cake makes people sick; the ball disappearing into the middle distance every other delivery will become "proedctable" in time, and is even now losing its appeal. To hold a proper cricket match in a single day, one does what English Club and School cricket did for decades. One starts at 11 am, one has only one iniings per side rather than two, but otherwise the game is played out precisely as a Test Match, with the team bowling last needing to bowl the batting side out to secure a win. Declarations and run-chases, tailenders hoding out for a draw in fading light with fielders round the bat. What more excitement could anyone want ?

  • Gizza on June 11, 2010, 9:29 GMT

    Other features can be introduced eg. If the team batting first scores 175 in their 25 overs and say the other team are at 5/74 after 25 overs, the first team should enforce a "follow-on" and try to win by an innings. It will lead to more aggressive lmited over bowling and fielding which is what we want to see.

  • on June 11, 2010, 9:37 GMT

    This will be a great move. Will make the game more interesting and more competitive.

  • on June 11, 2010, 9:40 GMT

    I think New idea wont work here 50Over is a beauty of Cricket But Administration should focus on how to make it interesting instead of making format changes he sould think of something better then that.

  • on June 11, 2010, 10:36 GMT

    Honestly i believe if a change has to be made, it would be to change the ODI game from 50 overs to 40 overs. in this version,the split two innings, is like 4 twenty20 innings in one day,and it would have the same appeal as a twenty20 game except longer and more tiring. Bowlers also would not be able to bowl long and subastantial spells, while batsmen do not neccesarily require the skill of mixing the art of aggression and that of developing an innings, which are key parts of batting as a skill. But of course i have been wrong many times in the past, so maybe OD cricket can thrive under this new format and evolve enough to accomadate all of what we associate with top level cricket, only time will tell.

  • on June 11, 2010, 11:06 GMT

    i guess, this is a amazing move considering the way the 50 over matches are appreciated by the crowds, im thriled and pretty exicited about it.....

  • bobagorof on June 11, 2010, 11:18 GMT

    So half the competition will be played by one set of rules, and the other half by another. Brilliant...