Australian news June 16, 2010

Jones hopes split innings just the start

  shares 96

Cricket Australia's plan to introduce split-innings one-day games is a positive step but does not go far enough, according to the Australian one-day great Dean Jones. This summer's FR Cup will feature a trial in which each state's innings is divided into two, with wickets lost and runs scored carried into the second innings.

So, if a team finishes its first innings at 3 for 120, they will have only seven wickets in hand when they resume after the opposition has had a bat. Jones is pleased to see CA thinking outside the box, but believes a better option would be to restore all ten wickets for a team's second innings.

"It [split-innings] gives the opportunity for a family man who might miss Australia batting in the morning, to see the second part of their innings batting at night," Jones told Cricinfo. "But there should be Test match Twenty20 cricket. I think that's a better game, where both teams have two innings. Then you get to see Sachin Tendulkar bat twice in the day, and see any great bowler bowl twice in the day."

It is a view shared by Channel Nine, who could be a key player if the concept is taken to international level. Brad McNamara, the network's executive producer of cricket, said Jones' plan for "Test-match Twenty20s" was preferable as the star players would be given more exposure.

"From a broadcaster's point of view the splitting of the 50 overs into two innings is something we were reasonably interested in on the proviso that the best batters got to bat twice," McNamara said in the Australian. "CA were talking about splitting the innings and only having the 10 wickets going over into the next innings, which I must admit doesn't excite us all that greatly."

While the ICC remains officially supportive of the existing one-day format, it has encouraged its members to try new innovations at domestic level and will be keeping tabs on Australia's experiment. There is a widely held view that 50-over cricket has become tired, and the former Australian one-day star Simon O'Donnell is keen to support the new trial.

"It looks well worth the experiment to me," O'Donnell told Cricinfo. "If the game of 50-over cricket was heading to where some think it is, there's no harm in being proactive and looking at a revamp. The split in itself would be such an individual and tactical team challenge, to make sure you use those overs in the correct manner."

However, Jones and O'Donnell both believe it is not simply the format but also the volume of 50-over cricket that has become a concern. In an ODI career spanning nearly seven years, O'Donnell played 87 matches for his country, but it's now possible for players to rack up that many games in less than half the time.

"The game has basically been driven into the ground," O'Donnell said. "There was so much of it and it's something that I hope we've learnt our lesson from, for the sake of Twenty20 cricket. There's only so much cricket can go around. There's only so many people support it around the world. You wonder if that's what's started to fall on deaf ears."

Jones' grand vision for the limited-overs game includes not only "Test match Twenty20s" but also stripping back the amount of bilateral ODI contests between nations. Instead, he wants to see tri-series played as World Cup qualifiers, with all one-dayers contributing points to a team's eventual World Cup campaign.

Under his plan, Australia's upcoming five-game series against England would be off the cards, unless a third team was brought in and World Cup points put at stake. Jones believes there is a very real prospect that 50-over cricket could die out if something is not done to reinvigorate it.

"I think it would because we're really bleeding," Jones said. "The golden goose ain't got too many eggs now. They've got to draw a line in the sand and say we want to make this quality cricket. The ICC has got to take over the programming and not let countries do what they want with how many one-day games they play."

Cricket Australia's split-innings plan is one stride towards revitalising one-day cricket. Time will tell if it is a stepping stone to bigger changes.

Brydon Coverdale is a staff writer at Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY AARON.IFTEKHAR on | June 21, 2010, 13:11 GMT

    How about the spliting of Twenty20 cricket: 10-overs 10 wickets-a-side 4 splits-innigs, Team A bats 1st & 4th innings and team B bats 2nd & 3rd? Two 5-minutes quarter-term water-break and one 15-minutes half-time tea-break. That will be more funs & more TV revenue.

  • POSTED BY sunilvaidya on | June 19, 2010, 8:17 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.

  • POSTED BY on | June 19, 2010, 4:24 GMT

    PLEASE READ MY IDEA: No one wants to watch a television event for 7 and half hours. My solution is simple and is sure to work despite growing threats from 20-20s. Play ODIs over two nights. On Night 1, have the first innings of the two teams; i.e. 25 overs each. On Night 2, have the 2nd innings of the two teams, i.e. 25 overs each. In this way, it is still the same game, except it is played over two nights, NOT one day. Re-brand it as 50-50 Internationals. Thank you.

  • POSTED BY popcorn on | June 18, 2010, 5:20 GMT

    Any tampeering with the currently well-established format will signal the end of the 50 over format. Thank God we can at have 5 more years to watch this beautiful format - till World Cup 2015.

  • POSTED BY on | June 17, 2010, 17:29 GMT

    No need for changing any rules in 1 day cricket. Some one has to stop all this nonsense. If there is any change that should me made i 1 day cricket...reduce the number of overs to 40.

  • POSTED BY shameerpvt on | June 17, 2010, 17:09 GMT

    I think, 20-20 format will sustain, as nowadays, people don't have time to spend a full day in front of the TV or in the ground, & still cricket absorbs more time than football or rugby. This new 2 Innings One Day format will consume more time than the present One Day format & it could possibly drive out fans rather than attracting them.

  • POSTED BY ansram on | June 17, 2010, 15:36 GMT

    I like this innovation to ODI. But I share D-Men's view. Restoring all 10 wicks in the second innings would render the lower order redundent and it would no longer be like a ODI match but two T20 matches.

    Jone's argument that "Then you get to see Sachin Tendulkar bat twice in the day, and see any great bowler bowl twice in the day." is tempting but certainly no one wants to see all the batsmen do a second time. Maybe there can be a rule that one or two batsmen ( and bowlers) can be reused in the second innings.

  • POSTED BY hoLLa on | June 17, 2010, 14:38 GMT

    At least this will reduce the embarrassment serieses such as the recent SL, IND ZIM triseries where all matches were won by team batting second without exception. The difference will be minimal if team1 bats Innings 1 & 4 and team 2 bats in Innings 2 & 3.

  • POSTED BY decaby on | June 17, 2010, 14:29 GMT

    this is the best way to revive 50 cricket... once they try this crap they would return to proper cricket... this is a laughing stock... LMAO

  • POSTED BY currie_I_G on | June 17, 2010, 13:10 GMT

    if ICC needs to do anything, they need to limit the number of ODIs. must have only 3 ODI and 2 T20 in one series and no more. 5 or 7 ODI in one series should not be allowed to happen.

    i really hope they don't implement this disgusting "double T 20" idea. ODI cricket will be murdered.

  • POSTED BY AARON.IFTEKHAR on | June 21, 2010, 13:11 GMT

    How about the spliting of Twenty20 cricket: 10-overs 10 wickets-a-side 4 splits-innigs, Team A bats 1st & 4th innings and team B bats 2nd & 3rd? Two 5-minutes quarter-term water-break and one 15-minutes half-time tea-break. That will be more funs & more TV revenue.

  • POSTED BY sunilvaidya on | June 19, 2010, 8:17 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.

  • POSTED BY on | June 19, 2010, 4:24 GMT

    PLEASE READ MY IDEA: No one wants to watch a television event for 7 and half hours. My solution is simple and is sure to work despite growing threats from 20-20s. Play ODIs over two nights. On Night 1, have the first innings of the two teams; i.e. 25 overs each. On Night 2, have the 2nd innings of the two teams, i.e. 25 overs each. In this way, it is still the same game, except it is played over two nights, NOT one day. Re-brand it as 50-50 Internationals. Thank you.

  • POSTED BY popcorn on | June 18, 2010, 5:20 GMT

    Any tampeering with the currently well-established format will signal the end of the 50 over format. Thank God we can at have 5 more years to watch this beautiful format - till World Cup 2015.

  • POSTED BY on | June 17, 2010, 17:29 GMT

    No need for changing any rules in 1 day cricket. Some one has to stop all this nonsense. If there is any change that should me made i 1 day cricket...reduce the number of overs to 40.

  • POSTED BY shameerpvt on | June 17, 2010, 17:09 GMT

    I think, 20-20 format will sustain, as nowadays, people don't have time to spend a full day in front of the TV or in the ground, & still cricket absorbs more time than football or rugby. This new 2 Innings One Day format will consume more time than the present One Day format & it could possibly drive out fans rather than attracting them.

  • POSTED BY ansram on | June 17, 2010, 15:36 GMT

    I like this innovation to ODI. But I share D-Men's view. Restoring all 10 wicks in the second innings would render the lower order redundent and it would no longer be like a ODI match but two T20 matches.

    Jone's argument that "Then you get to see Sachin Tendulkar bat twice in the day, and see any great bowler bowl twice in the day." is tempting but certainly no one wants to see all the batsmen do a second time. Maybe there can be a rule that one or two batsmen ( and bowlers) can be reused in the second innings.

  • POSTED BY hoLLa on | June 17, 2010, 14:38 GMT

    At least this will reduce the embarrassment serieses such as the recent SL, IND ZIM triseries where all matches were won by team batting second without exception. The difference will be minimal if team1 bats Innings 1 & 4 and team 2 bats in Innings 2 & 3.

  • POSTED BY decaby on | June 17, 2010, 14:29 GMT

    this is the best way to revive 50 cricket... once they try this crap they would return to proper cricket... this is a laughing stock... LMAO

  • POSTED BY currie_I_G on | June 17, 2010, 13:10 GMT

    if ICC needs to do anything, they need to limit the number of ODIs. must have only 3 ODI and 2 T20 in one series and no more. 5 or 7 ODI in one series should not be allowed to happen.

    i really hope they don't implement this disgusting "double T 20" idea. ODI cricket will be murdered.

  • POSTED BY D-Men on | June 17, 2010, 10:56 GMT

    I strongly disgaree with Jones that all 10 wickets should be stored in a split ODI! It leaves a scenario wherein there will no need of lower order or infact middle order batsmen, we will never get to see the cool finishers of the game at all, and again we are talking about two T20's within a ODI, wats so special about it ?when you're talking about reviving ODI,but not by adopting T20 style.

  • POSTED BY on | June 17, 2010, 10:55 GMT

    What would be great if each team is allowed three substitutions after the 1st phase, that will allow more players to participate in the game and also make the game interesting..

  • POSTED BY Manush on | June 17, 2010, 10:44 GMT

    It will be nice and long lasting if Cricket is divided into 2 games 50 overs and 4 days Test Match, apart from the current T-20 format. One day game must be split into 2 innings each with 25 overs and all will play in both the innings while in Test match each innings is restricted to a maximum of 180 overs each day with a minimum of 90 overs per day. This will result in positive Cricket and result producing Test matches, no dragging and boring draws possible.

  • POSTED BY TikoloFan on | June 17, 2010, 9:55 GMT

    Cricket is a SPORT, NOT TV Reality Show. Every reform they're are talking has more to do with interest of broadcasters than game!

  • POSTED BY TikoloFan on | June 17, 2010, 9:48 GMT

    T20s & 3-day Tests (1 innings per team) are future of cricket :)

  • POSTED BY SLMelb on | June 17, 2010, 9:29 GMT

    WHAT HAPPENED IF SOCCOR MACTH PLAY 45MIN (FIRST HALF) TODAY AND SECOND HALF IN TOMORROW......CAN PEOPLE ENJOY THE GAME?

  • POSTED BY SLMelb on | June 17, 2010, 9:25 GMT

    I DON'T LIKE THIS SPLIT INNINGS IDEA.ALSO T20.BECAUSE IN BOTH WAYS PLAYERS HAVE TO AJEST AND PERFORM IN A VERY SHORT PERIODE OF TIME.SPECIALLY FROM A BATSMAN POINT OF VIEW IT'S REALLY UNFAIR.EVEN TODAY'S CRICKET WORLD ONLY FEW BATSMAN WE HAVE WHO CAN GO TO CREASE AND START WITH 4S & 6S.MOST OF THE BATSMAN NEED TO SPEND SOME TIME IN CREASE FOR TAKE THEIR RETHUM.PEOPLE SAY 50OVER GAME & TEST CRICKET WASTE TIME.BUT I THINK THOSE TWO ARE THE TRU BEAUTY OF CRICKET.EX IN A 50OVER GAME IF SOME SIDE LOSE 5/60 IN 18 OVER, THERE ARE PLENTY OF TIME TO SETTLE DOWN FOR NO6&7 BATSMANS.AND IF THEY CAN SPEND 10-15OVERS WITH SINGLES AND DOUBLES.AFTER THEIR EYE SETTLE WITH A BALL THEY CAN PUT UP THEIR SIDE FOR A GOOD CHALLANGING SCORE.AND GAME TURN TOTALLY OTHER WAY.WE CAN SEE LOT OF THAT KIND OF THIGS HAPPENED IN 50OVER GAME HISTORY.I THINK THATS BEAUTY OF CRICKET.BUT IF U PLAY T20,U HAVE NO TIME TO CHANGE THE GAME.U HAVE TO GO WITH GAME.SO I THINK THIS SPLIT INNINGS IDEA & T20 SPLIT TRU CRICKET LOVERS

  • POSTED BY on | June 17, 2010, 9:09 GMT

    please reduce the no. of games & add more imprtance to every game. Then, sit back & see the game grow

  • POSTED BY on | June 17, 2010, 9:07 GMT

    I don't see what's the point of having points w.r.t the world cup qualifiers , As it is , we have only 12 teams , it's not as if cricket needs a qualification campaign.

  • POSTED BY Cric.Analysis on | June 17, 2010, 7:12 GMT

    I think 2-T20s is a terrible idea. ODIs are fast becoming irrelevant and should be discarded altogether with a nice farewell in 2011 world cup. Future ICC cricket world cups should be held in T20 format.

  • POSTED BY Navin84 on | June 17, 2010, 6:57 GMT

    Splitting the innings in 2 doesn't make sense, e.g a batsman might be going great guns around the 25th over, now he would have to pause at the 25th over, take the field for another 25 overs (if it last that long), then resume his innings, all this time taken up he is more than likely to loose his rythm, like wise a bowler. On the other hand, to split it into 2 innings with 10 wickets each would no longer be an ODI as we call it now, it would have to get a new name like "ODI Test". This would now be a 4th format for the game.

  • POSTED BY peedee4all on | June 17, 2010, 6:43 GMT

    I would say as we want to see our fav batsman to see batting twice but without making it look like a big hit and go game like t20. We can just have two inning of 25 each but with 6 wickets only and the teams has the choice to play which 6 batsman. It will make two thing if some one not hitting well the other can be given chance in second innngs also keeping 6 wickets at one innings will not allow batsman to go bersek like t20.

  • POSTED BY bill123 on | June 17, 2010, 6:26 GMT

    Just to make it more interesting, we must add one drop catch (to excite kids), batsman to given out if ball clears the stadium and award 12 runs if it hit the roof of the stadium (this will also test the skill).

  • POSTED BY pitchedoff_hitoff on | June 17, 2010, 6:19 GMT

    Stupid idea having 10 batsmen in each innings. what it will promote is more cross bat wielding (due to security of being able to bat again in the day) and less of correct batting, which for me is a big negative of T20's despite all the high scores and big sixes they generate..

  • POSTED BY Praszzgsk on | June 17, 2010, 4:35 GMT

    Hello, this sounds nuts to me...... Twenty20 Test Match? Do they know what test match means? Twenty20 is fun and thats it. Test match is pure skills and talent test. Nothing can be matched to that. 50/50 I might agree for 40 over match. but not an innings break. That sounds bit odd. Let Test Match be a Test match. T20 be T20.

  • POSTED BY gilbert84 on | June 17, 2010, 4:12 GMT

    I just don't understand this constant assault on 50 overs cricket. It is ODI cricket that has made the sport what it is today. It has been tinkered with enough and doesn't need to be warped anymore. Twiddle wround with the joke that is Twenty20 if you want, but leave 50 overs cricket alone.

  • POSTED BY on | June 17, 2010, 4:10 GMT

    Very well commented by Viewpoint.

    If cricket were to die as it stands historically, at least bury it with respect first then make psuedo clones of it for a new audience.

    The existing format is good and for the sake of great one day players let it remain a one day international. If any other format is to be introduced let them give it a different identity.

    Liked this idea of Dean Jones though: Instead, he wants to see tri-series played as World Cup qualifiers, with all one-dayers contributing points to a team's eventual World Cup campaign.

    The above idea is interesting and may work out good and we can get to see only the deserving teams in the One Day International World Cup.

  • POSTED BY Benkl on | June 17, 2010, 4:07 GMT

    I think it has a lot of merit but the wickets are going to carry over..

    Rather than the score carying over though i would like to see 2 innings.. Will add a lot of tactics if the wickets carry over . Will you have a backup opener for a 2nd new ball ?

    Will require prob more skill than normal 50 over and you can drop all the silly man inside and outside the line / powerplays.

  • POSTED BY on | June 17, 2010, 0:47 GMT

    Perhaps the split innings should see only the batsmen bat i.e the top six bat twice. If they lose all five wickets in 20 overs, so be it. Might bring incentive back to bowlers in the one day game. No power plays and only three players outside the circle in the first 25 and four in the second.

  • POSTED BY AnasNZ on | June 17, 2010, 0:31 GMT

    Like everything else that evolves, cricket needs to evolve too. Change is something that has to be accepted. People do feel upset about moving away from familiarity and from things that they are accustomed to. Even when Kerry Packer started the 50/60 over format, people harked on it and said that TEST was sacred and 50 over games should be eradicated. Well now 50 overs is part and parcel of Cricket. There has been many rule changes in the 50 over format, hence this is another extension of that change. It is high time split two innings 4x25(MICRO test), 4x50(MINI test), 4x75(MEDIUM test) and 4x100(MEGA test) matches be played for a definite result. This will encourage player to perform and go for a WIN instead of a boring DRWA. The one side must WIN factor in 20/20 and 50/50 MUST stay on in all the formats. No more DRAW results.

  • POSTED BY AnasNZ on | June 17, 2010, 0:30 GMT

    I also encourage the authorities to have maximum over limits for batsmen too; if bowlers are restricted to a maximum number of overs. If the game needs to be promoted and TEST cricket is to remain the pinnacle of the format then the suggestions above are something to ponder on. If new cricketing nations are to be enticed to take up cricket then formats that are economically viable need to be introduced first; prior to them embarking on to the bigger and more time consuming / skillful formats. Weaker national sides should play the shorter test formats when they encounter the stronger national sides. This will have a steady progression instead of having total mismatches and distorting the end results or quality of cricket in the longer more skillful versions of the game.

  • POSTED BY on | June 16, 2010, 23:17 GMT

    I really don't care for ODI's - I watch test matches when I want to see cricket and T20 if I want 'light entertainment' - fine give us 'ODI-T20-test match' thingies instead of 50 overs for 'light entertainment', but stop buttering your bread on all sides and give us ONE one-day format!!! This thing that we have cricket every freakin week of the year makes it watered down and boring. Also ONE world cup every FOUR years like any REAL sport.

  • POSTED BY __PK on | June 16, 2010, 22:51 GMT

    No! If you split the 10 wickets over two innings, teams will still bat cautiously in the first innings to conserve wickets for the second. We're still going to have a boring middle period, it'll just be split between two innings. Where's the incentive to have a slog at the end of the first innings?

  • POSTED BY coleman on | June 16, 2010, 22:29 GMT

    I have just watched the Asia cup SLvsPAK highlights. What a pleasure.

    Boring people of the worls, unite! Let´s save the 50 over ODI. F*** the cricket rulers

  • POSTED BY Thunee_man_Naidoo on | June 16, 2010, 21:58 GMT

    I stopped reading after he suggested it should be 10 wickets per innings. With all due respect to the Legendary Dean Jones, his suggestion turns the split innings idea into (practically) two back-to-back T20's. Atleast when the wickets are shared over the innings it still maintains the basic ideologies of an ODI (50 overs and 10 wickets)

  • POSTED BY on | June 16, 2010, 21:54 GMT

    A very silly and counter productive idea! The involvement of Channel nine makes it more suspicious and suggests why DJ is advocating 2 back-to-back T20 format. it is a deception. T20 is wild orgy where 50-50 is far more Cricketing, where the teams are tested for their quality, temperament etc.. Please donot convert this lovely, gentlemen's sports of cricket in to wild swinging baseball. Donot insult the likes of Don Bradman, Lara, Sobers, Richards, Gawaskar, Miandad, Marshall, Imran Khan, Border,..... by allowing to degenerate cricket into club-swinging contest where bowling is made totally irrelevant!!!. SAVE CRICKET!!

  • POSTED BY currie_I_G on | June 16, 2010, 21:17 GMT

    i can't believe the kind of idiots that run the game today. the only reason T20 works is because it lasts for about 3 hours, which is comparable to other modern day sports.

    having 2 innings of 25 overs each is like playing 2 T20's which doesn't serve the purpose.

    the only thing that can be done to ODI is to play around with the fielding restrictions and make sure attacking fields are set by the bowling team for most part of the game.

    the substitution thing never worked, and this will never ever work either.

    stop killing cricket please.

  • POSTED BY rustin on | June 16, 2010, 19:56 GMT

    Test match T20s??????? The name alone(forget the actual idea....) sounds so moronic. Please don't make the game ridiculously funny even before it has started becoming really popular. This is short term business thinking. Split innings gives ODIs the completely distinct identity that they needed so desperately.

  • POSTED BY C.Knight on | June 16, 2010, 19:53 GMT

    I agree with everyone who suggests all 20 wickets should not be available in a split innings match. We will never get to see the kind of fighting big scores.

    But, more importantly, it's just RIDICULOUS that international teams get to bat with 10 wickets for just 20 hours in any format - be it twenty20 or split innings ODIs. What's the difference between an international game and a street game otherwise?

    At the international level, if you have 20 overs to bat, then you must have only 6 wickets to bat with. In which case, forget about bowling all rounders and all such exotic players. But, at least, it will be a fair contest between the bat and the ball.

  • POSTED BY on | June 16, 2010, 19:52 GMT

    nothing is wrong with 50 over cricket, its t\20 that the youngsters want to play for the money,, what about playing for your country and excel at it, all 3 formats can exist but it must be in a balance, soon test might down to 3 days if this is to happen to the other formats.

  • POSTED BY Saim93 on | June 16, 2010, 19:47 GMT

    Cricket is going down, thank you twenty20 cricket you have ruined everything about this game.

  • POSTED BY Goabnb on | June 16, 2010, 19:37 GMT

    Well done ICC, you're suceeding in the death of cricket and loss of fans. Cricket used to be a beautiful game, but if you even think about changing ODIs and Tests, cricket will be dead to me. I remember as a child going down to the ground on a hot summers day with the family to watch cricket for a day, often with friends. Unfortunatly, I can't do that anymore with my kids because of the changes. I'm interested in what you do when cricket dies.

  • POSTED BY Maikolachi on | June 16, 2010, 19:34 GMT

    What about follow-on. Would not that be just perfect? 20 overs is all we need please. Why? Because that is the max Pakistan can withstand.

  • POSTED BY on | June 16, 2010, 18:29 GMT

    Yeah it would be great to see batsman like Tendulker bat twice in one day, but if we make it test match t20, then there wont be as many 50's, and for sure not many 100's. I would rather like to see batsman making century then watching great batsman bat twice in a day.

  • POSTED BY AnthoniJi on | June 16, 2010, 18:04 GMT

    GREED KILLS CRICKET!! I will miss the good old cricket, a test of mind, body & endurance.

  • POSTED BY Tiptop32 on | June 16, 2010, 18:03 GMT

    I never thought Dean Jones is suggesting such a ridiculous idea. The 40 over match should be played with 2 X 20 overs innings with 10 wickets only not 20 wickets. Any bilateral series should be fixed as 3 Tests, 3 ODIs, 3 T20s. ICC should never allow any country to violate this. If you increase the number of matches then consequently we are going to lose the interest in the game. Overdose should be avoided at any cost.

  • POSTED BY KiQa55 on | June 16, 2010, 17:47 GMT

    Dean Jones is rasict..remember his terrorist comment? i'm sorry but i cannot look past that..anything he says sounds like bullcr*p to me..

  • POSTED BY Vasi-Koosi on | June 16, 2010, 17:25 GMT

    50 overs is just fine!!! We need to make the power play balanced;

    Both power plays should be taken between overs 21 and 36; The batting power play is advantages to the batsman, so the bowling power play should be advantages to the bowler; Allow max 6 players to be placed outside the circle Introduce an element of challenge and strategy; Team A vs B; A bats first and opts for Batting power play in overs 22-26; B opts for bowling power play between 34-38. Now when B bats second they will have the bowling power play in overs 22-26 and batting power play between 34-38

    The right of first choice for a power play rests with the team winning the toss;

    Sounds complicated; hey so is Duckworth and Lewis; we have accepted it..

  • POSTED BY howizzat on | June 16, 2010, 17:10 GMT

    Its ridicuous. The real people, the spectators believe that T20 is accepted and thriving because of the time factor. If you feed two T20's over 8 hours, it will kill the enthu.. in T20 too. It would be a overdose. In a way CA is kiling two birds in one shot.On the other hand the basic nature, the skills, its uniqueness, its integrity, its statistics which has been popularised over 35 years would go in vain. A unique format of the game gets lost. Hopefully better senses prevail in ICC .

  • POSTED BY on | June 16, 2010, 17:06 GMT

    Its An Exciting prospect but. . . . . restorin the 2nd innings wit all d 10 wickets brings oly openers into play each they get into bat

  • POSTED BY royramesh on | June 16, 2010, 16:52 GMT

    Gets crazier each day!Why not use the ZERO50 format published in SLanka: Only 1 innings played chasing other side's average score over last 10 innings. Team A, after toss BOWLs to defend its own Z average score. B team has 2 aims to win also to raise its Z ave by high scoring over its full 50 overs. Toss is rotated after each match in a series. Both teams' Z average would have been revised and the changing of the "Z averages" would add to the interest. Changes can spice up the Z50 game: Time wasting such as No balls and Wides= five runs. Slow over-rate= ten runs per over. A broken wicket after am throw is a dead ball. The 3rd umpire has a half minute to give his decision. Whole innings will be under powerplay conditions in order to speed up run scoring in the midovers. We need Z50 cricket -not crazy split matches.

  • POSTED BY on | June 16, 2010, 16:51 GMT

    i think it's a great idea to try and make the game more exiting for the fans and to save the 50 over and test .... my sugestion is that they should find a way of making all test matches ends with a result , for example a sudden death ten-10 overs match to decide who get the win ... i think fans will love to know that there will be a winner , the world is moving at a fast pace and people dont have the time to watch a match for 5 days and there is no winner ....

  • POSTED BY tiger_fahad on | June 16, 2010, 16:16 GMT

    this idea is not about reviving odi cricket, its killing of odi cricket if odi cricket will exchange with "20/20 test match" instead to exchange odi cricket with 2 innings odi, it will be far better to introduce it as a new format and leave odi as it is in the the current form, after all cricket is the only game which is played in 3 formats so to extend its 3 formats into 4 would not make a big difference

  • POSTED BY le_stephenois on | June 16, 2010, 16:06 GMT

    this will only succeed in making the game very very silly.

  • POSTED BY cricketfortuneteller on | June 16, 2010, 15:59 GMT

    splitting the 50 over into 25 two innings is a good idea to put some spice back into the game and making it a 25 over test match

  • POSTED BY cric_follower on | June 16, 2010, 15:39 GMT

    Reduce the insanity of 20-20 cricket by reducing the number of batsman. Split innings is a great idea, but not with all the 20 batsmen.

  • POSTED BY tiger_fahad on | June 16, 2010, 15:32 GMT

    I love cricket and want to see as much cricket as possible all over the year i love its all 3 existing formats i never get bored with 50 overs format and i am sure there will be many who like odi criket very much so please dont kill odi format 1 thing can be done that unimportant odi serieses should not be played, like t20, a new format launched just a couple of years ago at international level so why not launch another format, "format number 4" two inns of 25/25 inns a "oneday test match" to make cricket more interesting

  • POSTED BY on | June 16, 2010, 15:29 GMT

    this is going to destroy test cricket for ever the officialsare making more and more money at the cost of the game leave cricket as it is or it will loose alot of fans if they are going to make a chane make it like soccer where everyone plays each other untill the actual work cup just like soccer this way the game will get more people inter ested and the officials get there money aswell

  • POSTED BY mkazmi on | June 16, 2010, 14:11 GMT

    how about we fix things that are broken first, i.e. reduce the no. of ODIs and T20s being played in a calendar year? Limit the no. of cricket being played per team as no more than 15 Tests per year, no more than 25 ODIs per year, and no more than 30 T20s per year. That limits the no. of international cricket per team to no more than 130 days in a calendar year. Plus any of that IPL and Champions League stuff that each player is responsible on their own. By having a "test match t20" will not resolve the underlying issue of non stop cricket year round which would in the end devalue each game, players being injured or preferring to take a rest, and the potential for match fixing. Dean Jones was a great player but i dont agree with him here. Jones and other former greats like Gavaskar etc. should focus on the underlying issues on the no. of quantity as quantity alone will improve the quality of games, whatever format they may be.

  • POSTED BY alanincyprus on | June 16, 2010, 13:35 GMT

    Cricket used to be a beautiful game but now the all important thing is money and that's all that these changes are about. Money spoilt football and now it's doing it to cricket. I am not advocating a return to the bad old days when cricketers played in front of three men and a dog but I do think that enough is enough. Don't spoil it anymore

  • POSTED BY TheAmolJoshi on | June 16, 2010, 12:32 GMT

    Please stop destroying Cricket. I dont want there to be an additional powerplay, I dont want ball to be changed in an ODI unless its really bad for visibility let the bowlers have a chance at getting some reverse swing.

  • POSTED BY Quicket on | June 16, 2010, 12:20 GMT

    We want to see Dale Steyn bowl twice a day, but we don't want to watch him bat. My point is that in "Two innings T20", only about 7 batsmen should be allowed to bat, twice. Only 5 bowlers should be allowed to bowl. Only 1 player should be allowed to do both, and of course, the wk gets to bat too.

  • POSTED BY shaen on | June 16, 2010, 11:47 GMT

    There is nothing wrong with 50 over games. There is a lot wrong with the ICC and administraters world wide. They are killing the golden goose with greed. Scheduling too many games. Chasing dollars!!! Let them do what they want to 20 over stuff, thats not for cricket lovers anyway.

  • POSTED BY on | June 16, 2010, 10:30 GMT

    The more I hear such proposals, the more I feel like coming back toplay one-dayers with declaration...

  • POSTED BY Viewpoint on | June 16, 2010, 9:45 GMT

    DJ ranked in my top 3 of all time one day players. It's a pity he endorses such ridiculous formats of what used to be a game of subtle techniques and adjustments. Any true cricket lover who converts to this crap should take up baseball - there's only ever one shot; some just connect better than others. If cricket were to die as it stands historically, at least bury it with respect first then make psuedo clones of it for a new audience. Good bye Sunny, Richards, Sachin, McGrath....you too would've have shone here owing to sheer talent but it's not what you were born for. By the way when is Cricket Aust banning tests altogether? Anyone knows yet?

  • POSTED BY AnasNZ on | June 16, 2010, 9:39 GMT

    To make it more interesting there should be a change in the batting format. Like the restrictions for bowlers who are allowed a maximum of 10 overs, batsmen should be given a maximum of 10 overs each; with the team sharing remainders if batsmen failed to use their allotted overs. This would bring a balance to batting and bowling. The split innings will take care of the importance of the toss e.g. in the event of a day-night game both teams will get to play during the day and night periods equally. For fans who are interested in quality batting and bowling performances there is the possibility of MINI, MEDIUM and MEGA test versions to follow. (See below comments for explanation).

  • POSTED BY SyedArbabAhmed on | June 16, 2010, 8:58 GMT

    It will be a great "stupidity", T20 is a mega hit because it takes only 3 hours like other great sports Football, Field Hockey etc neither 5 days nor the whole day to have the result or even no result, by having 2 matches that will take the whole day as well so it will have no use at all.

  • POSTED BY that_guy on | June 16, 2010, 8:46 GMT

    I think top 4 teams in world should play tests top 6 play ondayers and everyone should be alowed to play 20/20. This will cut down on rubbish onesided matches.

    Alternativly make tests into 2 day limited overs of 4 X 50 over inning and onedayers into 4 X 25 over innings and keep 20/20 as domestic and minows.

  • POSTED BY on | June 16, 2010, 8:14 GMT

    I DONT REALLY GET IT.... :?/

  • POSTED BY on | June 16, 2010, 8:01 GMT

    Administrators ar not getting into basic problem. reducing the unimportant games. I really like the idea of world cup points. The format should be such that no team other than hosts are assured of berth in World Cup. Same thing should apply for T20s & World Test Championship. Here's what I think:

    For 50/40 over format, as suggested by dean, tri-series accumulating WC points.

    For T20 WC, top 12 teams playing for berth & no. 12-25 playing another league. Top 9 teams qualify. team finishing no. 10-12 & 13-15 playing for 3 remaining spots.

    For Tests, a World Championship of 3 years divided in 2 tiers of 8 and another year for qualifiers. QUALIFING: Top 6 (of last championship) teams automatically qualify. no. 7-10 play qualifiers. 11-16 remain in tier II. CHAMPIONSHIP: Home & away matches totalling 56 (plus final, still in dilemma if there should be a final or not). For top 6 teams, qualifing year should hve icon series like IND-PAK.

  • POSTED BY PeteB on | June 16, 2010, 7:41 GMT

    I think we should have a cricket diamond as well. And just one bastman instead. And teh batsman (sorry I mean batter) needs to run around 4 sets of stumps. And when he gets back it's a run. Also I think we should allow the bowler to throw the ball at him as well. And if it doesn't pitch between, say, his knees and his shoulders, then it's considered a noball. 4 noballs and he gets a run. Theh you start all over again. Just an idea like.

  • POSTED BY on | June 16, 2010, 7:35 GMT

    Best way out would be to have two separate innings consisting of 30 overs and 20 overs respectively. The so-called family man can then actually watch a T20 game after his office hours.

  • POSTED BY Andy_P on | June 16, 2010, 7:21 GMT

    Really getting tired of this reactionary attitude. Calm down administrators, commentators and former players/officials! All of these new proposals are excessive! The only reason there is a perceived danger to one-day cricket is due to the saturation that has occurred over the past decade; a direct result of greedy associations. Leave the ODI game alone, but cut back on the matches within a series. There is no need for 5 or 7 match series, especially now with 20/20. The new 20/20 format in my view is a complement to ODI's, not a threat! The current ODI format brings out skill and character that none of the proposed new formats can offer. Let's not destroy this fine game as a result of exaggerated paranoia or opportunism! Let's just find some balance!

  • POSTED BY on | June 16, 2010, 7:03 GMT

    I do not think this is a good idea. As it is cricket matches are getting shorter and these short games are influencing good batsmen. So let the 50 overs as it is. Concentrate on T20 if you please.

  • POSTED BY on | June 16, 2010, 6:56 GMT

    Restoring wickets is stupid. Then it simply becomes TWO back-to-back Twenty20s. What's the point? Remember that this rule is only to ensure that both teams benefit or suffer from conditions more or less equally.

  • POSTED BY on | June 16, 2010, 6:51 GMT

    This will turn one day cricket to another slog fest. If you want 2 20 over innings for each team just schedule 2 T20 matches. Dont ruin the game for Batsmen with skill who love to spend time at the wicket and develop a good innings. The format of the game is being changed to draw in a crowd but they are not considering the fans who love to watch a good 50 over game.

  • POSTED BY on | June 16, 2010, 6:42 GMT

    What would be the difference between this cricket and twenty20 only a difference of 5 overs.It could be tried but we want to see a 50 over full game where a whole team gets the chance to contribute.If in first innings only three wickets fell and in next the same player who got out in first inning could bat again that's not a good idea.

  • POSTED BY on | June 16, 2010, 6:22 GMT

    no wickets should be carried forward.dont want to c 2 t20 games on the same day.so then we will have 50 over cricket where impact of toss will be nullified.otherwise we will miss all the great bowling we have seen in odi's.like malinga's reverse swing yesterday.Jones dont foret batting is only 1 aspect of the game,people love to see high quality bowlers as well,not half bowlers/part time bowlers who can thrive on t20.one day there wont be any specialists high quality bowlers left playing this format as it favours batsman so much

  • POSTED BY stuartk319 on | June 16, 2010, 5:59 GMT

    I'd watch Dean Jones' proposed format; but both Jones and Simon O'Donnell are right on the money - it'll mean zero unless we stop driving limited overs cricket into the ground. I'd like to see a limited over Super 14s replace the world series and domestic 50 over competitions in Aus/NZ/SAf. The competition for places in teams, as well as interstate rivalries would keep the cricket lively. Also, guys knocking on the door for ODI teams would be keen as to prove themselves against the regular internationals.2 ODIs per test tour would allow Aus/NZ/SAf to compare with other nations in prep for the World Cup.

  • POSTED BY shrimmyboy on | June 16, 2010, 5:56 GMT

    come on! whats wrong with CA?? isn't there enough 'lucky' cricket (T20) going on?? 2 20 over innings is the same thing as T20 (2 T20 matches in 1 day), cricket is about skill and less about luck or 1 man shows, yesterday's match between SL vs PAK was an absolute thriller, Mathews would'nt have been able to score a fighting half century which rescued the innings, in a T20. New comers like Amin n Shahzaib would greatly benefit from the time spent at the crease (26 , 33 balls respectively) , which wouldn't have happend in a T20..T20 is more like a 'fun' version of cricket where minor technical weakness' in a batsmen wont be exposed much!! 50 over is the perfect middleman between the ultimate form of cricket and the fun form of cricket...

  • POSTED BY fanofteamindia on | June 16, 2010, 5:47 GMT

    I don't see why we need the 8 hour game if it is going to be an extension of 20-20.It doesn't make sense.If people are saying the 50 over game has lost interest,then i can say Test cricket is dead.May i know how much more interesting was the Eng-Ban test series or the Aus-Pak test series or the SA-Win or the Ind-Ban test series.The format itself is not the problem, but the number of meaningless matches and mis-matches are the reason.ICC should consider a three tier format where top 5 ranked teams form the first tier,the next 5 second tier and the rest third tier.After 2 years the bottom team of upper tier and top team of lower tier will swap places for all three formats of the game.Something like this will not have some meaningless mis-matches.This will give more meaning to tournaments like WC and Champions trophy where there will be a surprise element.I think the Ind-sa,ind-aus,aus-sa one day series were not boring.

  • POSTED BY bobagorof on | June 16, 2010, 5:21 GMT

    Well I for one won't be watching this. With 2 innings of 10 wickets each, I don't see any difference from having 2 consecutive Twenty20 matches. And as the novelty of the slogfest ran out for me a while ago, I have no interest in seeing 2 games rammed together. But it is heartening to see some former players realising that an oversupply has killed the market - people can follow cricket all year 'round (pay TV has matches not involving Australia on a regular basis) so even if one country isn't playing then there's other matches going on. This leads to viewer fatigue, and a loss of any sort of meaning. "So what if we lose this series, there's another one in 2 days..." Reduce the amount of matches and people will start feeling hungry for it again. Bring back some context, as well as some contest.

  • POSTED BY Alexk400 on | June 16, 2010, 5:11 GMT

    what i meant is once u play one spot in first inning . you need to play same spot. also people should play round robin 1-11 and 11-1 :)

  • POSTED BY mittheimp on | June 16, 2010, 5:10 GMT

    Two innings 20/20 seems like a really terrible idea. The only attractive point of 20/20- the short and convenient time schedule, will now be gone, as well as the things that make the longer form of the game more interesting and demanding! Building an innings as opposed to just swiping, bowlers trying to get wickets as opposed to just striving for economy, and the skill of balancing team selection-as players picked for bowling will hardly ever be required to bat. The split innings has merit as the above qualities still remain plus late comers to the game can still see both teams bat, tactics would be slightly different as captains can reassess targets at the half way stage and the game will less likely be settled on the toss of the coin as both teams will bat in similar conditions (day/night games especially). Two innings 20/20 though! Lets just call it baseball and be done with it!

  • POSTED BY Alexk400 on | June 16, 2010, 4:59 GMT

    Great Idea!. Like in baseball we used to see sammy sosa come to the plate,,, Also i want to see batsman bat in round robin...

    That way it is better.

  • POSTED BY on | June 16, 2010, 4:35 GMT

    funny how Dean Jones mention Sachin Tendulkar,if Sachin was a player playing split innings one day games,it would be a totally different scenario..he would have just become a slogger..trying to earn more money..this is not about the cricket..it's just has to do with money..

  • POSTED BY bringbackleegermon on | June 16, 2010, 4:30 GMT

    What is with all these proposals recently? If cricket isn't broke, don't fix it. Twenty20 cricket is idiotic, and so are these new ideas.

  • POSTED BY bchacko on | June 16, 2010, 4:23 GMT

    One day cricket as it is really great,only ways can be brainstormedddddddd to find out how to make it more lively(for example compulsory powerplay between 20 &40) ...we die core fans love to see cricketers to perform those really tasks which we miss in t20..thats y we love our test cricket..and one day format as it is an abbr. form of test cricket were cricketers show thier talents and we fans enjoy watching it......but finally economics is a imp. thing.....so i support ca idea of spliting innings into 2..that is really nice.....but the one discuussed by dean jones and channel 9 are crazyy......plsss throw these ppl in any ocean u like.....enuf of this t20 tamashaa ..we want real cricket.......t20 will take of cricket growth and expansion and blah blah..but pls let us fans enjoy real cricket pls.....no dean jones dont do this to us....

  • POSTED BY on | June 16, 2010, 3:58 GMT

    This will not make for exciting cricket unless they make it a 2 innings game. NZ cricket experimented with this in the the early 90s. What advantage does it bring over a normal 50 over game. It only serves to break the momentum of the batting team who will inevitable play very conservatively before the half way break in the innings.

    2 innings games would make more sense, especially good for the fans if the home team bowl first because they are guaranteed the opportunity of seeing their team have at least one decent dig with the bat.

  • POSTED BY AnasNZ on | June 16, 2010, 3:17 GMT

    Yes Brydon my suggestion on MICRO test match 20/25 overs two innings per side seems to have caught on and people have read it in your column and in a CricInfo talk back show hosted by Greg Chappell and Tony Greg sometime last year. It has got to have all the qualities of playing a two innings match except the end result has to be a WIN and no DRAW.

    I also suggested for the formats to evolve further MINI test matches in to 45/50 overs two innings per side to be completed in two days. MEDIUM test match 70/75 over two innings per side to be completed in 3 days and the big test to be a MEGA test 90/100 overs two innings per side affair to be done in 4+ days again with a WIN only and no DRAW result.

    The ICC should consider having multiple tiers and grading for nations to qualify in order to reach the full format.

    I am glad someone is taking interest such as Dean Jones and Channel Nine. Let the MANTRA be chanted in other places too.

    Anas the Man for format change

  • POSTED BY on | June 16, 2010, 3:07 GMT

    Ya this sounds like a good idea. I sure miss most of Indian batting, especially when Sehwag bats. So if according to Dean Jones idea if they restore the wickets then it will be a gift for fans like me.

  • POSTED BY NaveenBL on | June 16, 2010, 2:55 GMT

    When I came to know that CA was going to try a split innings format, I was very excited as I had been waiting for somebody to give it a try and was thinking that the format was a shrunk version of a test match with 10 wickets available in both the innings. Only after reading this article I became aware that it is going to be a bit different. I feel that CA has to consider Mr.Jones' suggestion of making 10 wickets available for each innings. Kudos to CA for their efforts and I wish them all the very best.

  • POSTED BY theswami on | June 16, 2010, 2:32 GMT

    4-20 .... does'nt sound exciting

  • POSTED BY Rakesh_Sharma on | June 16, 2010, 2:13 GMT

    The main reason is the result of useless odi's.For examplelast few years India is just waiting to play any amount of ODIs.Just see how many ODIs Tendulkar has played. Useless games. It is neither Indian cricketers are bored nor cricket board.Only Money drives them. Other thing is too batsman friendly tracks.

  • POSTED BY santhoshkudva on | June 16, 2010, 1:55 GMT

    looks like a good idea, but i would love it to be viewed as the 'fourth' format of cricket, than a modified version of the good ol' 50 over game.

  • POSTED BY Wisecrack on | June 16, 2010, 1:55 GMT

    Great! If this works out it will be the end of Twenty20 (atleast in test playing nations) and who could have ever thought that? Long Live 2 innings ODI. Nine Bradcasters are spot on, 10 wickets for each innings is a absolute must!

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY Wisecrack on | June 16, 2010, 1:55 GMT

    Great! If this works out it will be the end of Twenty20 (atleast in test playing nations) and who could have ever thought that? Long Live 2 innings ODI. Nine Bradcasters are spot on, 10 wickets for each innings is a absolute must!

  • POSTED BY santhoshkudva on | June 16, 2010, 1:55 GMT

    looks like a good idea, but i would love it to be viewed as the 'fourth' format of cricket, than a modified version of the good ol' 50 over game.

  • POSTED BY Rakesh_Sharma on | June 16, 2010, 2:13 GMT

    The main reason is the result of useless odi's.For examplelast few years India is just waiting to play any amount of ODIs.Just see how many ODIs Tendulkar has played. Useless games. It is neither Indian cricketers are bored nor cricket board.Only Money drives them. Other thing is too batsman friendly tracks.

  • POSTED BY theswami on | June 16, 2010, 2:32 GMT

    4-20 .... does'nt sound exciting

  • POSTED BY NaveenBL on | June 16, 2010, 2:55 GMT

    When I came to know that CA was going to try a split innings format, I was very excited as I had been waiting for somebody to give it a try and was thinking that the format was a shrunk version of a test match with 10 wickets available in both the innings. Only after reading this article I became aware that it is going to be a bit different. I feel that CA has to consider Mr.Jones' suggestion of making 10 wickets available for each innings. Kudos to CA for their efforts and I wish them all the very best.

  • POSTED BY on | June 16, 2010, 3:07 GMT

    Ya this sounds like a good idea. I sure miss most of Indian batting, especially when Sehwag bats. So if according to Dean Jones idea if they restore the wickets then it will be a gift for fans like me.

  • POSTED BY AnasNZ on | June 16, 2010, 3:17 GMT

    Yes Brydon my suggestion on MICRO test match 20/25 overs two innings per side seems to have caught on and people have read it in your column and in a CricInfo talk back show hosted by Greg Chappell and Tony Greg sometime last year. It has got to have all the qualities of playing a two innings match except the end result has to be a WIN and no DRAW.

    I also suggested for the formats to evolve further MINI test matches in to 45/50 overs two innings per side to be completed in two days. MEDIUM test match 70/75 over two innings per side to be completed in 3 days and the big test to be a MEGA test 90/100 overs two innings per side affair to be done in 4+ days again with a WIN only and no DRAW result.

    The ICC should consider having multiple tiers and grading for nations to qualify in order to reach the full format.

    I am glad someone is taking interest such as Dean Jones and Channel Nine. Let the MANTRA be chanted in other places too.

    Anas the Man for format change

  • POSTED BY on | June 16, 2010, 3:58 GMT

    This will not make for exciting cricket unless they make it a 2 innings game. NZ cricket experimented with this in the the early 90s. What advantage does it bring over a normal 50 over game. It only serves to break the momentum of the batting team who will inevitable play very conservatively before the half way break in the innings.

    2 innings games would make more sense, especially good for the fans if the home team bowl first because they are guaranteed the opportunity of seeing their team have at least one decent dig with the bat.

  • POSTED BY bchacko on | June 16, 2010, 4:23 GMT

    One day cricket as it is really great,only ways can be brainstormedddddddd to find out how to make it more lively(for example compulsory powerplay between 20 &40) ...we die core fans love to see cricketers to perform those really tasks which we miss in t20..thats y we love our test cricket..and one day format as it is an abbr. form of test cricket were cricketers show thier talents and we fans enjoy watching it......but finally economics is a imp. thing.....so i support ca idea of spliting innings into 2..that is really nice.....but the one discuussed by dean jones and channel 9 are crazyy......plsss throw these ppl in any ocean u like.....enuf of this t20 tamashaa ..we want real cricket.......t20 will take of cricket growth and expansion and blah blah..but pls let us fans enjoy real cricket pls.....no dean jones dont do this to us....

  • POSTED BY bringbackleegermon on | June 16, 2010, 4:30 GMT

    What is with all these proposals recently? If cricket isn't broke, don't fix it. Twenty20 cricket is idiotic, and so are these new ideas.