Australia news August 13, 2010

Cricket Australia approves one-day split-innings format

118

Cricket Australia has listened to the public but ignored its players after pushing through a split-innings one-day domestic trial before the national team attempts a fourth consecutive victory at next year's World Cup. The introduction of the 45-over format means the country's only 50-over matches in 2010-11 will occur at international level.

In an unusual effort to counter the imbalance, Cricket Australia is already considering private fixtures for fringe members of the World Cup squad if they are short of game-time in the global format. The change towards the four-innings regulations for the entire domestic one-day tournament over-ruled the initial plan to break up the event, which would have scheduled traditional fixtures when the international representatives were available.

Ricky Ponting, who is unbeaten as a World Cup captain, was not in favour of the alterations during the planning phase and after the announcement the Australian Cricketers' Association (ACA) said 78% of its surveyed members rejected the idea. Despite the criticism, Cricket Australia's board passed the changes on Friday and the new format will begin when Queensland host Tasmania at the Gabba on October 6.

James Sutherland, Cricket Australia's chief executive, said the players' views were extremely important, but they were not the only ones involved in a redesign being employed to revitalise the one-day concept. "In talking to stakeholders, the ultimate thing was the tournament should be played over the course of a whole year," Sutherland said. "To do a proper trial and to ensure the public fully understands the way it is played. There is no doubt there are issues for individual players and preparation for the World Cup coming up."

One of the major ones is the lack of 50-over games for the squad members who will not appear regularly during the seven-match Australia-England ODI series in January and February. A 15-man World Cup unit will be named in December and Michael Brown, Cricket Australia's deputy, said the board had approved the option for "possibles versus probables" contests to ensure the right sort of preparation.

"I'll work with the selectors to determine whether they want some particular players, for example Brett Lee or Callum Ferguson, or people coming back from injury, and if that's the case we'll put on private matches to give them a chance to perform at optimum level for the World Cup," Brown said. England and South Africa also don't play any 50-over competitions at domestic level despite the ICC saying it has no plans to over-haul its preferred one-day genre.

Sutherland said split innings would lead to a sense of "cat and mouse" and provide more strategy. Under the changes, the 20-over first innings will be followed by 25-over conclusions. There will be teams of 12, with only 11 batting or fielding, but no Powerplays or super strikers. Bowlers will be allowed to deliver two bouncers an over and have a maximum of 12 overs.

Paul Marsh, the ACA chief executive, said the players weren't consulted properly until a decision had been made to push ahead with the trial. "For the people that play and know the game better than anyone, this process has been difficult to comprehend and players are very disappointed," Marsh said. "Players are open to changes to any format of the game that can make the game better.

"They acknowledge that the one-day format has had its recent challenges and as a collective they want to help those running the game find the best solution. However, the players don't believe the split-innings format is the best solution."

Marsh was on the Cricket Australia committee - it also included Mark Taylor, Greg Chappell and Matthew Hayden - that recommended the final product, but he detailed the dissent of the ACA members. "We surveyed the players and an overwhelming majority (78%) rejected the split-innings format," he said.

"They are adamant that radical format changes are not the highest priority for the one-day game. Players continue to believe that administrators need to address the far bigger issues of the lack of context in one-day international cricket and the excessive number of one-dayers that continue to be programmed."

Sutherland said the ACA had been consulted heavily throughout the process. "The public told us to act and we have," he said. "The fans told us, through formal research, that they like ODI cricket best, but they want to see it refreshed and they want to see it with a short-form identity that is distinctively different from fast-emerging T20 cricket.

Peter English is the Australasia editor of Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • rwaite on August 16, 2010, 1:39 GMT

    They were originally talking about 40 overs each but they have stupidly made it an uneven 45 overs. Other than that I like the new format. They should have 40 overs each and look to push the finish time back an hour so the bulk of the game is prime time with say a 4pm start. It's great that you'll see both teams bat in prime time!

    There's no way the teams should get all their 10 wickets back at the start of the "2nd" innings as there would be no difference between it and 20/20 and no point having a different format.

    In 20/20 the attacking batsmen are always trying to bash 6's and you don't see anywhere near the elegant strokes for 4 that you see in 40 and 50 over cricket and THAT is the reason we need to preserve the longer form of limited overs cricket.

    I like the simplicity of the fielding restrictions and allowing only 4 bowlers to bowl out the full innings. It can really work so long as they fix up the number of overs and bring it down to 40 each.

  • Chris_P on August 15, 2010, 10:16 GMT

    No less than Sachin himself has endorsed this innovative approach by CA. Reading an article in the Sydney Sunday Telegraph. he said, "I am glad it's been tried out in Australia. I feel once the players have tried out this format, they will be in a better position to judge if it works or not. Today, we can tell the result of close to 75% of one-day games after the toss. But the split innings concept is not too dependent on the toss". So please, all you "experts" out there who are so willing to knock this concept, what about waiting to see the results, after all, if the great man himself thinks it's worthwhile, where does that leave your opinions?

  • ajohar on August 14, 2010, 21:33 GMT

    This is ridiculous. It will only make games seem longer, it's killing the purpose. If they really want to kill the boring middle overs, then this is what I believe they should do.

    They need to make each innings 25 overs, but allow each team to bat with 10 wickets in EACH innings. With two innings and 10 wickets each time around, the teams would be able to free themselves a little more. But this is where they will differ from T20s : the conditions should be bowler friendly. No flat tracks, no half-sized grounds. The teams should also be be given an optional new ball every second innings; if the pitch is seamer friendly they can take it, if not they can use the old one with their spinners, it's up to the team. This would give viewers more excitement, as each team can try to either blast it out or at least pace themselves twice, and bowlers will always have something in it for them.

    This IMO is the best solution : 2 innings, 10 wickets each innings, bowler friendly conditions.

  • BionicBowler on August 14, 2010, 21:28 GMT

    Well done CA on being brave enough to embrace something customer led! This is an impressive list of new features. The 50 over game looks tired and will be gone within a generation if left as is. For those not keen on this new bold experiment let's look at the evidence after the pilot year. I like the fact that it is a fairer share of conditions shared out to both teams given the length of the game. This will ensure more chances of games being decided fairly when rain intervenes as 20 overs a side is considered a 'match' should a game be completely rained off afterwards. D/L can still be considered if rain stops game in last 25 overs of match. One of the problems cricket has as an 'entertainment' is the time lapsed between deliveries - the only thing I would add to this great new formula is have each 'segment' be bowled at alternate ends - this will quicken up field changes between overs (every 6 balls batsmen change ends) and the split innings formula lends itself to this innovation.

  • Pak-cricket on August 14, 2010, 21:11 GMT

    please leave the cricket the way it is ... no more changes...stop destroying cricket

  • bouncer123 on August 14, 2010, 18:28 GMT

    I think CA is trying to push this new format despite being opposed by many players just bcoz they want to get ahead in the race of inventing new formats for cricket like english came up with T20 which obviously was a clean hit....

  • on August 14, 2010, 12:38 GMT

    jus wate of time for viewers & players

  • SnowSnake on August 14, 2010, 12:37 GMT

    While we are experimenting, why not try 7 innings of 5 overs each? Let's have 10-15 different formats and see if fans can keep track of each format.

  • sharadk.2010 on August 14, 2010, 12:18 GMT

    A new ball from each end!! That means each ball will be used for 23 overs max!! That will discourage spinners and reverse swing. As per my opinion, only change ODIs require is to allow one bowler to bowl upto 12-13 overs. That will ensure even contest between bat and ball. Allowing 2 bouncers per over is also a good idea.

  • on August 14, 2010, 10:45 GMT

    This article jst reminded me of Callum Ferguson... That guy is a player wid loads of talent and also excelled but got lst sumwhere at the strt of the yr coz of his injury and every1 4got him... Poor him, he will now have 2 strt all over gain coz of that injury... He was one of the certain people in the squad... And the same thing will happen with Bracken who was the top ODI bowler for 2 yrs and then the injury came and now its gonna b tough 4 him 2 b back coz of Harris, Henriques, McKay, Siddle, Tait, Bollinger nad Brett Lee when he retrns...

  • rwaite on August 16, 2010, 1:39 GMT

    They were originally talking about 40 overs each but they have stupidly made it an uneven 45 overs. Other than that I like the new format. They should have 40 overs each and look to push the finish time back an hour so the bulk of the game is prime time with say a 4pm start. It's great that you'll see both teams bat in prime time!

    There's no way the teams should get all their 10 wickets back at the start of the "2nd" innings as there would be no difference between it and 20/20 and no point having a different format.

    In 20/20 the attacking batsmen are always trying to bash 6's and you don't see anywhere near the elegant strokes for 4 that you see in 40 and 50 over cricket and THAT is the reason we need to preserve the longer form of limited overs cricket.

    I like the simplicity of the fielding restrictions and allowing only 4 bowlers to bowl out the full innings. It can really work so long as they fix up the number of overs and bring it down to 40 each.

  • Chris_P on August 15, 2010, 10:16 GMT

    No less than Sachin himself has endorsed this innovative approach by CA. Reading an article in the Sydney Sunday Telegraph. he said, "I am glad it's been tried out in Australia. I feel once the players have tried out this format, they will be in a better position to judge if it works or not. Today, we can tell the result of close to 75% of one-day games after the toss. But the split innings concept is not too dependent on the toss". So please, all you "experts" out there who are so willing to knock this concept, what about waiting to see the results, after all, if the great man himself thinks it's worthwhile, where does that leave your opinions?

  • ajohar on August 14, 2010, 21:33 GMT

    This is ridiculous. It will only make games seem longer, it's killing the purpose. If they really want to kill the boring middle overs, then this is what I believe they should do.

    They need to make each innings 25 overs, but allow each team to bat with 10 wickets in EACH innings. With two innings and 10 wickets each time around, the teams would be able to free themselves a little more. But this is where they will differ from T20s : the conditions should be bowler friendly. No flat tracks, no half-sized grounds. The teams should also be be given an optional new ball every second innings; if the pitch is seamer friendly they can take it, if not they can use the old one with their spinners, it's up to the team. This would give viewers more excitement, as each team can try to either blast it out or at least pace themselves twice, and bowlers will always have something in it for them.

    This IMO is the best solution : 2 innings, 10 wickets each innings, bowler friendly conditions.

  • BionicBowler on August 14, 2010, 21:28 GMT

    Well done CA on being brave enough to embrace something customer led! This is an impressive list of new features. The 50 over game looks tired and will be gone within a generation if left as is. For those not keen on this new bold experiment let's look at the evidence after the pilot year. I like the fact that it is a fairer share of conditions shared out to both teams given the length of the game. This will ensure more chances of games being decided fairly when rain intervenes as 20 overs a side is considered a 'match' should a game be completely rained off afterwards. D/L can still be considered if rain stops game in last 25 overs of match. One of the problems cricket has as an 'entertainment' is the time lapsed between deliveries - the only thing I would add to this great new formula is have each 'segment' be bowled at alternate ends - this will quicken up field changes between overs (every 6 balls batsmen change ends) and the split innings formula lends itself to this innovation.

  • Pak-cricket on August 14, 2010, 21:11 GMT

    please leave the cricket the way it is ... no more changes...stop destroying cricket

  • bouncer123 on August 14, 2010, 18:28 GMT

    I think CA is trying to push this new format despite being opposed by many players just bcoz they want to get ahead in the race of inventing new formats for cricket like english came up with T20 which obviously was a clean hit....

  • on August 14, 2010, 12:38 GMT

    jus wate of time for viewers & players

  • SnowSnake on August 14, 2010, 12:37 GMT

    While we are experimenting, why not try 7 innings of 5 overs each? Let's have 10-15 different formats and see if fans can keep track of each format.

  • sharadk.2010 on August 14, 2010, 12:18 GMT

    A new ball from each end!! That means each ball will be used for 23 overs max!! That will discourage spinners and reverse swing. As per my opinion, only change ODIs require is to allow one bowler to bowl upto 12-13 overs. That will ensure even contest between bat and ball. Allowing 2 bouncers per over is also a good idea.

  • on August 14, 2010, 10:45 GMT

    This article jst reminded me of Callum Ferguson... That guy is a player wid loads of talent and also excelled but got lst sumwhere at the strt of the yr coz of his injury and every1 4got him... Poor him, he will now have 2 strt all over gain coz of that injury... He was one of the certain people in the squad... And the same thing will happen with Bracken who was the top ODI bowler for 2 yrs and then the injury came and now its gonna b tough 4 him 2 b back coz of Harris, Henriques, McKay, Siddle, Tait, Bollinger nad Brett Lee when he retrns...

  • K.A.K on August 14, 2010, 8:59 GMT

    Good concept. Some more instant thoughts - 12 over per bowler should be reduced to 9 per bowler - Agreed that DL method is not perfect and should be revisited or removed. - Automatic review by 3rd umpire, or better still, all run outs and lbws should be decided by 3rd umpire only - Above mentioned Field-restrictions favor batsmen only. 5-over bowling poweplay should also be introduce with bowling side deciding on however they want to place the field. - Minimum Pitch quality standards should also be introduced in some form. - And game should not stop for light rain or snow :) - Bad light should be countered by flood lights - Ball should have a tracking device in it, to reproduce its path - More mics on the field around the pitch - One veteran player / celebrity allowed per side to either bowl or bat in one of the innings.

  • Chris_P on August 14, 2010, 8:21 GMT

    For all others who want to read about it, this format has already commenced in Darwin with Tasmania playing South Australia with Tasmanian acting captain Xavier Doherty saying the format's conditions placed greater focus on specialists and less on bit-part players. "Bowlers can still bowl 10 overs so you only have to pick four bowlers to get the overs completed and I think that's going to be the biggest adjustment," he said. "Teams will pick their four best bowlers, without having to go for a fifth or a sixth, and on the flipside of that you play an extra batsman, so the batting strength will be that little bit more as well. "So that's what 40-over cricket will bring to the table, you'll get to see more high-quality batting and the best bowlers bowling in it." Doherty admitted the rules made all-rounders a less valuable commodity, reducing the need for versatile role-players capable of swinging both bat and ball. This looks a positive as we will be seeing specialist bowlers bowling.

  • PrinceCharles on August 14, 2010, 7:18 GMT

    No doubt it thus seems an exciting idea(though i would like to see the quota per bowler to be 10 overs) but it cant challenge the current ODI format. instead what u can do is to hold the current ODI format as it is and change the T20 format into a split innings one with say 15 overs an innings..(in this case better name it T30 :) )

  • HLANGL on August 14, 2010, 6:18 GMT

    To say the least, this is a very cheap move & too much commercialization. In my opinion, Tests, 50 over ODIs & 20-20s can coexist with balance, & we don't need any more cheap additions to the game of Cricket when we already have 20-20s, which will only spoil it in the longer run. Tests & 20-20s provide the two extremes, & 50 overs game provide the perfect balance which will really test all the skills associated with this fascinating game. Why the heck Cricket Austrailia went too further & introduced another cheap version merely to satisfy business people ?. If they absolutely want, they may compromise 20-20s for this newer format. But I certainly disagree if they compromise the more balanced version of 50 over ODIs just for the sake of financial purposes. This game already yeild adequate income & this move would be a bad example if other countries would also follow it. So, to me, this is a cheap cheap move, just too much commercialization.

  • on August 14, 2010, 6:10 GMT

    Absolute nonsense, I don't think any more comment is necessary.

  • Jammy8 on August 14, 2010, 5:54 GMT

    Everything in limited over cricket is limited except the amount of balls a batsmen can face. Why not limit them to 60 balls, this will ensure that they have to hit out when they are near the end of their innings and that they can't waste deliveries. They retire at the 60 and can only come back out if every other batsmen is out.

  • on August 14, 2010, 3:32 GMT

    Absolute rubbish!! why can't administrators leave the game alone, This isn't cricket this is Americanised baseball... This is going to confuse players and fans alike with this kind of format!!...

  • slugworth on August 14, 2010, 2:41 GMT

    The idea is a great idea. cat and mose play sums it up nicely. Overtime people will wonder why we waited this long to make the changes. In all fairness it should have been this way from its inception it resembles test cricket more closely "two innings".

  • on August 14, 2010, 2:17 GMT

    it is a good idea. 12 players idea is good but it requires some corrections 1)maximum overs should be reduced to 9 or 10 to a bowler 2)fielding restrictions for 6-20 and 26-45 should be compulsory 4 fielders inside the ring 3)no need of new ball from each the start of innings. if new balls are likely to be taken for each end the same balls should be continued for the 2nd innings othere wise it wil remain as a fast bowlers game and the spinners wil have a less importance. othere wise take one new ball for each innings

  • Hoggy_1989 on August 14, 2010, 0:57 GMT

    How anyone can call this new game 'cricket' I don't know. This move has been done only to accommodate Fox Sports (Ford Ranger Cup television rights holder), so they can get in more ads. First the games started to be played on Wednesdays (further driving away actual spectators), and now this. I didn't realize the BCCI had taken over Cricket Australia. The spectators will vote with their feet over this season, and I think we'll have a return to the normal ODI format, but it will destroy our World Cup preparations though.

  • AndrewFromOz on August 14, 2010, 0:38 GMT

    I don't like it. I would rather see "one day" cricket (i.e. 50 over and this new system) scrapped completely and tests and t/20 remain as the standards

  • JoeyBaxter on August 14, 2010, 0:20 GMT

    Worst idea since invading Iraq.

  • on August 13, 2010, 23:58 GMT

    CA is tempering with the original format of cricket. It will definitely not work in any other country.

  • on August 13, 2010, 23:54 GMT

    oneday games already lost its popularity and this system going to make it worse. ICC should not allow this and must dump this.

  • LALITHKURUWITA on August 13, 2010, 22:23 GMT

    Baby is born. There are few farthers of this baby. They are TEST. ODI, Twenty20, Rugby, CA, & ????. This baby got all features of their fathers. Wait and see for few years to see how baby behaves. Otherwise man/woman (matured baby) will be jailed as a convict.

  • on August 13, 2010, 22:01 GMT

    I don't know anybody here in Australia that wants this over then some self interested media and the people in charge of cricket in australia.

    The 50 over game should remain as it is with 1 new ball per end instead of bringing a used ball into the match at about 30 overs.

  • nicko65 on August 13, 2010, 21:59 GMT

    What a disgrace, I can't believe the people that are in charge of Australian Cricket are that stupid, we were once the leaders in World Cricket now we will become a laughing stock. I am absolutely disgusted with this rubbish and if it does go ahead I for one will not watch anymore, come on players and your union please do something about this. All of the board and anyone else that was involved in this idea should be made to step down straight away. Why don't we just have a straight 40 over competition.

    Hang your head in shame Cricket Australia!!!

  • Pramod-from-Chandigarh on August 13, 2010, 21:58 GMT

    I like this idea. Cricket has undergone more transformation over its history than any other sport in the world. Traditional Test Cricket still stands tall. 50-50 and 20-20 have not only increased mass appeal (great-grandmothers look forward to evening matches - can you believe it!) they have even improved the quality of test cricket, not to mention the tons of money they have brought in.

    Right now the problem of one dayers and 20-20 co-existing is a serious one. I think by bringing in this novel fusion, it would inject excitment and yet give good players a chance to show the stuff they are made of. BTW: I like tfjones's suggestion - min 20 overs. And no DL. Match will be either 20 or full 45 overs.

  • on August 13, 2010, 21:56 GMT

    Pure garbage! Worst Idea ever! So what now, a fourth set of records, a fourth different format?

  • 512fm on August 13, 2010, 20:34 GMT

    Great. so its pretty much like a double twenty20 or 20-25. their just throwing more twenty20 cricket out there basically. cricket is complicated enough to understand for most people. I swear if the odi format goes thats it for me. im a bowler and this is absolutely killing the game for them. they keep saying it is what the fans want, which fans are they talking about? this is the worst idea since the genius who thought of supersub

  • SatyaKrishna on August 13, 2010, 20:18 GMT

    worst possible idea ever!

  • on August 13, 2010, 20:06 GMT

    I actually like this format. As kids we used to use this format all the time... the split innings limited-overs games. I think it will be popular. BTW, is there a follow-on rule built in? :-)

  • on August 13, 2010, 20:01 GMT

    Imagine a team down by 50 runs and then coming back to win..wat makes cricket awesome viewing is the innumerous chances for fans to cheer like a 4 or a 6 or a wicket or even a fielding marvel. Twists in the game will give more opportunity for such things to happen!! Should be tried..

  • Saleel-XI on August 13, 2010, 19:53 GMT

    i dont know about you guys, but I honestly prefered the tried and tested format of 50 overs per team, field restrictions for the first 15 overs only ... done! simple and to the point. the addition of powerplays is the stupidest idea ever. at max i would have changed the rules to add field restrictions for the last 5 overs ... but thats about it. this new format is an absolute joke and making cricket into a circus show. i dont understand why the rules are being changed just because the public is there or not. who cares! there are always people watching the game and people will come. just because young kids and women started watching the T20 version, its now the big deal. what if the women stop coming, are you going to ask the players to then play without shirts to make it more appealing? its an absolute joke to change rules as often as the ICC do. if the ICC had control over tennis, then a low attendance Federer-Nadal match would lead to 1-Set matches and championships. Ridiculous!

  • AhsanIqbal on August 13, 2010, 19:52 GMT

    Believe me, Cricket Australia is guiding the game to another self destruction. Majority of traditionalists are yet to accept the Twenty20 format of cricket open heartedly, and now this new issue can lead to another huge criticism, which will be even bigger as compared to what was against the Twenty20. I think Cricket Australia should have continued with the traditional format of One Day Cricket, for the sake of the game. Two big changes in the game in such a short period of time will never lead the cricket to prosperity. CA should have discussed it with ICC and other cricket boards as well before implementing it on their domestic circuit.

  • khan_1234 on August 13, 2010, 19:41 GMT

    Best idea....I dont like slow cricket (50 overs)....just give me headache...Those of you who dont ike this positive change (stop living in 2oth century)...This new format will create excitement!! Do you folks know what is EXCITEMENT??????

  • on August 13, 2010, 19:36 GMT

    I see this as Australia's attempt to slowly ease into the world the concept of a "one-day test match". If successful they will phase out the 5 day game and bring in this format. I believe rather than spend time, effort and money into developing a new format associations must enhance the image of the game, input resources into the youth and allow them to create a career in Cricket!

  • Rahulbose on August 13, 2010, 19:36 GMT

    I have been looking forward to this split innings format for a while. Would love to watch some of these games. This should get rid of the middle over sleep fest and win toss win game matches.

    Only thing I don't like in the CA format is the 12 players rule, why did they see a need for that?

  • CricketisKing on August 13, 2010, 19:33 GMT

    Soon cricket will be like baseball. 9 innings, 3 strikes, etc., etc.

  • bournecool13 on August 13, 2010, 19:31 GMT

    and how will the "lovely" Duckworth - Lewis equation be determined with the split innings concept

  • indramunna on August 13, 2010, 18:57 GMT

    @Zia Hassan, I agree with you.Why are these people want to mix the things. The idea of splitting for one day will not be good since we have already a version of this thing as Test Cricket.Leave all the three games as it is . The maximum it should do is restrict that 50 overs to 45 or 40 overs.

  • crikkfan on August 13, 2010, 18:54 GMT

    there is virtually no difference between 12 a side - any 11 can bat and any 11 can field versus 11 a side with a super sub or super striker. Right? Any comments?

  • EVH316 on August 13, 2010, 18:44 GMT

    I wonder if anyone ever thinks of the poor captains, all these crazy changes. Having said that, I very much like the 12-overs per bowler idea. It would be perfectly reasonable to add this to the remaining 50 over rules though, and leave the rest alone, wouldn`t it? Surely batters and bowlers would improve their skills if this was the case.

  • Me_A_Gemini on August 13, 2010, 18:39 GMT

    I don't think it should be called a modification in ODI format......it should rather be called 'fourth' format in world cricket. I don't know what CA is trying to do but I believe they will soon find a good name to this new format a part from test/one-day/T20. Whatever the name is going to be, I am sure this format will definitely overtake ODIs as it will bring more excitement and close contests. Let's hope for the best.

  • on August 13, 2010, 18:37 GMT

    It will make cricket more complex even for cricket lovers, what i'll call it "Simply a Rubbish", where are your brain gone Aussies.

  • on August 13, 2010, 18:36 GMT

    Absolutely Rubbish idea. Completely unnecessary. What people want is a fair balance between ball and bat. And that can only be done by preparing supportive pitches for the bowlers. Only that way you can save the ODI format. There is no need to make cricket more complex than it is, I mean how on earth will you attract new comers (individuals as well as countries) when there are 16964537 different formats of the Game??? T20 is an enough change already. 3 formats as Test, ODIs and T20 is ALL what cricket needs. Prepare better pitches, give bowlers a little bit extra, in as 2 bouncers per over etc. make it a bit more bowler friendly game, and people WILL watch it. How can CA go against the majority (78%) of their own players´will?? I mean these are the people who play the game and know it better than the administrative jacks!!

  • Clean_hitter on August 13, 2010, 18:13 GMT

    Normally I'd say that Australia has one of the best domestic systems, but this is one of the worst ideas ever. 50 over cricket is the best format of the game, exciting and compact enough to be viewed and enjoyed in a single day, but also long enough to let some good battles develop, and now they've butchered it to appease those who can't appreciate a good game. If they (and the ICC) want to revitalise the 50 over game, the solutions are simple: Remove the gimmicks (powerplays, free hits, etc.) and let good games develop instead of simply giving in to those who just want to watch the ball travel to the boundry.

    Sorry Cricket Australia, boo to you on this one.

  • on August 13, 2010, 18:08 GMT

    What a joke, ICC dont have that power to improve One Day format, cricket is a game hardly some countries playing, its still not achieve most of countries, now its starting modification. they dont have the power how to improve ODI, first things they have to reduce matches for all countries, then only people can see all matches ODI or test interestingly.

  • on August 13, 2010, 18:05 GMT

    i like the 50 over format if we bring this format then we may not se a great innings from batsmen and no 5,6 batsman may not get to bat we will see less centuries but lets see what happens when it is tried

  • AnthoniJi on August 13, 2010, 17:52 GMT

    Why do you think they care about the players and what they think. IT"S ALL ABOUT MONEY my friend.Come on, Come on listen to the money talk. If a person can kill a spouse for money...this is nothing. MONEY IS GOD. It is pathetic....a very sorry state humans are in.

    peace anthoniji

  • on August 13, 2010, 17:44 GMT

    omg, worst idea ever! After few years, they'll have split innings in T20... pls stop these crap formats!

  • jackiethepen on August 13, 2010, 17:41 GMT

    More slogging. No wonder the cricketers are against it. The public told us to act? Pure invention.

  • ManninaMaga on August 13, 2010, 17:40 GMT

    Why not play 2 T20s, sounds more fun to me....

  • David47 on August 13, 2010, 17:08 GMT

    I reckon that there should be 20 innings of five overs each with a time restriction on change of innings of 27.23 seconds otherwise the late team is penalised 3.76 runs per over. The team that is losing after 4 innings should be made to change into pink clothing for the remainder of the game because they're playing like girls. Each bowler would be allowed to bowl 2.91 overs per innings, and bats should not be allowed to weigh less than 8.77 KG. For *^%$#^* sake CA, will you please get the #$%$ outta here and stop *%$&@#* up the game I love.

  • Synaesthesia on August 13, 2010, 17:00 GMT

    @robheinen, it's still 20 wickets, not 40 per game.

  • PeterCook on August 13, 2010, 16:59 GMT

    I propose 4 innings each. The first innings can be 12 overs, the second can be 14 overs, the third can be 22 overs, the fourth 4 overs. OR PERHAPS JUST LEAVE IT AS IT IS!!

  • Zahidsaltin on August 13, 2010, 16:56 GMT

    Ok thats good, we get som more T20s. Only that we have two of them in a single match. I will love it. Some brillient work .....lol.. stupids

  • RB_03 on August 13, 2010, 16:52 GMT

    So I suppose now the cricket will be all about hitting huh. Or the name of the game will be called something else now too? I wonder if they still need 11 players to play though. In far future we might see only 6 players on the field. I doubt players like Brian Lara, Sachin Tendulkar, Ricky Ponting will emerge anymore.

    No doubt shortest format is the most popular one, for obvious reasons. And, no matter what game you pick shortest format will be watched more. But, that doesn't mean you change the entire game. If tomorrow we introduce 6 over cricket with 6 players per team, it might become more popular than 20 over format. Its like duhh. I don't know why people tend to change cricket itself.

  • on August 13, 2010, 16:45 GMT

    the idea of split innings suggested by Cricket Australia is absolutely rubbish.why these officials are in constant endeavour to destroy the 40 years old tradition of ODI.new format of this cricket will only promote you and i hit philosophy.it will destroy the carrers of technically correct batsman who can play anchor role in the middle over of ODI.two bouncers per over will kill the scoring rate of our sub-continental batsmen

  • topspeed55 on August 13, 2010, 16:44 GMT

    Wow Here comes another disaster to cricket. I mean its a very simple solution just stop T20 Cricket period. Why to complicate things and I am not sure how well D/L method work in split innings. Silly confused thinkers.

  • Kumar_m on August 13, 2010, 16:38 GMT

    It is a worst idea, even shamefull act. They should stop.

  • lucyferr on August 13, 2010, 16:34 GMT

    Obviously the ODI format needs to change, but this adoption seems too fast - surely more alternatives should have been tried out first? My gripe is that there are split innings instead of two innings - and presumably others have other gripes.

  • Tarzansree on August 13, 2010, 16:33 GMT

    It seems that in order to save One Dayers we are killing it. I dont think any kind of change is required in the one day format. If at all any change is to be made then "UDRS" and "12 players per team" would be interesting. Splitting the format will start a new format in cricket other than the existing 3. If it ends ODIs then all the records and stats in ODIs will be complete waste.

  • on August 13, 2010, 16:31 GMT

    why not play football in first innings and baseball in the second ? and two teams to be coached by maradona and pele

    with tiger woods and ben roethlesburger as "Special Consultant" for the cheer leaders

    and get an even bigger MRF balloon there

  • on August 13, 2010, 16:22 GMT

    BAaaaaaaaaaad bad idea , its nothing but playing t20 2 games each . As we already have t20 games the 50 over game format should not be touched. There are players who fit in each format and some players fit in some formats . Just to match some of the baseball formats we should not screw up the game of cricket.

  • kpradyu060 on August 13, 2010, 16:14 GMT

    please stop ODIs introduce test championship and continue t20 cricket.test championship will be really entertaining

  • on August 13, 2010, 16:13 GMT

    Circket was already complicated enough ...... now its a 3D video game .....

  • humayun29 on August 13, 2010, 16:07 GMT

    There should be 25 overs per innings and the second inning should be continued from where it left in the first inning. By this way, we can reduce the effect of toss on the mathces in the subcintinent.

  • Jungle_Boy on August 13, 2010, 15:49 GMT

    why only 4 fielders outside the circle after the initial 5 overs? It should be 6 players or all matches will be run-fests with nothing for the bowlers really.

  • on August 13, 2010, 15:44 GMT

    Only time will tell how good or bad a move this is. But my gut feeling is that this is going to be a massive failure.

    Test Cricket fo life!

  • 777aditya on August 13, 2010, 15:41 GMT

    @Green_and_Gold - and by the time you explain your lady the current norms adopted by CA, CA would have had another of their brainstorms and made further changes. It is ridiculous really that Australia in spite of having won 4 WCs, 3 in a row, still think that the game needs revision.

  • Raveebhat on August 13, 2010, 15:35 GMT

    Kudos Cricket Australia! For daring to bring in changes is one of the established formats of modern Cricket. But, I'd have liked it more if...

    1. It were 20-20:20-20 instead of 20-20:25-25 and 10 wickets per inning.

    2. All existing T20 rules were applied to this format also, along with that 12 players to 11 option newly proposed by CA.

    Because...

    1. 25 overs in the second inning compells a team to protect their wickets on first priority than going for big hits in the first half, which eventually would cause boredom.

    2.11 options among 12 is good idea. But again, T20 rules are more batsmen friendly, implimenting which would make this dual innings experiment more exciting.

  • Bryan999 on August 13, 2010, 15:33 GMT

    What on the earth is going on? Combination of T20, One-Day and Test match? Introduction of T20 has already made way for 'PINCH/BIG/BLIND-HITTERS' not for 'BATTING-TECHNIQUES'...along with SMART-BOWLERS but not the QUALITY-BOWLERS. The next generation of world will completely be confused; shld they go for TECHNIQUE (for test batsman) or 'BASE-BALL-HITTING' method... Shld they drop their speed (for fast bowlers) and look for more variation... I am a TEST MATCH LOVER.. with these formats, I can bet, in future we won't be able to see TECHNICALLY-SOUND-BATSMAN or the FAST-BOWLERS for TEST matches... I hope that we don't end up with all four formats; TEST, ODI(D/N), T20, ODI(Split-Innings) or may be MORE (who knows BCCI, WICB, PCB, ECB and others might also come out with something 'NEW'...)!!! I hope the original cricket which has been us for more thn a century,"TEST", survives...

  • ramesh-roy on August 13, 2010, 15:09 GMT

    Replace ODIs with ZERO50 format to save time and attract viewers. This format has only one innings played chasing other side's average score over last 10 innings (called the Z score). Team A, after toss BOWLs to defend its own Z average score. B team have 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 and so in Match 2, Team B bowls to defend its own Z average 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 a throw is a dead ball. The 3rd umpire has a half minute to give his decision. Whole innings will be under powerplay conditions to speed up run scoring in the midovers. The Z50 format can replace 50/50 ODi and attract more interest as this 50 overs game will not be much longer that T20s.

  • on August 13, 2010, 15:02 GMT

    its not cricket anymore....they are destroyin the game for jus commercial benefits....whts next.....10 over-split innings 20 20....n then five over split....n then 1 ball innings?????????????they are jus destroyin cricket....the name for the game should even b changed now

  • on August 13, 2010, 14:43 GMT

    aussies hve gone made ? why 45 overs ? why not 2 inngs of 20 overs each or 2 inngs of 25 overs each......

    what would they do in case of a rain interruption ?

  • madan_leo on August 13, 2010, 14:34 GMT

    This new format is unnecessarily confusing....y not make it simple...

    40 overs per team with split innings of 20 and 20 overs A maximum of 8 overs for any bowler (40/5) 10 wickets per team - teams can bat 11 and field 11 (as in ODIs) A maximum of two bouncers per over A new ball from each end at the start of the innings and no replacement new balls No Powerplays Fielding restrictions: Overs 1-10 = 2 fielders outside the circle; 11-20 = 4 outside; 20-30 = 2 outside, 30-40 = 4 outside

  • on August 13, 2010, 14:33 GMT

    three words - destruction of cricket

  • UnwedUnfed on August 13, 2010, 14:29 GMT

    The problem with the one-dayers (and international 20-20s and even Test matches to some extent) is truly the lack of context. What is the end product of winning a seven-match series? A miniscule jump in the ICC rankings? Big deal! Outside of the World Cups, winning a match/series has no real relevance. Might sound radical, but I think that the ICC should follow the American sports model to ensure that all three formats survive and thrive. My suggestions would be to: 1. Scrap the 4-year World Cup cycle. Instead introduce an ANNUAL World Championship for both 50-over and 20-20 formats. Structure the calendar so that each team plays exactly the same number of games between Jan and Oct. Then in Nov/Dec the top 4 teams will play best-of-7 home-and-away semi-finals followed by the best-of-7 FINAL series (possibly at a neutral venue). Schedule the 50-over playoffs in winter and the 20-20 playoffs in the summer. 2. Similar concept for Tests, except the semis/finals will be every two years.

  • WeirdBeard on August 13, 2010, 14:10 GMT

    one-day cricket just lost a fan.. :-( Tests have been played since the 1800's with very little change to the structure, and it has rolled along nicely.. why mess around with this one-day format so much? Absolute rubbish... :-(

  • Scopey123 on August 13, 2010, 14:06 GMT

    What a joke. - Please leave the game alone. This was concocted by a marketing man not a cricket fan. It's about time cricket fans took back the game (this includes the ICC).

  • on August 13, 2010, 14:05 GMT

    What a rubbish decisison, what happened to CA suddenly ?? Never expected such kind of decission from them. Why cannot they simply let the 50 over matches to roll ?? Split innings !! Absolutely rubbish. I just hope, the Super Sub rules got fast scrapped same should happen with this new 25 overs split nonsense. Frankly, speaking, those who moan about loosing interest regarding 50 over matches, they simply should stop watching cricket. All bunch of fools and noobs.

  • VA47992 on August 13, 2010, 13:59 GMT

    If batsmen get 2 bat in each innings, then this will not give much chance or the middle order batsmen. There will be a situation where middle order batsmen will come only at the death and if they don score, then their career is over!!! Consequently,openers will get lots of chances to prove themselves. I believe they should let batsmen bat only once in the entire course of the match!! That will make it interesting... :)

  • on August 13, 2010, 13:46 GMT

    Absolute RUBBISH.... what exactly are CA trying to prove with this "wise" idea? T20 cricket has already done enough irreparable damage to the wonderful game of cricket and now with this stupid idea its really disheartening to even imagine what will happen in the future. Are you guys just interested in money, with utter disregard for skill?

  • Sudhir29 on August 13, 2010, 13:33 GMT

    It will be interesting. It takes away the toss factor. Would be nice to add in odi-follow-on (if you are 50 runs behind or something).

    At some point teams will declare , esp if rains are around the corner and if u think u have enough.

    Let's enjoy this !!!

  • oman20101982 on August 13, 2010, 13:18 GMT

    Though not the right place to write but just want to highlight my view ...

    I dont understand , Pakistan have 7 foot tall Fast bowler and he isnt incluided in the squad only to be taken out by Indian Cricket league Knight riders ...

    PLease , i request to PCB to include anyone who is naturally gifted like Muhammad Irfan , I dont understand ... ... With this much hieght only if he puts the ball in right area without even pace , he can get batsmen in trouble with bounce etc. I think it s a big decision not to take him to England , Only God Knows Best ....

  • Zubdog on August 13, 2010, 13:17 GMT

    how about keeping 50 over a side but moving the home games to local grade cricket grounds so then they don't have to pay massive amounts of money in leasing grounds so therefore it's cheaper for the spectators and it is also closer in location for everyone to attend. It would also look more attractive to have a big crowd at a small ground so then you can work your way up once you get attendance numbers going.

  • on August 13, 2010, 13:13 GMT

    It is nice to see another format being tried out. I believe that it is the beauty of the game that it allows such different formats to be incorporated in it. Two innings format in a 50 over game is a brilliant idea. The format would allow much more action and strategy to be employed that should be entertaining, both from the spectators and players point of view. Not that I had any problems with the 50 over format as it exists now, but if there are possible changes that would make the game more exiting, then why not! Naysayers and lost souls will always have their doubts and pessimism. There is nothing wrong with trying out new ideas. I will be looking forward to watching and playing the new format.

  • on August 13, 2010, 13:12 GMT

    It is nice to see another format being tried out. I believe that it is the beauty of the game that it allows such different formats to be incorporated in it. Two innings format in a 50 over game is a brilliant idea. The format would allow much more action and strategy to be employed that should be entertaining, both from the spectators and players point of view. Not that I had any problems with the 50 over format as it exists now, but if there are possible changes that would make the game more exiting, then why not! Naysayers and lost souls will always have their doubts and pessimism. There is nothing wrong with trying out new ideas. I will be looking forward to watching and playing the new format.

  • The-Allrounder on August 13, 2010, 13:11 GMT

    So Cricket Australia have spoken to 'stakeholders' have they? Personally, I wouldn't trust any cricket administrator who talks about 'stakeholders'. In fact, I wouldn't trust anyone who talks about 'stakeholders' full stop.

  • sid.losalka on August 13, 2010, 13:07 GMT

    Hey.. Why dont we tell them it's a simple gentleman's game that people watch to de-stress. Lets not make it a complex mathematical problem. The D/L method already has attracted a lot of Flak! Not one more please. Make useful innovations. Utilise the brain in training to make better players, rather than on such worthless formats. Respect the original format. Make good pitches. Make it more interesting.

  • on August 13, 2010, 12:59 GMT

    These are good rules, gives the team behind a chance to come back into the game by both teams having equal use of the conditions rather than killing the game when one team gets in front the other hasn't a chance, also i would like to see a follow on, but it would be rarely used

  • popcorn on August 13, 2010, 12:51 GMT

    What is the TEARING HURRY,James Sutherland and Company? Couldn't you have waited till the ODI World Cup 2011 is over next summer,and we win, then TRIAL this new format?

  • laddu009 on August 13, 2010, 12:48 GMT

    Where are all cricket purists who lambasted BCCI for creation of IPL....?? Now CA doesn't even have a 50 over game for all it's domestic season........I'm sure it will be heralded by Mr. Peter R as innovation.....so is it innovation or commercial interests...you guess...? The fact is that Cricket like all other games have to move on with time, generation, commercial and public requirements.

  • adam_clone on August 13, 2010, 12:42 GMT

    For the love of Grace! Can they make it any worse? What a big pile of rubbish ! And to think that Haydo was party to this... Sachin's beard !!! And oh, just in case anyone's wondering.... I mean W G 'Grace' !

  • Asambhav on August 13, 2010, 12:29 GMT

    Introducing this type of a format cannot be understood by most people across the world. If at all the 50 over format is not approved by many ,why can't the ICC just reduce the 50 over per inning to 40 over per inning after the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 next year.

  • on August 13, 2010, 12:25 GMT

    CA TAKE A BOLD AND GOOD IDEA FOR SPLIT ININGS I DON'T NO WHY aUSTRALIAN PLAYERS NOT SUPPORT THIS NEW PETRAN, IT WILL ATTRACT MORE SPECTATOR TO WATCH SUCH TYPE OF CRICKET. I HOPE OTHER COUNTRIES LIKE ENGLAND PAKISTAN WILL LIKE THE NEW TYPE OF GAME.odi WHICH ALSO LOOSSING ITS ATTENTION FROM THE PUBLIC WILL SERVI E

  • on August 13, 2010, 12:20 GMT

    This just shows the incompetencies of cricket boards. A large majority of players don't want these changes, that should say to them that its not necessary to change. With so many of the players not happy with the idea, can we expect top level cricket to be played by them? Not that I'm suggesting that they will slacken off, but they are essentially playing a game that they don't want to play. I have said many times before on these posts that I don't think split innings will change anything, as teams still would want their wickets in tact for the end, so they'll want to make sure there's wickets in hand at the end of the overall innings, because if you lose too many in the first 20 overs you can't build a solid total, much like it currently is.

  • tqhussain on August 13, 2010, 12:15 GMT

    This format sounds silly. Dont change 50 over cricket!

  • clutch28 on August 13, 2010, 12:13 GMT

    If Cricket Australia wants a two inning format...it already exists. It's called a 4-day game or a Test match at international level.

    Seriously, stick to T20 and Tests and get rid of the 50-over game....it's the weaker sister of the game anyway

  • on August 13, 2010, 12:07 GMT

    How will this aid Aussie's ODI side?

  • LeScotsman on August 13, 2010, 12:06 GMT

    It doesn't matter what form of cricket (or anything else) you play - if it's played to the point of saturation and rendered meaningless, people will always be bored.

  • JosRoberts on August 13, 2010, 11:47 GMT

    Worst. Idea. Ever. Seriously - this sounds like change for change's sake. Oh well, as long as it stays in Australia.

  • Green_and_Gold on August 13, 2010, 11:44 GMT

    It took me about a year to explain cricket to my girlfriend (She's Canadian) so with these changes I better add another 12 months! Shame really cause im a fan of the current 50 over format and would rather adjust the schedule of play that will better fit in the 3 formats of cricket than play with the structure of the game.

  • outswinging_thoughts on August 13, 2010, 11:31 GMT

    why 25 in the second innings.......make it 20........1-5 should make to 1-10 in the first innings and 1-5 in the second innings.........12 overs per bowler should be reduced to 10..........i agree with 2 bouncers and 12 players per team rather than a super striker............i hope split innings will bring a new dimension to one day cricket

  • Luke77 on August 13, 2010, 11:10 GMT

    We'll soon see if split innings is any good or not. But what I do like is a high % of overs per bowler of the whole innings. That is one good step forward. I'll wait and reserve my judgement.

  • robheinen on August 13, 2010, 10:50 GMT

    Will that be 40 wickets per match or 20? { I realise that the question has an obvious answer, but on the other hand, you never know what some geiunses come up with }

  • vishalnaik1982 on August 13, 2010, 10:48 GMT

    instead of fiddling with format the pitches should be made sporting to make matches interesting.

  • tfjones1978 on August 13, 2010, 10:38 GMT

    I love the idea and all of the key features, but would like to see two additional key features: (1) "The team with the most runs after 20 overs decides which team bats next". (2) "A minimum of 20 overs is required for a match to be official and in the event of rain ending play, the team with the most runs after 20 overs wins".

    Regarding "possibles versus probables" Aust should do this before each home series, but not like that. It should be the best 22 players split evenly into two teams with the captain (Ponting) and vice captain (Clarke) as the captains of each team as a "Cowboys vs Indians" type of game.

    This will display the best players in Australia whilst allowing each player to show their talents whilst playing against other good players. The idea would be that each team would compete against the other where the winning team would receive favorism by the selectors with Winners get two-thirds of the squad spots.

    Thus it would be effectively a playoff for marginal positions.

  • 9ST9 on August 13, 2010, 10:27 GMT

    This is just too complex - the rule will chase away the casual spectator. The 2 biggest problems with ODI's are overkill and too complicated rules. Batting powerplay, bowling power play and a lot of other rubbish. One of the plus points for T20 is it has very few complications - fileding restrictions for 6 overs- and that's it. However the maximum 12 overs per bowler and 2 bouncers are really good for the game. the bat domination should end soon.

  • on August 13, 2010, 10:25 GMT

    I like to format of the ODIs. I do not know why CSA wants to change it.

  • on August 13, 2010, 10:02 GMT

    what a load of rubbish why cant people leave cricket as it is why are they messing up such a beautiful game i rather watch test/50 overs cricket any day then the rubbish t20 and this split one day innings come on and please can we go back to fielding restrictions for the first 15 overs as it used to be rather then the power plays come on ICC sort this beautiful game out just stick to tests and the 50 over one day cricket. and leave t/20 for counties as at international level even good batsmen are becoming sloggers

  • on August 13, 2010, 10:00 GMT

    no one wants split ODIs. they dont need to do any changes in format to keep cricket interesting. Just needs to limit number of games!! so many are being played that its getting boring now. Used we wait for it! now... wot if I miss today, will be another one tomorrow :|

  • on August 13, 2010, 9:55 GMT

    excellent format tired of watching onday format moreover you can predict the game ,

  • Perplexed on August 13, 2010, 9:51 GMT

    This is not natural development of cricket, but rather an artificial step to create something that is not needed. I cannot see how this will succeed. Split the innings and you are forcing teams to build a single innings over two innings (only 10 wickets per team). What happens if the team batting first is bowled out in less than 20 overs and the team batting second needs more than 20 overs to score the winning runs? Will they have to take an innings break before carrying on with the match? What if they need only a single run to win at the end of the 1st innings? There are so many more holes in this formula.

    No, there is no need for this.

  • on August 13, 2010, 9:50 GMT

    rubbish! terrible idea. all of it. except for the new ball thing.

  • armie on August 13, 2010, 9:46 GMT

    Only thing i can comprehend is it is ridiculous. This is getting totally out of hand and soon cricket would become an absolute confusion and a total bore. I can't understand what CA is trying to achieve from such a format.

  • NIT2222 on August 13, 2010, 9:31 GMT

    this one really sux better was this shd be split in to two innings of 25 overs and poweplays shd have been enabled.........like icc rules...and even it would be really nice if follow on were enabled....tat would have been a great change for this format.....

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • NIT2222 on August 13, 2010, 9:31 GMT

    this one really sux better was this shd be split in to two innings of 25 overs and poweplays shd have been enabled.........like icc rules...and even it would be really nice if follow on were enabled....tat would have been a great change for this format.....

  • armie on August 13, 2010, 9:46 GMT

    Only thing i can comprehend is it is ridiculous. This is getting totally out of hand and soon cricket would become an absolute confusion and a total bore. I can't understand what CA is trying to achieve from such a format.

  • on August 13, 2010, 9:50 GMT

    rubbish! terrible idea. all of it. except for the new ball thing.

  • Perplexed on August 13, 2010, 9:51 GMT

    This is not natural development of cricket, but rather an artificial step to create something that is not needed. I cannot see how this will succeed. Split the innings and you are forcing teams to build a single innings over two innings (only 10 wickets per team). What happens if the team batting first is bowled out in less than 20 overs and the team batting second needs more than 20 overs to score the winning runs? Will they have to take an innings break before carrying on with the match? What if they need only a single run to win at the end of the 1st innings? There are so many more holes in this formula.

    No, there is no need for this.

  • on August 13, 2010, 9:55 GMT

    excellent format tired of watching onday format moreover you can predict the game ,

  • on August 13, 2010, 10:00 GMT

    no one wants split ODIs. they dont need to do any changes in format to keep cricket interesting. Just needs to limit number of games!! so many are being played that its getting boring now. Used we wait for it! now... wot if I miss today, will be another one tomorrow :|

  • on August 13, 2010, 10:02 GMT

    what a load of rubbish why cant people leave cricket as it is why are they messing up such a beautiful game i rather watch test/50 overs cricket any day then the rubbish t20 and this split one day innings come on and please can we go back to fielding restrictions for the first 15 overs as it used to be rather then the power plays come on ICC sort this beautiful game out just stick to tests and the 50 over one day cricket. and leave t/20 for counties as at international level even good batsmen are becoming sloggers

  • on August 13, 2010, 10:25 GMT

    I like to format of the ODIs. I do not know why CSA wants to change it.

  • 9ST9 on August 13, 2010, 10:27 GMT

    This is just too complex - the rule will chase away the casual spectator. The 2 biggest problems with ODI's are overkill and too complicated rules. Batting powerplay, bowling power play and a lot of other rubbish. One of the plus points for T20 is it has very few complications - fileding restrictions for 6 overs- and that's it. However the maximum 12 overs per bowler and 2 bouncers are really good for the game. the bat domination should end soon.

  • tfjones1978 on August 13, 2010, 10:38 GMT

    I love the idea and all of the key features, but would like to see two additional key features: (1) "The team with the most runs after 20 overs decides which team bats next". (2) "A minimum of 20 overs is required for a match to be official and in the event of rain ending play, the team with the most runs after 20 overs wins".

    Regarding "possibles versus probables" Aust should do this before each home series, but not like that. It should be the best 22 players split evenly into two teams with the captain (Ponting) and vice captain (Clarke) as the captains of each team as a "Cowboys vs Indians" type of game.

    This will display the best players in Australia whilst allowing each player to show their talents whilst playing against other good players. The idea would be that each team would compete against the other where the winning team would receive favorism by the selectors with Winners get two-thirds of the squad spots.

    Thus it would be effectively a playoff for marginal positions.