Australia news June 1, 2011

Split innings to be shelved by CA

  shares 63

Australian cricket's marketing experiment with split innings limited overs matches, and a bevy of exotic proposed rules for next summer's expanded Twenty20 competition, have been thrown out by the Cricket Australia playing conditions committee.

The committee, which serves a similar function to the ICC's cricket committee by deliberating on issues within the game, will forward these conclusions to the CA board for final approval at its next meeting. Committee members observed that the global body's commitment to 50-over cricket for the 2015 World Cup, and the success of the 2011 tournament on the subcontinent, made further split innings experimentation redundant.

Paul Marsh, the chief executive of the Australian Cricketers Association, sat on the committee alongside the CA chairman Jack Clarke, Greg Chappell and Mark Taylor - Matthew Hayden and Shane Warne were absent - and said that no other decision could have been made.

"It was really the only decision the committee could take from our perspective given that the ICC have now elected to push forward with the 50-over format towards the next World Cup," Marsh told ESPNcricinfo. "It wouldn't have made sense to have our players playing a different format domestically, heading into the next World Cup, so it was a sensible decision.

"The remit of the playing conditions committee, there's various things we look at but one of them is that it has to be a realistic chance of getting up at international level, but there's a time to trial things, and last year was that time. While we [the ACA] didn't think it should've been trialled, it was and now we've got to go back to keeping ourselves in-line with what the international format is."

Clarke noted that other elements of the domestic competition, "such as using two balls, one from each end, reducing restrictions on the number of overs bowlers can deliver or increasing the number of bouncers allowed", had been accepted as possible innovations by the ICC.

However a raft of outlandish proposed rules for next summer's T20 competition, presented to the public via a survey, were given short shrift by committee members, who reasoned that gambits like letting the crowd keep the ball or overs worth double runs were simply unnecessary.

"Common sense prevailed there," Marsh said. "The committee I know from the ACA's perspective we're supportive of initiatives that will promote the Big Bash and get the most people through the ground, and we've talked through a few alternative things there to help achieve that."

The matter of domestic playing surfaces was also addressed, and while general assessments of pitch conditions last summer were favourable, often achieving scores of 4.33/5 or better, groundsmen will be reminded of the need to prepare surfaces that reflect the challenges of Test cricket. Numerous players, coaches and the CA chief executive James Sutherland, have all pondered whether or not last summer's pitches did not help to equip Australia's players for the Ashes, where England's batsmen repeatedly ran up tall scores.

"The focus should most certainly be on trying to have wickets or pitches around the country that are as close to international pitches as you can get, that's the best preparation for players," said Marsh. "But there's no doubt the weather played a part in it last year, we've thought in some cases that states are prioritising result pitches over preparation for international cricket."

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY WhatMustTheICCThink on | June 4, 2011, 1:23 GMT

    Why don't batsmen bat in pairs for four overs like in kids cricket, with minus points every time they're out?

  • POSTED BY loveNpeace on | June 3, 2011, 15:58 GMT

    enough changes to the game. let the game play and enjoy. do not go after money like helllllllll. at the moment we have 3 formats. so why need to split the 50overs and play? because of icc felt 50 overs was too much and they Introduce T20. if we continue like this in another 10-15 years time will be playing 2 overs games.

  • POSTED BY satyam.sharma on | June 3, 2011, 5:39 GMT

    Wow, @Meety, thanks for the wonderful points and strong arguments. So, I'm wrong, and separate balls were indeed used from both ends in ODIs throughout the 90s (even though they weren't used for the 96 or 99 WC, as you can read from their playing conditions available online and publicly accessible via a simple Google search) because ... well, because you're saying so. That wraps it up quite nicely I suppose? As for the frequently bigger scores in ODIs nowadays, yeah right, its all because of NO SEPARATE BALLS FROM BOTH ENDS ... it clearly has nothing to do with the advent of T20, the new breed of batsmen - err, clouters - that have emerged in its wake, nothing to do with pitches. And, reverse swing is clearly another pro-batting element. Not to mention, having 2 separate balls from both ends clearly means we will have a reasonably new, visible, hard ball even in the last overs which would tilt the balance towards the BOWLER, right? Thanks for the pearls of wisdom, mate ...

  • POSTED BY Meety on | June 2, 2011, 23:01 GMT

    @satyam.sharma - No, you're wrong, the new ball at each end was used a hell of a lot more then "...the 1992 WC (co-hosted by CA) and a few VB series...". The balance between bat & ball WAS more towards the bowlers in those days. Check out the scores in that era, it was possible to defend a score around 160 in those days. These days 160 is hard to defend in a T20!

  • POSTED BY Jim1207 on | June 2, 2011, 15:21 GMT

    satyam.sharma, Sachin did not endorse any one's idea, he did not say "I second that idea". Sachin put forth few points on his own, which is called proposing and is different from endorsing. I am not mentioning Sachin should not have done that, but I am not just a fan of that idea. Sachin's proposal was good only as he mentioned the split innings would eliminate the advantage of winning the toss as both teams would get to bat and bowl on both morning and afternoon sessions of a day or likewise in a day night match which would avoid dew factor also. As for me, it has been a brilliant idea and Sachin was the only one who proposed such clearly hoping to avoid those little disadvantages present in current ODI format. Sachin did not copy anyone else or endorse it. But still I would like to see ODI as it is.

  • POSTED BY KingofRedLions on | June 2, 2011, 14:40 GMT

    Last thing to do is to shelve the new Big Bash League.

  • POSTED BY BionicBowler on | June 2, 2011, 13:32 GMT

    50 over cricket had good PR from the ICC World Cup. However there are still ways to improve the game without the 4 split innings idea experimented with domestically...For more info on a really new format called '5ives' which has had very encouraging early reviews from MCC no less visit www.5ivescricket.com

  • POSTED BY on | June 2, 2011, 10:44 GMT

    One innovation that should be tried is if a batsman hits the ball not only out of ground but even clears all the stands or out of viewing arena then it should be a tenner( rewarded with 10 runs) thus something bigger than a sixer and teams will still have hope off the last ball/over, free hits will become more interesting plus more posters of tenner in addition to four and sixer.

  • POSTED BY on | June 2, 2011, 10:04 GMT

    I believe rather than having a mid-innings break there should be 2 innings of 20 overs each. This way your favorite batsman has a second chance in case he gets out early in the first innings !! The run deficit and chase in the second innings will be an exciting prospect !!

  • POSTED BY Hoggy_1989 on | June 2, 2011, 8:44 GMT

    Why didn't they come to this conclusion 12 months ago and save everyone the hassle of not caring? As a result, CA lost a pile of money in gate takings, just about turned the player base against it for pushing ahead with something the majority hated and copped a towelling from the media for its perceived idiocy. Right, now can we just do the same thing with this new Big Bash League (everyone ignoring it and the player base hating it)...and then everything can get back to the way it should be - fostering good young players with competitive cricket and a balanced competition.

  • POSTED BY WhatMustTheICCThink on | June 4, 2011, 1:23 GMT

    Why don't batsmen bat in pairs for four overs like in kids cricket, with minus points every time they're out?

  • POSTED BY loveNpeace on | June 3, 2011, 15:58 GMT

    enough changes to the game. let the game play and enjoy. do not go after money like helllllllll. at the moment we have 3 formats. so why need to split the 50overs and play? because of icc felt 50 overs was too much and they Introduce T20. if we continue like this in another 10-15 years time will be playing 2 overs games.

  • POSTED BY satyam.sharma on | June 3, 2011, 5:39 GMT

    Wow, @Meety, thanks for the wonderful points and strong arguments. So, I'm wrong, and separate balls were indeed used from both ends in ODIs throughout the 90s (even though they weren't used for the 96 or 99 WC, as you can read from their playing conditions available online and publicly accessible via a simple Google search) because ... well, because you're saying so. That wraps it up quite nicely I suppose? As for the frequently bigger scores in ODIs nowadays, yeah right, its all because of NO SEPARATE BALLS FROM BOTH ENDS ... it clearly has nothing to do with the advent of T20, the new breed of batsmen - err, clouters - that have emerged in its wake, nothing to do with pitches. And, reverse swing is clearly another pro-batting element. Not to mention, having 2 separate balls from both ends clearly means we will have a reasonably new, visible, hard ball even in the last overs which would tilt the balance towards the BOWLER, right? Thanks for the pearls of wisdom, mate ...

  • POSTED BY Meety on | June 2, 2011, 23:01 GMT

    @satyam.sharma - No, you're wrong, the new ball at each end was used a hell of a lot more then "...the 1992 WC (co-hosted by CA) and a few VB series...". The balance between bat & ball WAS more towards the bowlers in those days. Check out the scores in that era, it was possible to defend a score around 160 in those days. These days 160 is hard to defend in a T20!

  • POSTED BY Jim1207 on | June 2, 2011, 15:21 GMT

    satyam.sharma, Sachin did not endorse any one's idea, he did not say "I second that idea". Sachin put forth few points on his own, which is called proposing and is different from endorsing. I am not mentioning Sachin should not have done that, but I am not just a fan of that idea. Sachin's proposal was good only as he mentioned the split innings would eliminate the advantage of winning the toss as both teams would get to bat and bowl on both morning and afternoon sessions of a day or likewise in a day night match which would avoid dew factor also. As for me, it has been a brilliant idea and Sachin was the only one who proposed such clearly hoping to avoid those little disadvantages present in current ODI format. Sachin did not copy anyone else or endorse it. But still I would like to see ODI as it is.

  • POSTED BY KingofRedLions on | June 2, 2011, 14:40 GMT

    Last thing to do is to shelve the new Big Bash League.

  • POSTED BY BionicBowler on | June 2, 2011, 13:32 GMT

    50 over cricket had good PR from the ICC World Cup. However there are still ways to improve the game without the 4 split innings idea experimented with domestically...For more info on a really new format called '5ives' which has had very encouraging early reviews from MCC no less visit www.5ivescricket.com

  • POSTED BY on | June 2, 2011, 10:44 GMT

    One innovation that should be tried is if a batsman hits the ball not only out of ground but even clears all the stands or out of viewing arena then it should be a tenner( rewarded with 10 runs) thus something bigger than a sixer and teams will still have hope off the last ball/over, free hits will become more interesting plus more posters of tenner in addition to four and sixer.

  • POSTED BY on | June 2, 2011, 10:04 GMT

    I believe rather than having a mid-innings break there should be 2 innings of 20 overs each. This way your favorite batsman has a second chance in case he gets out early in the first innings !! The run deficit and chase in the second innings will be an exciting prospect !!

  • POSTED BY Hoggy_1989 on | June 2, 2011, 8:44 GMT

    Why didn't they come to this conclusion 12 months ago and save everyone the hassle of not caring? As a result, CA lost a pile of money in gate takings, just about turned the player base against it for pushing ahead with something the majority hated and copped a towelling from the media for its perceived idiocy. Right, now can we just do the same thing with this new Big Bash League (everyone ignoring it and the player base hating it)...and then everything can get back to the way it should be - fostering good young players with competitive cricket and a balanced competition.

  • POSTED BY MrArmchairCricket on | June 2, 2011, 5:42 GMT

    Brilliant, now I can finally start attending Victoria's OD matches again, now all Cricket Australia need to do, is can the Big Bash League, bring back the state teams for the Big Bash and add the ACT and Northern Territory (based in Alice Springs), and all will be right in Australian cricket, at least domestically.

  • POSTED BY Meety on | June 2, 2011, 5:32 GMT

    @AbrahamBenjamin - I know where you are coming from re: making changes. I do think though that this was not a particularly bright decision (from Cric Oz), as a version of split innings occurred once before AND this was without ICC approval (in the form of changes at ODI level). @ inswing - mate soo many things I don't know where to start. 1) Just because somebody holds an opinion different to yours DOES NOT mean they're stupid 2) The split innings has now been trialled TWICE in OZ & people did NOT ".... get used to it in a few months" 3) Making it a 45 over 20/25 compitiion made no sense, at least previously when it was 25/25 that had some synergy with the original format, 4) no point in playing a domestic List A compitiion if it has no resemblance to the ODI version, 5) There was nothing that wrong with ODIs in the first place to warrant the change, get rid of meaningless 7-match bilaterals & ODIS would do well. 6) Change the balance between bat & ball - yes! Allow more bouncers!

  • POSTED BY ashlatchem on | June 2, 2011, 4:35 GMT

    A few days ago I read an interview on here with George Bailey the Tigers (Shield winners) captain. He said that though the weather played a part they still needed ptiches where they could get results otherwise they would be disadvantaged against say QLD where the Gabba usually always brings about a result. He also said something about picking players based on form not just potential...I think Hughes has to be a perfect example, his form before the Ashes certainly didn't warrant a call-up. He also said something about the ridiculous nature of the Future's League where only 3 players over 23 are allowed in the starting 11 and there were over restrictions for both innings. (96 1st inns, 144 total) Personally I think the last 2 points have a lot more substance regarding the Ashes than the first one. It's a shame that those 2 points were overlooked...

  • POSTED BY satyam.sharma on | June 2, 2011, 4:05 GMT

    @Meety: No, aside from the 1992 WC (co-hosted by CA) and a few VB series (CA again), separate balls were not used from both ends in ODIs through the 90s. Google up 1996/1999 world cup playing conditions and see for yourself. And no again, taking out reverse swing from the format will definitely neither make it more interesting nor even up the balance between bat and ball.

  • POSTED BY satyam.sharma on | June 2, 2011, 3:59 GMT

    @Looch @Jim1207: Endorsing or liking some idea currently floating around is not the same as proposing it. And of course, after some of the terrific matches we witnessed in the latest WC (not to mention the huge commercial success) fans, players and administrators alike are all wiser in hindsight, but when Sachin made those comments, ODIs were supposedly on their deathbed and people were indeed looking around for any and every "innovation" that could help keep the format alive.

  • POSTED BY on | June 2, 2011, 3:34 GMT

    good, the split innings match just wasnt cricket.

  • POSTED BY d_the_b on | June 2, 2011, 3:12 GMT

    @cricketaustralia - Your point about scheduling is a good one, and probably the deal-breaker. I think it would be nice to not have the modern constraints, but 'nice' doesn't put bread on the table (not nice bread anyway). Another problem I thought of is that as tests get timeless, batting sides will probably end up playing safer to ensure the biggest scores possible (and why wouldn't they?) meaning the games go on for much longer than I anticipated. My initial though was that the pitch being uncovered would make batting more difficult which in turn would shorten the game (I think this is what Meety (2/Jun,01:11AM) was getting at). In light of these issues I shelve the proposal for now, and instead put to you all that for 2 overs a session there must be a puma on the field of play, weather permitting.

  • POSTED BY Masud_BITK on | June 2, 2011, 2:46 GMT

    I simply don't understand why ACT was not included into Shefield Shield and Big Bash. Being a cricket organizer in ACT cricket, I strongly believe that ACT Cricket is capable of dealing teams with local and foreign boys. They can also hire players from abroad and/or other states, in place of making two teams from NSW and VIC. Unless ACT getting chance to build up now, Cricket AU pushing this state backward.

  • POSTED BY Jim1207 on | June 2, 2011, 2:08 GMT

    thair9999, Because this is a cricket website and Sachin is the God of cricket. See, I did not start it until you asked.

  • POSTED BY thair9999 on | June 2, 2011, 1:52 GMT

    Why Sachin has to be the part of comments of anything written on this website?

  • POSTED BY fazald on | June 2, 2011, 1:47 GMT

    I do agree with Jazee's idea somewhat of using two balls one from either end.It will no doubt eliminate ball tampering to a great extent where the umpires could have a closer look at the ball at the end of each over and the fielding side will always be aware of this & will not have the opportunity to do so.While there wouldn't be much of an opposition introducing this into the 50 over game where there is a compulsory ball change at the end of the 34th over there might be certain cricketers opposed to the idea in test cricket where the chances of reverse swing will be diminished to a great extent.However the ability to reverse swing itself is an advantage to the bowling side rather than to the batting side. There have been many instances & allegations of ball tampering in recent years where the umpires have overlooked or not been quite alert to detect such instances. An instance that comes to mind is where Afridi was seen biting the ball on TV during the Aus. vs Pak. series last year.

  • POSTED BY Jim1207 on | June 2, 2011, 1:39 GMT

    I am eternally thankful to Sutherland for bringing split innings format to Australia just before world cup and becoming one other reason for finally ending the Australian dominance in ODI format. Only other thing I would expect from CA is to bring on the split innings format one year before next world cup too ;-)

  • POSTED BY Jim1207 on | June 2, 2011, 1:29 GMT

    TopC, C you are going over the Top. T20 does not look like going to meet its demise anytime sooner :-)

  • POSTED BY Meety on | June 2, 2011, 1:29 GMT

    @satyam.sharma - SRT did not propose the idea of split innings but he CERTAINLY endorsed it in articles published by cricinfo on a number of times. As for new balls at both ends - assuming you are not about 12 & know of ODI cricket in the 20th century as opposed the 21st century, you would remember that new balls were used at both ends in the 1990s. The balance between bat & ball tended to fo the bowlers way in those days. @ jazee - given the trend at the last W/C - there are many spinnners capable of bowling with a new ball. It might stop part time trundlers being a large part of bottling up the middle overs though!

  • POSTED BY Jim1207 on | June 2, 2011, 1:26 GMT

    satyam.sharma, Yes, Sachin was one of the first who proposed to try something like 25-25 split innings with two innings as it happens in Test Cricket with following on rules and all, which looked more like test cricket played in one day (to make middle overs of ODIs interesting). That's a fact and the truth. But what CA tried was not related to what Sachin proposed, it was 20-25 split innings and I didn't care to look deep into what CA tried as it anyway looked like crap last year. I am not fan of Sachin's idea either.

  • POSTED BY Meety on | June 2, 2011, 1:11 GMT

    @d_the_b - I think if you had uncovered pitches, there would be no need for a "timeless" test. The other thing to consider is - scheduling. I think we'll never go back to uncovered pitches, (but I do like the idea), as for timeless tests, maybe the final test of a series that was currently tied - i.e 1 all. That would solve say the Sth Africa v India conundrum, where the 3rd test in Sth Africa finished on the 5th day deliciously poised. @ Behind_the_bowlers_arm - weather has played a MAJOR part in pitch preparation on the Eastern Seaboard. In the lead up to the 1st test we had unseasonably cool & wet conditions. Amazingly 2 days before the start of the test the sun came out, (after almost 6 weeks of rain), but at no stage for the next week or so did it get hot. That meant the pitch did not have it usual zing, it also meant that the pitch didn't deteriorate. Shield matches are usually prepared with a little more juice for a result but I agree a committee needs to monitor preparation!

  • POSTED BY getaclue on | June 2, 2011, 0:42 GMT

    great to see some common sense creeping back into cricket in Aus. The split innings were a disgrace and rarely created close games as was expected. It was a farce.

  • POSTED BY MasterClass on | June 2, 2011, 0:15 GMT

    Popcorn is a moron. Hey it rhymes! And no Sachin didn't come up with this, I DID.

  • POSTED BY TheOtherManana on | June 2, 2011, 0:10 GMT

    You guys are either all too young to remember or have short memories. For the first 10 to 15 years of coloured clothing cricket there was always two balls used (one from each end) - at least here in Australia. At the end of the over the umpire would pocket the ball and the players would use the second ball. That was because there was concerns then (as there are now) about the state of the ball and the difficulty with seeing the white ball when it got dirty.

    There is nothing new here, carry on.

  • POSTED BY AbrahamBenjamin on | June 2, 2011, 0:05 GMT

    Cricket's popularity is declining in Australia. That is a fact. Cricket Australia took a risk and tried the split overs format to boost popularity. It wasn't popular so they have shelved the idea. I admire them for taking the risk though. It's pretty easy to sit back and throw stones but at least CA are trying some things to improve the game.

  • POSTED BY Looch on | June 1, 2011, 23:58 GMT

    Good news is all I can say about this. @satyam.sharma, please read the article "Tendulkar for two innings each in ODIs" dated 4/09/09 on this website, before shooting your mouth off.

  • POSTED BY wgtnpom on | June 1, 2011, 23:47 GMT

    "It wouldn't have made sense to have our players playing a different format domestically" - are you listening England? One-day cricket has to be 50 overs, not 40. And South Africa.

  • POSTED BY samincolumbia on | June 1, 2011, 23:42 GMT

    This ridiculous idea was being pushed down people's throats by ACB...it got the treatment it deserved!!

  • POSTED BY jazee on | June 1, 2011, 22:27 GMT

    If each end use a different ball then it will also control the ball tempering as impire will have a chance to hold the ball for a will. The ball will stay new and only few spinners who can spin with newer ball will have advantage. The pace attach will take advantage only that a reverse swing will become extent in ODI.

  • POSTED BY satyam.sharma on | June 1, 2011, 22:16 GMT

    @popcorn: Sachin Tendulkar proposed split innings?!?!?! First it was the test crown, then the ODI crown ... and now looks like you aussies are losing your head itself! Ha ha ... BTW that separate ball from both ends is yet another idiotic "innovation" ... Sure, I know aussie bowlers are crap at reverse swing, but surely you guys should *fight* it out (what with all the "aussie attitude" you have) instead of just take it out of the game altogether by ensuring no ball gets to reach 25+ overs at all ... Ha ha, not to worry, this will be yet another idea that will start and end with CA.

  • POSTED BY green_jelly on | June 1, 2011, 22:13 GMT

    Yes split innings is a good idea. Infact, we should split it into 9 innings instead of just two. That would make it way more interesting. Of course, we need to save time, so bowlers shouldn't run up. They stand at one end and throw the ball. Also, it is more fun when batsmen hit in front of the wicket, so if the batsman hits it behind the wicket, it will be a "foul". With so many player injuries, all fielders must wear a big glove to catch the ball. And those stupid stumps... they keep falling over for no reason. No stumps. The umpire calls whether the throw would've hit a set of imaginary stumps. Yes, these rule changes will make cricket VERY interesting!

  • POSTED BY donda on | June 1, 2011, 19:21 GMT

    I think 1 ball from 1 end and 2nd ball from other end of the pitch is perfect Idea for ODI. I really like it.

  • POSTED BY inswing on | June 1, 2011, 18:40 GMT

    Split innings is a great idea. People are resistant to change, and stupid people are more resistant to change. If you actually implemented it, people would get used to it in a few months and nobody would think twice about it again. It would keep the games interesting longer. It breaks the rhythm of batting, yes, but that would be part of the challenge of batting and playing a long innings. ODIs and T20s are too biased towards batting anyway.

  • POSTED BY sammykent on | June 1, 2011, 18:24 GMT

    50 over cricket has always been great. It was only the threat of the T20 taking over that lead to variations of the odi format being considered. Now that T20 is losing some steam, and there is some equality in international odi games, the thought of changing odi's is out the window temporarily. I have friends that believe anything other than Test cricket is an abomination. Personally I love odi's as they are long enough to showcase talent but can be watched in a day, which most of us can sacrifice from time to time. T20's are fun and have developed into a strategic game despite the limited duration of the game. Test matches separate the men from the boys and showcase the mental fortitude required to be a genuinely excellent cricketer. Odi's give those genuine cricketers a chance to play within a timeframe that allows all the strategic and patient elements of Test cricket to be applied, along with some time to show off! Good move leaving Odi's the way they are.

  • POSTED BY mathewjohn2176 on | June 1, 2011, 17:42 GMT

    @popcorn,Anyone can propose the ideas but only idiotic CA followed the split innings.

  • POSTED BY cricketaustralia on | June 1, 2011, 17:12 GMT

    @ d_the_b: timeless tests.. really? international cricket schedules are already nightmares to organize without the added worries of is this test going to last 3 days or 11. people couldn't plan their holidays, first class matches would be affected and players are in burnout. as for having uncovered pitches, i bet you would be one of the first people complaining when there was no play because it rained the day before!

  • POSTED BY crikkfan on | June 1, 2011, 15:55 GMT

    popcorn no it was Martin Crowe's idea in the first place

  • POSTED BY D-Train on | June 1, 2011, 14:33 GMT

    With regards to the pitches, they got them right in the Sheffield Shield. They're getting them wrong at international level.

  • POSTED BY Behind_the_bowlers_arm on | June 1, 2011, 13:49 GMT

    Am fascinated by this talk of wickets in Shield cricket being too bowler friendly and result oriented and not helping potential Test players ...which is true. But then this is blamed on 'the weather'. So its possible for Queensland to prepare a road for the Test match and then not during Shield matches. Think CA are pussyfooting here. Need to appoint a central committee that monitors pitches and enforces what is good for the Test team and not partisan state interests.

  • POSTED BY IlMagnifico on | June 1, 2011, 13:39 GMT

    Undaunted by the latest slap in the face, ACA is proposing the Next Great Savior of Cricket -- split overs. Each half of the over will be bowled by bowlers from opposite team. There will be one extra ball in each over, bowled by the wicket keeper to a randomly selected spectator.

    In other news, A. Hilditch has been nominated for knighthood by Soccer Association of Australia for his great service to the world of soccer by adding more spectators to the game.

  • POSTED BY popcorn on | June 1, 2011, 13:30 GMT

    At last,good sense prevails. Wasn't it Sachin Tendulkar who proposed this idiotic split?

  • POSTED BY on | June 1, 2011, 13:08 GMT

    Split innings definitely will bring some twist in ODI matches its irrelevant that the team is Australia or Bangladesh because they will have double innings in a day with 22 wickets in hand!! CRIC authority should focus on it to popularise cricket in current faster life style.

  • POSTED BY fazald on | June 1, 2011, 12:57 GMT

    Chairman of Cricket Australia James Sutherland's idea of the split innings concept was doomed right from the start as no one seemed to endorse it.While our cricketers were engaged in a totally different format of 50 over cricket than what was played in the last world cup definitely we were disadvantaged even before a ball was bowled. Batsmen like Cameron White & David Hussey were clueless with their strokeplay not knowing how to build an innings. Likewise the idea of making certain changes to the T20's in the "Big Bash" next summer was equally a poor marketing ploy.The idea of starting a tournament of this nature when our cricket itself is in dire straits is a very poor decision by Cricket Australia.As such the decision taken by the cricket committee to a certain extent is the right one in the interest of Australian cricket. I reckon that the tournament itself should be scrapped as no overseas players seem to be interested other than some West Indies cricketers.

  • POSTED BY howizzat on | June 1, 2011, 12:56 GMT

    Thank God. The format is saved.

  • POSTED BY crackers134 on | June 1, 2011, 12:30 GMT

    Great news we are getting 50 over cricket back at domestic level!! Now just wish i could see the Victoria Bushrangers play Twenty20 cricket, not two manufactured "Melbourne" teams.

  • POSTED BY Saim93 on | June 1, 2011, 12:12 GMT

    Thank you World Cup, you put an end to this farce!

  • POSTED BY on | June 1, 2011, 12:10 GMT

    CRICKET IS GOOD JUST THE WAY IT IS..3 FORMAT TEST ODI and T20..There is no Need to change anything..!

  • POSTED BY d_the_b on | June 1, 2011, 12:05 GMT

    Here's the only innovation I'm gunning for: Please can we have Timeless Tests and uncovered pitches. Stay with me: one favours the batting side, the other the bowling side, both make the game even more interesting. Spin and the playing of spin would bloom, and just think of the world of tactics that would open up! The only way you'd ever see a drawn series would be if there was a Tie... I can't see a downside in this. What am I missing?

  • POSTED BY on | June 1, 2011, 11:31 GMT

    thank God that they put an end to these craps

  • POSTED BY ze_wolf on | June 1, 2011, 11:18 GMT

    In order for the condition of domestic pitches to be relevant you must select players who compete in the domestic competition. Perhaps in form players such as Cosgrove, Lynn or Khwaja. Maybe then we may have had a chance to retain the ashes? As for the innovations it's good to see common sense prevail, although I like the idea of 2 bouncers per over. As long as they're not wide bouncers give a good chance for runs or a wicket.

  • POSTED BY zeepurplefire on | June 1, 2011, 10:58 GMT

    T20 alone is a format enough to derail the charisma of good cricket, leave aside the split innings. I think cricket authorities are following pattern of Formula one,changing rules every season.hence atleast took me away from F1 eventually.

  • POSTED BY bobagorof on | June 1, 2011, 10:51 GMT

    Common sense prevailing at last. I can now start to watch ODD again. And I'm glad that they are keeping the sanctity of Twenty20 cricket, too - that 'double run over' rule was just a stupid suggestion. A game needs to stand on its own merits, and stuffing it full of gimmicks doesn't lend it any credance at all.

  • POSTED BY on | June 1, 2011, 10:12 GMT

    @arctictern ha:-D wot do u want next? A split t20??;)

  • POSTED BY masterblaster21 on | June 1, 2011, 10:03 GMT

    Good. About time. Now can we get rid of Hilditch?

  • POSTED BY s.sreekant on | June 1, 2011, 9:34 GMT

    finally some gud decisions taken by CA,split innings was so boring than original 50 overs instead they could innovate on power plays as when to take it.Hope they would taken good decisions on Hilditch and neilsen by sacking them.

  • POSTED BY TopC on | June 1, 2011, 9:32 GMT

    Yay! Split innings games are just glorified T20, thrilled to see the back of them...maybe this decision will be the turning point leading to the ultimate demise of T20. We can but hope!

  • POSTED BY arctictern on | June 1, 2011, 9:26 GMT

    Split innings ODI could become the 4th format of cricket. The success of ODI should not be taken as a no to emergence of further formats.

    As i see it, the general apathy is not towards ODIs but rather the dreary and meaningless 5 or 7 /odis between unmnatched teams that have no scope of close contests.

    The split innings would inject fresh vigour to cricket. An encapsulated version of test cricket in a ODI format, with a guarnateed second bite at the apple.

  • POSTED BY Something_Witty on | June 1, 2011, 9:13 GMT

    Good. Finally some good news.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY Something_Witty on | June 1, 2011, 9:13 GMT

    Good. Finally some good news.

  • POSTED BY arctictern on | June 1, 2011, 9:26 GMT

    Split innings ODI could become the 4th format of cricket. The success of ODI should not be taken as a no to emergence of further formats.

    As i see it, the general apathy is not towards ODIs but rather the dreary and meaningless 5 or 7 /odis between unmnatched teams that have no scope of close contests.

    The split innings would inject fresh vigour to cricket. An encapsulated version of test cricket in a ODI format, with a guarnateed second bite at the apple.

  • POSTED BY TopC on | June 1, 2011, 9:32 GMT

    Yay! Split innings games are just glorified T20, thrilled to see the back of them...maybe this decision will be the turning point leading to the ultimate demise of T20. We can but hope!

  • POSTED BY s.sreekant on | June 1, 2011, 9:34 GMT

    finally some gud decisions taken by CA,split innings was so boring than original 50 overs instead they could innovate on power plays as when to take it.Hope they would taken good decisions on Hilditch and neilsen by sacking them.

  • POSTED BY masterblaster21 on | June 1, 2011, 10:03 GMT

    Good. About time. Now can we get rid of Hilditch?

  • POSTED BY on | June 1, 2011, 10:12 GMT

    @arctictern ha:-D wot do u want next? A split t20??;)

  • POSTED BY bobagorof on | June 1, 2011, 10:51 GMT

    Common sense prevailing at last. I can now start to watch ODD again. And I'm glad that they are keeping the sanctity of Twenty20 cricket, too - that 'double run over' rule was just a stupid suggestion. A game needs to stand on its own merits, and stuffing it full of gimmicks doesn't lend it any credance at all.

  • POSTED BY zeepurplefire on | June 1, 2011, 10:58 GMT

    T20 alone is a format enough to derail the charisma of good cricket, leave aside the split innings. I think cricket authorities are following pattern of Formula one,changing rules every season.hence atleast took me away from F1 eventually.

  • POSTED BY ze_wolf on | June 1, 2011, 11:18 GMT

    In order for the condition of domestic pitches to be relevant you must select players who compete in the domestic competition. Perhaps in form players such as Cosgrove, Lynn or Khwaja. Maybe then we may have had a chance to retain the ashes? As for the innovations it's good to see common sense prevail, although I like the idea of 2 bouncers per over. As long as they're not wide bouncers give a good chance for runs or a wicket.

  • POSTED BY on | June 1, 2011, 11:31 GMT

    thank God that they put an end to these craps