April 5, 2010

Steve Waugh in favour of day-night Tests

Cricinfo staff
56

Steve Waugh, the former Australia captain, has backed day-night Tests and suggested some unorthodox tweaks to revive interest in one-dayers.

"I would have loved to play day-night Test cricket," Waugh said, speaking to Harsha Bhogle on Cricinfo's Opening Up interview show. "I think it is exciting, brings another dimension to the game.

"People want a bit of change, they want that excitement. Why not bring that into Test cricket? We have got it in Twenty20s. Let's get a pink ball in and play a day-night Test if it is possible."

Waugh said the concept needed to be thought through, however, since it wouldn't work everywhere. "Obviously in England it is not really possible because it doesn't get dark till 10 o'clock in summer. Maybe in the subcontinent the dew might make it impossible. So you've got to have common sense around it as well."

Waugh was optimistic about the future of Test cricket. "Quality always survives," he said. "As a cricketer I think you've got to be true to yourself. Why did you take up the game? To fulfill your potential, and you can't do that by playing Twenty20 because you can't bat for a whole day and you can't bowl 30 overs. And as a cricketer I think it wouldn't be that satisfying if I couldn't get out there and technically, mentally and physically challenge myself against the best players in the world over five days."

Waugh said a way to spruce up one-day cricket, especially the middle overs, could be to convert fours to sixes and sixes to nines to get the batsmen to play more shots. "Maybe the bowlers won't be too happy, but on the positive side, they have more chances of getting wickets when the batsmen are attacking them."

He was also in favour of giving the bowlers more incentives to restore balance in the game. As a member of the MCC's World Cricket Committee, he said he had discussed some radical ideas to that end. "We talked about the possibility of getting the seams a bit larger, even increasing the number of seams to eight."

The biggest change, Waugh said, between the time he played and the present was in the physiques of the players. "In our days you looked at the gym, but you never went in there. These days the guys are big, it's all about power and speed in Twenty20 cricket. They are hitting the ball long because they are much stronger."

Waugh, who started out as an allrounder in the mid-80s before maturing into a gritty middle-order batsman and the captain who presided over an Australia side that conquered all in its path, said the present was the best time in the sport's history to be a top-order batsman in Tests, since so many fast bowlers were breaking down and opting out of the format.

Though players are stronger, Waugh said there are more instances of injuries today because diagnosis is available more easily. "You've got a million people around the side. As soon as you get an inkling, you are off to the MRI scan, which will pick up a strain. Fifteen years ago they probably would have played with those strains. But now, as soon as it's diagnosed everyone's got a responsibility, so they say you've got to have 10 days off to recover."

The full interview is here.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on April 8, 2010, 0:40 GMT

    How about just having feilding restrictions for the whole 50 overs? no power plays or 25 overs of resrictions just the whole game, simple really.

  • on April 6, 2010, 15:26 GMT

    ...contd......

    for instance, if a team is placed at 270-4 after 45 overs, runs calculated at the current rate would be an additional 30. it would be really hard to settle for only 300, since in such a situation, one would expect a team to put on atleast 50 more runs. the advantage would be, the fifth bowler will be bowling only 5 overs, and the other four could bowl 11,11,11,12, or 10, 10, 10, 15, or 10, 11, 12, 12 or 10, 10, 12, 13 or 10, 10, 11, 14 or any such combination.

    declaration after 46 overs means the fifth bowler can bowl only four less overs, and so on...

  • on April 6, 2010, 15:19 GMT

    i would love to see the concept of declaration being implemented in ODIs. if a team is batting first hand has lost five wickets or fewer at the 45 over mark, it can declare its innings closed. a score correction will be added to the team total at the time of declaration, and the correction will be equal to runs scored at the current run rate. this total will be added in the extras column as 'declaration bonus'. the advantage?

    if a captain declares with a certain number of overs to spare, then the fifth bowler of his team can bowl that many overs less, and these overs can be shared among the remaining 4, 3, 2 or even 1 bowler. this ensures attacking captaincy, allowing a good bowler in excess of 10 overs, and also when the 5th bowler is weak. it takes great courage to declare, since no team which is only 5 down or fewer during the slog overs, would settle for an additional few runs calculated at the current rate...

    ....contd....

  • on April 6, 2010, 13:04 GMT

    I'm not really sure about changing the rules. Yes, Test cricket needs something to ignite it again but I think this isn't the way to do it. The tradition is basically just taken out of the game and that's the whole reason why they wear white shirts and pants in test cricket.... You might aswell ban test cricket all together and just have the shorter formats being played with ODI's and T20's. Keep test cricket in the day and think of something else to get test cricket back up there again. Maybe you could even cut the days of play down to 3 days instead of 5. This makes the batsmen score more quickly and keep the run a ball tally there with the same effect in a One Day International.

  • pavansan on April 6, 2010, 7:35 GMT

    Make these changes in ODIs, T20s to make it interesting -SPARE ONE reasonable LEG SIDE WIDE DELIVERY AN OVER, SIMILAR TO BOUNCER. -ALLOW A REPLACEMENT BOWLER (12TH MAN) FOR MAX.5 OVERS IN ODIs, 2 in T20s.

    Test Cricket -PITCHES WITH REASONABLE SPECIFICATIONS ARE ONLY ALLOWED. -NO RUNNERS IN TEST CRICKET IF RETIRED HURT. -NO OVER THROW RUNS IN TEST CRICKET IF STUMPS ARE HIT.

  • _Australian_ on April 6, 2010, 6:36 GMT

    Day night test cricket would be an excellent idea. Of course it would be limited in certain countries due to conditions but I think England would be one of the winners in this. It is not so much about playing at night as it is playing at a time when more people can attend. As for one day cricket I think Gayle's recent idea would work the best. Imagine a mini test. Played over 2 innings of 25 overs each with the same one day restrictions in place just halved between innings. Both teams bat at day and both at night. Obviously the total runs over both innings would decide the winner regardless of wickets lost. i.e. no draws. You could even have the not out batsmen continue his innings if they wish. This could be a facinating way to watch cricket. Let's face it one day cricket is fast becoming a snooze fest in the middle overs and this is why we have t20 in the fisrt place. I would hate to see only 2 fomats on the world stage but 1 day cricket will go before test cricket.

  • 99point94 on April 6, 2010, 5:47 GMT

    I wud say convert 4s to 10s and 6s to 20s....Thats the only way to break sachin's record in ODIs.... hahahaha

  • Moreplease on April 6, 2010, 5:20 GMT

    Well i wouldn't do what steve said 4=6, an 6=9 thats stupid. For the bowlers i think that if they bowl a maiden over they should be alotted an extra over for each maiden they bowl max of 15 overs though or aloud 1 extra fielder for there next over. An if they bowl a no ball the batter should be able to choose between the standard free hit can't get out or double runs but you can get out. An i think each team should get 2 superplay overs where the runs are doubled. Or they could just make a new game 20twenty mini test matches each team gets two 20 over innings lol

  • gcstevo on April 6, 2010, 5:20 GMT

    Not to sure about changing the runs for 4s and 6s it will make a lot higher totals than past, and past greats will eventually fall off the records, but do agree the power plays need to be rethought maybe have the batting side that their 5 over powerplay somewhere in the 20 to 30 mark and the bowling side take their 5 overs in the 30 to 40 mark. that still gives discretion to the captains also making it tactical and keeps the game moving. In terms of tests I think there just need to be an incentive for the weaker teams to improve so if a test championship is the answer then great

  • gcstevo on April 6, 2010, 5:17 GMT

    Not to sure about changing the runs for 4s and 6s it will make a lot higher totals than past, and past greats will eventually fall off the records, but do agree the power plays need to be rethought maybe have the batting side that their 5 over powerplay somewhere in the 20 to 30 mark and the bowling side take their 5 overs in the 30 to 40 mark. that still gives discretion to the captains also making it tactical and keeps the game moving. In terms of tests I think there just need to be an incentive for the weaker teams to improve so if a test championship is the answer then great

  • on April 8, 2010, 0:40 GMT

    How about just having feilding restrictions for the whole 50 overs? no power plays or 25 overs of resrictions just the whole game, simple really.

  • on April 6, 2010, 15:26 GMT

    ...contd......

    for instance, if a team is placed at 270-4 after 45 overs, runs calculated at the current rate would be an additional 30. it would be really hard to settle for only 300, since in such a situation, one would expect a team to put on atleast 50 more runs. the advantage would be, the fifth bowler will be bowling only 5 overs, and the other four could bowl 11,11,11,12, or 10, 10, 10, 15, or 10, 11, 12, 12 or 10, 10, 12, 13 or 10, 10, 11, 14 or any such combination.

    declaration after 46 overs means the fifth bowler can bowl only four less overs, and so on...

  • on April 6, 2010, 15:19 GMT

    i would love to see the concept of declaration being implemented in ODIs. if a team is batting first hand has lost five wickets or fewer at the 45 over mark, it can declare its innings closed. a score correction will be added to the team total at the time of declaration, and the correction will be equal to runs scored at the current run rate. this total will be added in the extras column as 'declaration bonus'. the advantage?

    if a captain declares with a certain number of overs to spare, then the fifth bowler of his team can bowl that many overs less, and these overs can be shared among the remaining 4, 3, 2 or even 1 bowler. this ensures attacking captaincy, allowing a good bowler in excess of 10 overs, and also when the 5th bowler is weak. it takes great courage to declare, since no team which is only 5 down or fewer during the slog overs, would settle for an additional few runs calculated at the current rate...

    ....contd....

  • on April 6, 2010, 13:04 GMT

    I'm not really sure about changing the rules. Yes, Test cricket needs something to ignite it again but I think this isn't the way to do it. The tradition is basically just taken out of the game and that's the whole reason why they wear white shirts and pants in test cricket.... You might aswell ban test cricket all together and just have the shorter formats being played with ODI's and T20's. Keep test cricket in the day and think of something else to get test cricket back up there again. Maybe you could even cut the days of play down to 3 days instead of 5. This makes the batsmen score more quickly and keep the run a ball tally there with the same effect in a One Day International.

  • pavansan on April 6, 2010, 7:35 GMT

    Make these changes in ODIs, T20s to make it interesting -SPARE ONE reasonable LEG SIDE WIDE DELIVERY AN OVER, SIMILAR TO BOUNCER. -ALLOW A REPLACEMENT BOWLER (12TH MAN) FOR MAX.5 OVERS IN ODIs, 2 in T20s.

    Test Cricket -PITCHES WITH REASONABLE SPECIFICATIONS ARE ONLY ALLOWED. -NO RUNNERS IN TEST CRICKET IF RETIRED HURT. -NO OVER THROW RUNS IN TEST CRICKET IF STUMPS ARE HIT.

  • _Australian_ on April 6, 2010, 6:36 GMT

    Day night test cricket would be an excellent idea. Of course it would be limited in certain countries due to conditions but I think England would be one of the winners in this. It is not so much about playing at night as it is playing at a time when more people can attend. As for one day cricket I think Gayle's recent idea would work the best. Imagine a mini test. Played over 2 innings of 25 overs each with the same one day restrictions in place just halved between innings. Both teams bat at day and both at night. Obviously the total runs over both innings would decide the winner regardless of wickets lost. i.e. no draws. You could even have the not out batsmen continue his innings if they wish. This could be a facinating way to watch cricket. Let's face it one day cricket is fast becoming a snooze fest in the middle overs and this is why we have t20 in the fisrt place. I would hate to see only 2 fomats on the world stage but 1 day cricket will go before test cricket.

  • 99point94 on April 6, 2010, 5:47 GMT

    I wud say convert 4s to 10s and 6s to 20s....Thats the only way to break sachin's record in ODIs.... hahahaha

  • Moreplease on April 6, 2010, 5:20 GMT

    Well i wouldn't do what steve said 4=6, an 6=9 thats stupid. For the bowlers i think that if they bowl a maiden over they should be alotted an extra over for each maiden they bowl max of 15 overs though or aloud 1 extra fielder for there next over. An if they bowl a no ball the batter should be able to choose between the standard free hit can't get out or double runs but you can get out. An i think each team should get 2 superplay overs where the runs are doubled. Or they could just make a new game 20twenty mini test matches each team gets two 20 over innings lol

  • gcstevo on April 6, 2010, 5:20 GMT

    Not to sure about changing the runs for 4s and 6s it will make a lot higher totals than past, and past greats will eventually fall off the records, but do agree the power plays need to be rethought maybe have the batting side that their 5 over powerplay somewhere in the 20 to 30 mark and the bowling side take their 5 overs in the 30 to 40 mark. that still gives discretion to the captains also making it tactical and keeps the game moving. In terms of tests I think there just need to be an incentive for the weaker teams to improve so if a test championship is the answer then great

  • gcstevo on April 6, 2010, 5:17 GMT

    Not to sure about changing the runs for 4s and 6s it will make a lot higher totals than past, and past greats will eventually fall off the records, but do agree the power plays need to be rethought maybe have the batting side that their 5 over powerplay somewhere in the 20 to 30 mark and the bowling side take their 5 overs in the 30 to 40 mark. that still gives discretion to the captains also making it tactical and keeps the game moving. In terms of tests I think there just need to be an incentive for the weaker teams to improve so if a test championship is the answer then great

  • topranger on April 6, 2010, 4:07 GMT

    I think ODI should be phased out. There should be Tests and Twenty20.

  • Elgoog2345 on April 6, 2010, 4:00 GMT

    to fix one day cricket crowd numbers move the on day games to different venues. Like in Australia you could move the games to Canberra, Newcastle or even Darwin or Alice springs

  • NZ-Bonza on April 6, 2010, 2:26 GMT

    If they want to increase interest in the 50 over game they just need to make the teams take the power plays between the 20 and 40 over mark. All nations go hard in the first 15 overs and then again after 40 odd overs. No point in having powerplays taken then as teams are already attacking. Make them attack in the "lull" period of the game.

    As for the bat and ball balance. They just need to take restrictions away from the bowlers. If a bowler is bowling a great spell, let him continue bowling. Why limit them to 10 overs? A batsman can blaze away merrily for the whole 50 overs so why restrict a bowler. Also they need to allow more bouncers. With all the protection a batsman has on these days there is no need for a limit to how many bouncers a bowler can bowl. If the batsman is good enough, it'll go for a boundary 8 times out of 10. If not, it'll still be good viewing for the fans. When was the last time you saw a batsman actually hurt after being hit?

  • cheesemethod on April 6, 2010, 0:32 GMT

    4 = 6 and 6 = 9? Go back to the drawing board Waugh. A more sensible idea would be to lower the amount of ODIs in a series making a standard tour: 2 or 3 tests, 3 ODIS, 3 t20s. The 5 ODIs did work in the recent Aus tour to NZ because of the challange and tension involved but when its a deadset whitewash ie. Aus V Pak and Aus V WI, 10 ODIs just turned into a bore and the fact that the very successful KFC Big Bash had already been didn't help.

    ODI cricket doesn't need changes. Its a different format with its benefits over t20s so don't try and turn it into a slugfest which t20 cricket is.

  • spinkingKK on April 5, 2010, 23:26 GMT

    If Steve Waugh said, it has to be right. Well said. Can't agree more. Only thing is, if the 4's 6's are changed, the old statistics will be meaningless.

  • uknsaunders on April 5, 2010, 23:21 GMT

    Why should day/night tests not be played in england. I don't see having daylight until 10pm (albeit you'd have to live in northern Scotland for that) as an issue. Club cricket all over England is played until 8, 9pm on occasion without floodlights - the light is that good (T20 for example started 5.30!). Twilight isn't a big issue and day/night ODI's have been played for a number years now without major problems. Yes, the ball may do a bit in the evening, especially in May/early June but that helps to keep things interesting surely! Can't see why a 3-5pm,5.40-7.40pm,8-10pm day of test cricket isn't possible with the last session under lights - got to a winner for the low interest fixtures ie. Bangladesh.

  • THEGREATFANOFMASTER on April 5, 2010, 22:35 GMT

    i am not in favour of making so much changes in cricket,whether t-20 or test cricket,but i would welcome some new formats of the game,important thing to be noticed is that they should have new names......because if we make changes in test,this could possibly result in disrespet of records made by great batsman like SACHIN....

  • abdulraheman on April 5, 2010, 21:01 GMT

    i like the Icc to add some exciting regulation in test cricket regarding a power play or penalty runs if the overs are not bowled in certain time .Regarding the batting power play bring it n middle overs like from 25 to 35 overs the batting power play must be taken ,because in last ten overs teams are scoring between 8 to 10 runs.

  • cricfan65 on April 5, 2010, 19:06 GMT

    I thnk T 20 games will be greatly detrimental to cricket as a whole in the long run, because players will focus their efforts exclusively on them. Who wants to bat/bowl/field for 5 days ( or even 1 day ) when you can earn rich rewards for a 3 hour game. Bowlers are at a severe disadvantage nowadays, apparently the baords think people ony want to watch 4s and 6's from batsmen with mediocre talent.The pendulum has to swing back in the bowlers' favour to make these games meaningful. I agree with back foot rule for noballs and maybe looser fielding restrictions

  • Smelly on April 5, 2010, 19:02 GMT

    I believe test cricket suffers from one major disadvantage and that is that the teams do not get the same playing conditions. It is not a level playing field and the toss often times determines the outcome of the game. Its not fitting that a 5 day long game be pretty much decided by the toss of a coin.

    I suggest a two-hour rotation. 5 day game - three sessions each two hours long. 20 minute break between sessions. Team A bats in session 1. Team B bats in session 2. Team A resumes their innings in session 3 from exactly where they left off. And so on. If a team completes their first inning during a session, they begin their second innings immediately. The only way to stop the sessions cycle is by declaring. If a team declares, the other team will have to bat and complete the innings they are on.

    Several advantages - both teams get a more equal opportunity at the conditions. Teams can adjust their strategy between sessions based on how the other team is doing. More .. out of space

  • FairPoint on April 5, 2010, 18:41 GMT

    In case of ODIs the biggest problem are the middle overs - from 20-40. Best way to spruce up things is to say that the bowling PP be taken between 20-35 overs, instead of the, now normal, 10-15 overs and the batting PP be taken between 35-50. That would make the middle phase much more interesting.

    In case of Tests the problem is not so much of the format. It is either the two teams are mismatched or the pitches are prepared for drawn matches. Have a two-tiered system with the top 4 teams playing 5 Tests against each other at home and away for the Test Championship. Give 3 pts for every win and 1 for every draw. This will ensure that teams will gun for a win for home matches thus preparing result-oriented tests. You can be assured of greater viewership since the teams will be much better balanced and there is a trophy to play for at the end.

  • Evangelyst on April 5, 2010, 14:30 GMT

    Test Matches - Make pitches more sporting. Pitches with pace and bounce and spinning tracks should be mandatory in all countries, with the advances in technology and the amount of money, especially with BCCI its a wonder why pitch transformation has not happened yet. Also change the front foot no ball rule, reverting to the old rule. This way bowlers get an extra yard of pace. Batsmen with all their protective gear would not be imperiled by this change and will make for livelier more balanced contests.

  • Bollo on April 5, 2010, 14:08 GMT

    No worries @MejiasBoy - great to see pitches which give bowlers like Roach a chance with the short pitched ball - even against the best puller/hooker in the modern game, and give him a bit ofa touch-up. Very sad you don`t see it in the Caribbean anymore, not as much in Aus, some good pitches in England at times, the usual stuff in the sub-continent. No wonder these blokes are `retiring` early to play Twenty20.

  • kdcricket on April 5, 2010, 14:02 GMT

    I agree with some of Steve Waugh's comment which empower the bowler(increasing the seam size), but making sixes into nines...hmmm why would you want to give batsmen any more advantage, as the average scores are going up all the time and 400+ scores being scored in ODIs. Day/night test might be an option which could draw more crowds, but dew factor is gonna make it practically impossible at most places. Fast bowlers unlike spinners need to rotated to reduce workload and ensure survival. I also don't really agree with the fact that fast bowlers have all left test cricket...Brett Lee was 32...not really the age to bowl fast over 5 days, Shaun Tait has never performed in 5 day cricket. Bowlers like Mohammed Aamir, maybe Andy Mc Kay, Mitchell Johnson are consistently quick and effective. Quick guys who average 5 wickets a match(Johnson, Steyn etc) aregood for any era and they are not leaving test cricket as well and thus its not as if batsmen have it all easy.

  • cric4india on April 5, 2010, 13:52 GMT

    @samuel69: Did it ever occur to you you have to punish the team bowling 2nd as well? Of course, penalizing overs seems straightforwardly better to punish the team on the ground and in the context of the same match. ICC is not comprising just elected weirdos. They couldn't control the extension of play, in the second innings as the captain was assured he wouldn't be penalized overs for his own side. Further, how will it help in test matches, where you cannot be penalized overs? Lastly, tweaks in one day cricket are fine, but to think of converting fours to sixes and sixes to nine....is "in Geoffrey's terms", absolutely...rubbish!

  • bunner on April 5, 2010, 13:22 GMT

    The best way to liven up one day day cricket (ie 40 - 60 overs) is to abolish the restriction on the number of overs a bowler can bowl. That way fill-in bowlers and bits and pieces players are eliminated, and you abolish that dead period in the middle..The bowling side can be attacking instead of being negative. If you only opt for three main bowlers in a 50 game, that is your choice. It also makes captains more thoughtful, rather than the set formula of (some overs from A, then B, then fiddle some of C, and saving the opening bowlers till the end)

  • no_second_chance_for_batsman on April 5, 2010, 13:10 GMT

    I think its a great idea to have day & night TEST cricket. People can stop by after work to relax & school kids after school can come over to watch too. I think school kids should be given FREE entry to watch Test cricket during weekdays.

    For ODI's, I think it has to be cut down to 40 overs. The reason being being, there is lot of great action during the first 15overs & last 10 overs in a 50 overs game -- and during the middle overs its kind of consolidation which is boring -- particularly after the huge success of T20. ODI will also have to pay for the success & deiberate promotion of T20 by BCCI at least.

    Last but not the least, converting 4's to 6 and 6 to 9 runs in middle overs in ODI -- IMO doesn't make any sense at all...and it is against the basic rules of cricket.

    Cheers, Kumar

  • on April 5, 2010, 13:06 GMT

    I just feel dat night test matches wont succeed as the crowds just wont turn up. Imagine turning up for a night test match which after the first day is only headin for a dull draw? Will people pay to come there waste their money as well as nights rest. I just feel that the ICC should have standard pitches all over the world, they have enough money to have the pitches re-laid with the same specifics. That way every team will have a fair chance in any country and dat shud make it interesting.Its high time we give the bowlers the advantage. I think the batsmen have had way too much of the pie and the poor bowlers get only the crumbs

  • idiefouru on April 5, 2010, 12:58 GMT

    Bad idea: It will be very exhausting for players to continuously play during day and night for hours. Viewers get the same feeling too after couple of days of boring contest.

    We need to consider the fact that no game in the world is as long as Cricket Test Match and because of this: new formats are coming up to help the fans, organizations to raise money, and to draw attention of the world toward this game. People will get bored if they have to sit out for 5 days continuously over night to see the match result..ultimately if ever run this game they would want to see the last/final moments and sleep. This is really a bad idea from my point of view.

  • on April 5, 2010, 12:01 GMT

    "fours to sixes' and 'sixes to nines' WHAT AM I READING??

    Are these people insane?

  • samuel69 on April 5, 2010, 11:55 GMT

    3 IMPORTANT CHANGES NEEDED IN ODI. 1) If the fielder hits the wicket no more over throw runs allowed, encourages better target practicing and fast pace.2) If the ball stays inside the boundary rope irrespective the fielder touches the rope while fielding it is not a four, hence eliminate time wasting in watching replays, guess is you save 10- 15 minutes on real time game. 3) If a team doesn't bowl their quota within allotted time ( after carefully giving them bonus minutes for injury time, sixers and change of batsmen), allow them only that many overs LESS while they bat, ie-if a team takes appr: 12 min more while they completed their allotted 50 overs, (considering 6 min per over), they get only 48 overs to bat. No team/captain give a care for financial or match penalty as they are bieng paid insanely and they play more matches in a year than some of the older generation players played in their entire career.

  • BionicBowler on April 5, 2010, 11:41 GMT

    Improve Test Matches with: White sightscreen; White clothing; Pink Kookaburra/Dukes ball with: raised seam, 8 seams, black stiching, slightly smaller (to balance out the 'railway sleeper' bats), floodlit games where appropriate. Improve ODIs with: Black sightscreen; Coloured clothing and Orange Kookaburra/Dukes ball with: raised seam, 8 seams, black stiching, slightly smaller (to balance out the 'railway sleeper' bats), allow fast bowlers to bowl 2 bouncers per over; 2 innings of 50 overs a side spead over 4 alternate segments of 25 overs each to balance out lottery of pitch/weather/light conditions; each team has 2 leading bowlers from 5+ who can bowl together up to 70% (35 overs) of balls bowled (the other 15 overs bowled by 3+ remaining bowlers); Each sement has fielding side bowl from one end only (alternate each segment) to speed up the fielding team between overs (batsmen quickly change ends at end of each over); Fielders in circle in last 5 overs - not all on boundary!

  • MartinAmber on April 5, 2010, 11:30 GMT

    I like what plow said. The 6 and 9 stuff is best quietly ignored, rather like Shane Warne's piffle about not playing 50-over cricket "except at World Cups". Elsewhere Waugh talks a lot of sense. Once again I'm pleased to read several comments which acknowledge that Test cricket is "going great", and that people have followed daytime Tests for many years. Though I'm not keen, I think day/night will probably happen, and there are worse ideas to go with (cutting Tests to one innings is the worst I've heard, and limited-over Tests not much better).

  • Maverick23 on April 5, 2010, 11:25 GMT

    One change for the OD that I would like is to have the bowling side take the bowling power play between 20-30 overs and have the batting side take the batting powerplay between 30-40 overs. This way we can make the middle overs interesting as well. I feel Steve Waugh's suggestion of making 4s to 6s and 6s to 9s in the middle overs is utter nonsense. You are going to kill the bowlers.

  • MejiasBoy on April 5, 2010, 11:15 GMT

    To continue, as for ODI's, I remember reading an article in regards to a change in format. Split the 50 overs into two innings of 25 for each team. That way both teams will get all the weather elements, dew, dampness etc..Turn the ODI into a mini-test match. I think that would exciting. Additionally, I think the no bouncer rule is ridiculous! I remember Holding, Marshall, Walsh, Ambrose sending down bouncers (remember Mr. Waugh in Antigua?!). That is what cricket needs more Waqars, Lillee, Jeff thompson's. I would prefer to see wickets fall and the real talented batsmen endure the conditions and make a century or more! Instead of dead and run-filled pitches which give no encouragement to bowlers. That is why you dont see as many fast bowlers nowadays as you did in the 80's and 90's. ICC should open up a University of Pitch Preparations. Bring back the fast wickets! Please!!

  • MejiasBoy on April 5, 2010, 10:58 GMT

    SunsParadise I totally agree with you in regards to the test format, TRUE cricket lovers thrive for test matches. That is why it is caled a Test match, b/c it is testing your mentality and endurance. As for T20, it is exciing yes, BUT it takes the TEST & skill from the game. Anyone can swing a bat and make contact in regards to T20, even a caveman for petes sake. Think about it! Dont get me wrong I have seen some great shots played in T20 e.g.Tendulkar. But the other 90% of players are playing with their bats and not their minds! Another thing, the pitches worldwide are DEAD!! I remember being so excited to watch Test Matches in Barbados, Sabina Park and the WACA especially, as these paces were the FASTEST in the world. But recent test matches in these ground especially the pitches have been a run fest. I prefer faster wickets b/c it is more of a contest between batsman and bowler. Sorry Aussies! but I LOVED when Kemar Roach got at Ricky Ponting just cuz contests like that r lacking

  • vladtepes on April 5, 2010, 10:41 GMT

    First of all, I'd like to see the end of this 20/20 silliness; it has never existed in my universe. Next, regarding day-night Tests, I would support it for the simple reason that, even with 5 days, matches are still adversely affected by the weather, and day-night matches might offer more scheduling flexibility. It's bad enough that dead wickets produce so many draws. It's worse when the public can correctly predict a draw because the first day or even a couple of sessions get rained out. Thank goodness the minnows and my paltry Windies are around to force some results, even in rain-affected matches. Yes, I agree with some of the other posters who say the sport is heavily biased in the batsman's favour. Eliminate legside wides, allow more bouncers, especially in ODI. If the batsmen want to attack, bowlers should be allowed to attack too. This isn't baseball where pitchers throw at strike zones while the batsmen stand off to the side and swing. This is cricket.

  • on April 5, 2010, 9:11 GMT

    I agree with all those who suggest to bring balance in cricket by changing rules for bowlers. they should have some room to make the batsmen think rather than go for slog at every ball. Test match can only be make interesting if it is bowler friendly, it is the only way to bring more result oriented matches as only way of winning is to bowled out the opistion twice!!!

  • kris4u on April 5, 2010, 9:08 GMT

    Well for day and night marches what is the usage of electricity?what about bugs and flies?

  • Saadi69 on April 5, 2010, 9:03 GMT

    Well day night tests certainly is worth a try, it would benefit the game in the sense that there would be fewer or no stops for bad light. So the spectator gets more of the game to watch. There are a few rules I would want to change in ODI and T20. First of all The free hit when a bowler bowls a no ball. What a stupid rule, they say it saves time, as far as I can see it wastes more time with bowlers thinking long before bowling the free hit and specially when the batsmen change ends with setting the field. I think the bowler is punished enough when he gives away an extra run, has to bowl another ball and to top it off cant get the batsman out. So why have a free hit.Rules I would like to change in all forms of cricket first the LBW rule, why are you given not out when the ball hits you outside the line of off stump but is still going to hit the sumps. The bowler has done his bit by beating the bat. I think that should be out. Lastly the fielding rule why give a 4 when part of a fielder

  • Seshadri_Raghavan on April 5, 2010, 8:14 GMT

    Too many easy runs are scored in ODIs and T20s which is not good for the bowlers. I think that one way of making the ODIs and T20s more balanced towards the bowling side would be to allow the fast bowlers to bowl 2 legal bouncers in an over which will allow them to aim at the well-protected heads of the batsmen just to rattle them or soften them up a little bit. This will put pressure on the batsmen to go after the remaining 4 balls legal balls in an over to make up the score and take more risk. Similarly, whenever slow bowlers come on to bowl right through the innings (includig power plays), fielding restrictions may be relaxed slightly to allow 2 more players outside the circle. In such overs, any delivery above a cut-off speed (say 90kph) can be no-balled by the 3rd umpire to be fair to the batsmen.

  • Cric_123 on April 5, 2010, 7:21 GMT

    If u really want to make the game more interesting then remove / relax some of the biases towards batsmen i.e. restriction on bowling bouncers, rules for lbw, bring in more bowling friendly pitches etc..Bowling is an integral part of the game and this is the one which produces decisive results..We may keep on talking about making Test Cricket more exciting by bringing in innovations, but I strongly believe that it is these innovations towards making it a batsmen friendly game that has led to lack of interest from public.

  • popcorn on April 5, 2010, 7:13 GMT

    I don't see the need to tamper with the ODI Format. in fact, I think some of the recent revisions need to be rolled back. 1) A No Ball should fetch only one run. Like in Test matches. 2) No free hits. Try running twenty yards from your run-up to the bowling crease, gathering rhythm, looking at the batsman, or his stumps, - not the crease. And bowl. One in 50 balls would definitely be a no ball.Do you penalize a batsman for swishing at the ball and missing? A swing and a miss? A slow bowler could also bowl a no ball.3) One millimeter outside the leg stump is declared a wide? What's this?Must a bowler ALWAYS have to bowl AT the stumps? Can't a batsman get out caught in the leg slip? A No seam? No swing? No turn off the pitch? a wide shol be a wide EXACTLY as in Test Cricket. 4) Remember,ODIs started as 60 over matches - Prudential Cups 1975 and 1979. And they were great contests. Twenty20 is not cricket as it exists today. It is the Great Indian Lotery. No skill required.

  • plow on April 5, 2010, 7:08 GMT

    I am a huge fan of Steve Waugh.

    "quality always survives" is a fantastic expression, and perfect to describe what test cricket is...

    So why change it? its perfect as it is.. People are already sick of 20/20 and the IPL. Tests are slowly becoming the new cool, cant you see that? 5 days of summer is what its all about and what its always been about.

    Day night tests I am open for, its worth trying in certain countries, I'll give him that.. but 4's to 6's and 6's to 9's?? are you out of your mind Steve Waugh?

    More boundaries and more runs does not automatically mean more fun or more excitement, its like gluttony at the candy store, sooner or later you'll start to feel sick.

    These statements by Steve Waugh go to prove one thing, he is indeed human, loads of genius mixed with moments of idiocy..

  • Uranium on April 5, 2010, 6:49 GMT

    He is right about sprucing up the middle over of ODIs. One idea would be an enforced powerplay between overs 25-35. I dont like the idea of changing 4 to 6 and 6 to 9. Surely there are better ways.

  • on April 5, 2010, 6:22 GMT

    Well. I agree with Mr. Waugh test matches need to be modified. Like all things even the game must evolve if it has to survive. The question is where do you draw the line ?. Cricket has already evolved from 8 Ball overs , no field restrictions and bowling restricitons. I think the ICC should consider day and night test in the subcontinent especially. In response to chris. Dear Chris i understand you sentiment in australia but the fact of the matter is that majority of the cricket vieweship comes from the subcontinent and day and night tests will allow a lot of people in the subcontinent to view cricket after work. The bunk of viewer ship is on television. In terms of viewer ship the audience at stadium constitutes a very small number. I understand your sentiment but i am speaking on behalf of majority.

  • on April 5, 2010, 6:19 GMT

    I agree to Waugh that "common-sense must prevail" and that's what ICC must do. Wait for around 2 years n then bring it into notice agian.

  • on April 5, 2010, 6:11 GMT

    Some people make it sound like Test cricket itself has never changed, not once, ever. Should we go back to timeless Tests? Should we outlaw the helmet? Should we legalize Bodyline? I appreciate and respect the tradition (and metaphorical timelessness) of Test cricket, but it's easy to claim that the format is alive and well when England draw games with one wicket remaining, while ignoring tame draws played out in empty stadiums. That's as much a reality of the format as the nail-biting draw is.

  • SunsParadise on April 5, 2010, 6:10 GMT

    I dont think there is any need for a day and night test as most of the people in this forum have said .. Test cricket is still the best to watch if one is a true cricket lover ... But I do believe that we should bring in a change to the one dayers .. People are loosing interest in one dayers because its becoming more predictable .. most of the time after watching the first innings itself we are able to predict the result, these days the team batting first is either making a score of more than 320 and winning or making a score of less then 300 and loosing ... Why T20 is working because of its unpredictability any team can win from any situation .. its just a matter of couple of overs .. I would suggest that we should bring unpredictability to one dayers .. For that the rules should change .. bowlers should be given more than one armour at their disposal and the most important thing the pitches should change .. there should be strong guidelines in laying the pitches..

  • Gupta.Ankur on April 5, 2010, 5:49 GMT

    Sorry we are not interested in your suggestion Mr.Waugh..........leave test alone try whatever you like in T20.......blue ball,pink ball,mongoose bat etc etc..

    Test cricket is toughest and best form of cricket and it must be preserved.......Yes changes are welcome but not to the extent that kids 10yrs down the line forget that once test was played in day-time with white clothing,red balls and lot of courage......

  • mike5181 on April 5, 2010, 5:38 GMT

    blah blah you will cause bowlers to quit and they will just try their hand in batting. Forget the 6 to 9 runs for a boundary you will kill cricket in 6 to 9 years with those ideas. Look at the ipl people are already getting sick of it with the lack of meaning to the games bar the outrageous money.

  • Ozcricketwriter on April 5, 2010, 5:38 GMT

    How exactly would 9s help? They get 9 runs for hitting it out of the ground instead of 6 so that is meant to give more incentive to hit out? Really? These kinds of gimmicks have been tried before, especially in New Zealand, and they really don't work. People get tired of them quickly. T20 cricket worked because it didn't change the fundamentals of what the game was all about. It still had 11 players per side but simply made it less overs per side. I am not convinced that ODIs need changing. Sure, they don't get the attendances that they once did, and we will probably head towards playing more T20s than ODIs. But that doesn't mean that ODIs are dead. Test cricket is the ultimate and you need a gap between 20 overs per side and 5 days - ODIs are that gap. There is no need to change anything. Test cricket, for the record, is going great and we don't need Day/Night cricket.

  • tammimi2010 on April 5, 2010, 5:03 GMT

    the viewers need innovations in cricket...hope ICC listens to what Waugh has got to say...

  • JavagalSrinath on April 5, 2010, 4:06 GMT

    I give you the best suggestion to make tests more interesting, remove second innings from tests and make all tests 2 or 3 days affair. We can still have all possible test results like Draw, win, Loss.

  • Musicomaniac on April 5, 2010, 3:47 GMT

    I agree that every sport needs to evolve, but it should evolve naturally, not by sudden massive changes in rules and regulations that completely change the dynamics. I think there is already too much happening in cricket.

    The day that fours get converted to sixes and sixes to nines will be the day that I stop watching cricket. These are inviolable fundamentals not to be meddled with. Do we see soccer/football doubling the size of the goal to make the game more interesting? If it happens all we see is skill-less musclemen bludgeoning every ball and will see the death of fast bowlers altogether.

    Also, I struggle to understand how day/night tests would be beneficial. More people attend Twenty20s because they are short, not because they are (usually) played under lights. The dew factor is such a big factor, that if the recent tri-series in Bangladesh is anything to go by, the toss would be the major factor in test matches. And what of all the extra electricity wasted for no reason?

  • Chris_Howard on April 5, 2010, 3:45 GMT

    I'm not in favour of day/night Tests. It just further alienates families and people from rural areas from sport. I went to a Twenty20 last year in Melbourne which didn't finish til around 10:30/11pm. It was then 2am before I got home with my two children. Not surprisingly we gave it a miss this year. Regards adding interest to ODIs, I've long advocated something similar but with the proviso that extra runs aren't scored for boundaries until after the batsmen have already scored a normal boundary. i.e. once that batsmen score a boundary in the over, then for the remainder of that over, fours and sixes are worth two extra runs.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Chris_Howard on April 5, 2010, 3:45 GMT

    I'm not in favour of day/night Tests. It just further alienates families and people from rural areas from sport. I went to a Twenty20 last year in Melbourne which didn't finish til around 10:30/11pm. It was then 2am before I got home with my two children. Not surprisingly we gave it a miss this year. Regards adding interest to ODIs, I've long advocated something similar but with the proviso that extra runs aren't scored for boundaries until after the batsmen have already scored a normal boundary. i.e. once that batsmen score a boundary in the over, then for the remainder of that over, fours and sixes are worth two extra runs.

  • Musicomaniac on April 5, 2010, 3:47 GMT

    I agree that every sport needs to evolve, but it should evolve naturally, not by sudden massive changes in rules and regulations that completely change the dynamics. I think there is already too much happening in cricket.

    The day that fours get converted to sixes and sixes to nines will be the day that I stop watching cricket. These are inviolable fundamentals not to be meddled with. Do we see soccer/football doubling the size of the goal to make the game more interesting? If it happens all we see is skill-less musclemen bludgeoning every ball and will see the death of fast bowlers altogether.

    Also, I struggle to understand how day/night tests would be beneficial. More people attend Twenty20s because they are short, not because they are (usually) played under lights. The dew factor is such a big factor, that if the recent tri-series in Bangladesh is anything to go by, the toss would be the major factor in test matches. And what of all the extra electricity wasted for no reason?

  • JavagalSrinath on April 5, 2010, 4:06 GMT

    I give you the best suggestion to make tests more interesting, remove second innings from tests and make all tests 2 or 3 days affair. We can still have all possible test results like Draw, win, Loss.

  • tammimi2010 on April 5, 2010, 5:03 GMT

    the viewers need innovations in cricket...hope ICC listens to what Waugh has got to say...

  • Ozcricketwriter on April 5, 2010, 5:38 GMT

    How exactly would 9s help? They get 9 runs for hitting it out of the ground instead of 6 so that is meant to give more incentive to hit out? Really? These kinds of gimmicks have been tried before, especially in New Zealand, and they really don't work. People get tired of them quickly. T20 cricket worked because it didn't change the fundamentals of what the game was all about. It still had 11 players per side but simply made it less overs per side. I am not convinced that ODIs need changing. Sure, they don't get the attendances that they once did, and we will probably head towards playing more T20s than ODIs. But that doesn't mean that ODIs are dead. Test cricket is the ultimate and you need a gap between 20 overs per side and 5 days - ODIs are that gap. There is no need to change anything. Test cricket, for the record, is going great and we don't need Day/Night cricket.

  • mike5181 on April 5, 2010, 5:38 GMT

    blah blah you will cause bowlers to quit and they will just try their hand in batting. Forget the 6 to 9 runs for a boundary you will kill cricket in 6 to 9 years with those ideas. Look at the ipl people are already getting sick of it with the lack of meaning to the games bar the outrageous money.

  • Gupta.Ankur on April 5, 2010, 5:49 GMT

    Sorry we are not interested in your suggestion Mr.Waugh..........leave test alone try whatever you like in T20.......blue ball,pink ball,mongoose bat etc etc..

    Test cricket is toughest and best form of cricket and it must be preserved.......Yes changes are welcome but not to the extent that kids 10yrs down the line forget that once test was played in day-time with white clothing,red balls and lot of courage......

  • SunsParadise on April 5, 2010, 6:10 GMT

    I dont think there is any need for a day and night test as most of the people in this forum have said .. Test cricket is still the best to watch if one is a true cricket lover ... But I do believe that we should bring in a change to the one dayers .. People are loosing interest in one dayers because its becoming more predictable .. most of the time after watching the first innings itself we are able to predict the result, these days the team batting first is either making a score of more than 320 and winning or making a score of less then 300 and loosing ... Why T20 is working because of its unpredictability any team can win from any situation .. its just a matter of couple of overs .. I would suggest that we should bring unpredictability to one dayers .. For that the rules should change .. bowlers should be given more than one armour at their disposal and the most important thing the pitches should change .. there should be strong guidelines in laying the pitches..

  • on April 5, 2010, 6:11 GMT

    Some people make it sound like Test cricket itself has never changed, not once, ever. Should we go back to timeless Tests? Should we outlaw the helmet? Should we legalize Bodyline? I appreciate and respect the tradition (and metaphorical timelessness) of Test cricket, but it's easy to claim that the format is alive and well when England draw games with one wicket remaining, while ignoring tame draws played out in empty stadiums. That's as much a reality of the format as the nail-biting draw is.

  • on April 5, 2010, 6:19 GMT

    I agree to Waugh that "common-sense must prevail" and that's what ICC must do. Wait for around 2 years n then bring it into notice agian.