England news August 27, 2009

ECB to ask ICC to review 50-over format

41

The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) is likely to propose that the ICC conduct a formal review of the future of the 50-over format after the 2011 World Cup to protect the ODI structure amid the rise of Twenty20 cricket, with a 40-over format topping the list of suggested alternatives.

The review was discussed informally at a strategy session in London during the ICC conference in June and has come into focus once again after the ECB announced on Thursday that it was switching to a 40-over domestic format from 2010. No formal decision on a format change has been taken at the ICC level but members expect England, which has long been looking at ways to reinvigorate the shorter form, to take the lead in proposing an official review soon. South Africa is the other major nation that does not have a 50-over competition in domestic cricket.

However, any review or proposed change will have to take into consideration the ICC's current commercial and broadcast deals - primarily with ESPN - which run until 2015 and include the 50-over World Cup in Australia and New Zealand. But if the ICC board agrees on a revamped ODI structure and gets its partners and sponsors on board, the format change is expected to happen sooner.

"The ICC has event, commercial and broadcast contracts in place up to and including the ICC Cricket World Cup in 2015," an ICC spokesperson said. "Those contracts, including host agreements with New Zealand and Australia, are all based on the 2015 ICC World Cup taking place as per ODI regulations. If the ECB wishes to table suggested changes to those contracts then that would have to go through due process with the ICC board and also, if there were to be a change of format, with the ICC's commercial and broadcast partners. There is nothing to stop members experimenting with other formats but the ICC is committed to three viable formats of the game - Tests, ODIs and T20Is."

England and England Lions will continue to play 50-over cricket internationally until the ICC review is complete, the ECB said. In fact, a sense of where ODI cricket is headed has been given by the ECB's new domestic competition that will be held mainly on Sunday afternoons. "The Powerplays and fielding restrictions will be the same as per international cricket but the match will be played over 40 overs," the ECB said.

Giles Clarke, the ECB chairman, also pointed to the fact that "the leading one-day team in world cricket - South Africa - does not mirror 50 overs at domestic level and, provided Powerplays and fielding restrictions were the same as the international format, the skills required were very similar."

A 40-over plan had also figured prominently in a speech delivered by James Sutherland, the chief executive of Cricket Australia, before the ICC Members' Forum last year. "The introduction of batting team Powerplays is a good move, but more questions need to be asked," Sutherland said. "The one-day game may actually be improved as a 40-over game; perhaps two innings per team; perhaps a different number of players - 12-14; perhaps the 30-metre circle size could be different - how would this change the game?"

Sutherland said that ICC members need to adopt a more proactive stance in experimenting and trialling possible innovations for the one-day game.

"The financial success of the modern game has been built on ODI cricket," he said. "Within this current bundle of commercial rights, our short-term future includes pinnacle World Cup events in 2011 and 2015; we owe it to ourselves to ensure that ODI cricket continues to be a popular force in the game. At both ICC, and at member level, we must vigorously protect one-day cricket and generously promote it. It has given us too much to deserve less."

The ICC has already launched efforts to boost the existing ODI format by unveiling a shorter and leaner version of the Champions Trophy that will start on September 22 in South Africa. The two-venue event will host the top eight ODI teams across 14 days.

Ajay Shankar is a deputy editor at Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • NewcastlePhoenix on September 3, 2009, 12:44 GMT

    I think that the 50/50 should stay, but the current format should change. I agree that the middle part of the game becomes boring and static. As suggested in the article, why can't we have 4 x 25 over innings, like a true 1 day test. Obviously players will get to bat twice in the day (if required), and I would like to team to be a larger unit, using a batting squad and a bowling and fielding squad, similar to gridiron. Making the 25 overs power packed with batting talent and the countries best bowlers and fielders.

  • Kirk-at-Lords on August 30, 2009, 0:47 GMT

    That "two innings a side" bit could be the lever that pries open meaningful change in the one-day format. Having Pro40 become a mini-Test, with innings limited to the same number of overs as the obviously popular T20 format, could give cricket a new centre of gravity that balanced the shortest and longest forms on the fulcrum of the one-day version. Combined with some day/night Tests covering 4 or 5 days (probably with their own form of limited overs, though far less restrictively so), the public would likely turn out for the novelty and stay for the new strategic permutations and excitement arising from forms ultimately more engaging and deep than T20.

  • Cricket_Writer on August 29, 2009, 22:06 GMT

    It's quite strange to see every one advocating the idea of squeezing 50 over format into 40/45. Well, let's not forget that this is the same format which have entertained for so many years and we were able to watch lots of nail biting matches likes of 1992 WC semi final & final, 1999 WC semi-final………………The last time ODI experienced major changes in 1992, for instance, use of white ball and colourful kits, and it was the modernisation of the game without gambling with crickets basics.

    And why is there any need to reduce number of over as on the other hand we have go T20 cricket. Just to remind, cricket isn't about only slogging and bowling Yorkers, as is the case in T20. It's about to see all the tricks i.e. singles, doubles, partnerships, batting and bowling with the old/new ball. So just not be so hasty with our views and in my opinion these two formats complement each other.

  • aadnan_2009 on August 29, 2009, 10:28 GMT

    For recent discussion about cricket format , i have following suggesstions 1 Elimination of ODI 2 Test should be 4 days long , provided that it should end with a result, for this purpose the first innings should be fixed between 60 to 90 overs, with no change in second innings & if the match goes toward draw at the end of both innings , the team which took lead in first innings should declare as winner.

    These steps make the pace of cricket fast & it would make cricket more interesting & result oriented & people will not miss the ODI because of the first innings of test

  • TwitterJitter on August 29, 2009, 5:24 GMT

    40-over cricket for ODIs is good in the subcontinent primarily because it allows the game to start after 4.00 pm when it is not so hot at the stadiums. I cannot beleive how people sit at the stadiums under the sun in 40+ degree celsius weather in summer and watch game. It is too hot. It is good that ECB is taking a lead on this issue. 50-overs is a good format if the weather is pleasant or if you are watching from air-conditioned boxes at the stadiums.

  • arjun814 on August 29, 2009, 3:50 GMT

    I agree ODI's should be scrapped. There is so much dull period in the middle overs of a ODI people of 21st century doesn't have time to watch that crap. Imagine a ODI after 10 overs if the score is 30/3 or 40/4. Look at the other popular sports around the world (Soccer, Rugby,Footy, Basketball, American Football and Baseball etc..).The reason why some of these sports are so popular is that they provide so much entertainment in 3hrs of time. T20 cricket does the same thing. For people who say that it is not traditional cricket, yes I agree but how is cricket going to survive without the new generation of people watching it. I think we should have Test cricket for Tradition and T20 for Entertainment, Revenue and Popularity. Test cricket is still very exciting if they are played on sportive pitches and not the dead sub-continent pitches.

  • krs_spidey on August 28, 2009, 19:23 GMT

    one more thing to re ignite ODIs is reducing too many and one sided meaning less ODIs and replace it with some

    t20s internatinally..i mean india is not playing any t20 international at all between this wc2009 and next wc2010 while

    they r playing a 7 ODI series againt australia later in oct this yr..it shud have been 5 ODIs and 2 t20s..icc shud just

    take 3 simple steps at the moment. 1. reduce 50ovr ODi to 40ovrs ....2. max of 25 ODIs in a calendar yr and 10to12 t20s for each team(excluding icc events like icc world cups, champions trophy)....3. have max 12 team ODI world cup and 16 team t20 world cup..minnow teams shud 1st be exposed to tough teams in t20..how can they beat them in ODI if they cant beat them in a t20... this will surely create a good mix of t20 and ODIs in international cricket..

  • krs_spidey on August 28, 2009, 19:05 GMT

    i agree with vijaypratap totally abt ODIs...40ovrs ODIs..20 ovrs of whcih shud be popwerplay....that will leave only ovrs 20 to 30 as relatively slow part of game(even that will become a bit fast due to reduced length of match and new rule of choosing 1 powerplay in hands of each team)...start matches at 4pm..4to6.50pm 1st half..6.50 to 7.30 break..7.30 to 10.30 2nd half..within 6 1/2 hrs match will be ovr..it will neither be too short for 3hrs like a t20 nor too long for 8hrs like 50 ovr ODI..enough time for ads and revenues and more entertaining and exciting cricket at same time..to evryone coomenting here abt scrapping ODIs i request let this happen 1st, see whether it provides more excitemnet, entertainment and thrill and its impact on game and then decide ODi future..dont discourage it right now..its better to try 40ovr ODi 1st than to scrap it straightaway...

  • cricket-vid on August 28, 2009, 14:40 GMT

    I said to some of my cricket buddies several years ago that T20 would threaten ODI and end up driving it out of the game. I got some funny looks. There is now speculation about the remaining life span of ODI's as the T20 game has grown at a faster than expected rate of popularity. T20's meets its AND ODI's original purpose, to draw a less informed fan base and provide greater entertainment value in a shorter space of time. Their is no way that ODI's will survive - regardless of any re-formatting. T20 fills that space and it fills it handsomely with sell out crowds. The ICC will over the next few years try to rejig the ODI format in hope of its survival. I have no doubt the games admistrators will eventually look back and realise that the 50 over format did infact evolve and ultimately fulfill its original purpose. It evolved into T20 cricket.

  • LITT on August 28, 2009, 13:16 GMT

    like most of comments, i would also like if 50 over format is altogether scrapped. But lets have a look at scenario from a different prospective. Suppose it T20 bubble bursts in next couple of years (b'cos of it becoming hit or miss game), even though there are very less chances, but if it does and ICC also decides to scrap 50-over, then what will be the future of cricket?? It will be a great shame.

    I think the best way-out is to wait & watch till T20 version matures and this will also save ICC from a financial disaster, which can happen due to cancellation of events like WC 2015 and Champion Trophies in-between.

  • NewcastlePhoenix on September 3, 2009, 12:44 GMT

    I think that the 50/50 should stay, but the current format should change. I agree that the middle part of the game becomes boring and static. As suggested in the article, why can't we have 4 x 25 over innings, like a true 1 day test. Obviously players will get to bat twice in the day (if required), and I would like to team to be a larger unit, using a batting squad and a bowling and fielding squad, similar to gridiron. Making the 25 overs power packed with batting talent and the countries best bowlers and fielders.

  • Kirk-at-Lords on August 30, 2009, 0:47 GMT

    That "two innings a side" bit could be the lever that pries open meaningful change in the one-day format. Having Pro40 become a mini-Test, with innings limited to the same number of overs as the obviously popular T20 format, could give cricket a new centre of gravity that balanced the shortest and longest forms on the fulcrum of the one-day version. Combined with some day/night Tests covering 4 or 5 days (probably with their own form of limited overs, though far less restrictively so), the public would likely turn out for the novelty and stay for the new strategic permutations and excitement arising from forms ultimately more engaging and deep than T20.

  • Cricket_Writer on August 29, 2009, 22:06 GMT

    It's quite strange to see every one advocating the idea of squeezing 50 over format into 40/45. Well, let's not forget that this is the same format which have entertained for so many years and we were able to watch lots of nail biting matches likes of 1992 WC semi final & final, 1999 WC semi-final………………The last time ODI experienced major changes in 1992, for instance, use of white ball and colourful kits, and it was the modernisation of the game without gambling with crickets basics.

    And why is there any need to reduce number of over as on the other hand we have go T20 cricket. Just to remind, cricket isn't about only slogging and bowling Yorkers, as is the case in T20. It's about to see all the tricks i.e. singles, doubles, partnerships, batting and bowling with the old/new ball. So just not be so hasty with our views and in my opinion these two formats complement each other.

  • aadnan_2009 on August 29, 2009, 10:28 GMT

    For recent discussion about cricket format , i have following suggesstions 1 Elimination of ODI 2 Test should be 4 days long , provided that it should end with a result, for this purpose the first innings should be fixed between 60 to 90 overs, with no change in second innings & if the match goes toward draw at the end of both innings , the team which took lead in first innings should declare as winner.

    These steps make the pace of cricket fast & it would make cricket more interesting & result oriented & people will not miss the ODI because of the first innings of test

  • TwitterJitter on August 29, 2009, 5:24 GMT

    40-over cricket for ODIs is good in the subcontinent primarily because it allows the game to start after 4.00 pm when it is not so hot at the stadiums. I cannot beleive how people sit at the stadiums under the sun in 40+ degree celsius weather in summer and watch game. It is too hot. It is good that ECB is taking a lead on this issue. 50-overs is a good format if the weather is pleasant or if you are watching from air-conditioned boxes at the stadiums.

  • arjun814 on August 29, 2009, 3:50 GMT

    I agree ODI's should be scrapped. There is so much dull period in the middle overs of a ODI people of 21st century doesn't have time to watch that crap. Imagine a ODI after 10 overs if the score is 30/3 or 40/4. Look at the other popular sports around the world (Soccer, Rugby,Footy, Basketball, American Football and Baseball etc..).The reason why some of these sports are so popular is that they provide so much entertainment in 3hrs of time. T20 cricket does the same thing. For people who say that it is not traditional cricket, yes I agree but how is cricket going to survive without the new generation of people watching it. I think we should have Test cricket for Tradition and T20 for Entertainment, Revenue and Popularity. Test cricket is still very exciting if they are played on sportive pitches and not the dead sub-continent pitches.

  • krs_spidey on August 28, 2009, 19:23 GMT

    one more thing to re ignite ODIs is reducing too many and one sided meaning less ODIs and replace it with some

    t20s internatinally..i mean india is not playing any t20 international at all between this wc2009 and next wc2010 while

    they r playing a 7 ODI series againt australia later in oct this yr..it shud have been 5 ODIs and 2 t20s..icc shud just

    take 3 simple steps at the moment. 1. reduce 50ovr ODi to 40ovrs ....2. max of 25 ODIs in a calendar yr and 10to12 t20s for each team(excluding icc events like icc world cups, champions trophy)....3. have max 12 team ODI world cup and 16 team t20 world cup..minnow teams shud 1st be exposed to tough teams in t20..how can they beat them in ODI if they cant beat them in a t20... this will surely create a good mix of t20 and ODIs in international cricket..

  • krs_spidey on August 28, 2009, 19:05 GMT

    i agree with vijaypratap totally abt ODIs...40ovrs ODIs..20 ovrs of whcih shud be popwerplay....that will leave only ovrs 20 to 30 as relatively slow part of game(even that will become a bit fast due to reduced length of match and new rule of choosing 1 powerplay in hands of each team)...start matches at 4pm..4to6.50pm 1st half..6.50 to 7.30 break..7.30 to 10.30 2nd half..within 6 1/2 hrs match will be ovr..it will neither be too short for 3hrs like a t20 nor too long for 8hrs like 50 ovr ODI..enough time for ads and revenues and more entertaining and exciting cricket at same time..to evryone coomenting here abt scrapping ODIs i request let this happen 1st, see whether it provides more excitemnet, entertainment and thrill and its impact on game and then decide ODi future..dont discourage it right now..its better to try 40ovr ODi 1st than to scrap it straightaway...

  • cricket-vid on August 28, 2009, 14:40 GMT

    I said to some of my cricket buddies several years ago that T20 would threaten ODI and end up driving it out of the game. I got some funny looks. There is now speculation about the remaining life span of ODI's as the T20 game has grown at a faster than expected rate of popularity. T20's meets its AND ODI's original purpose, to draw a less informed fan base and provide greater entertainment value in a shorter space of time. Their is no way that ODI's will survive - regardless of any re-formatting. T20 fills that space and it fills it handsomely with sell out crowds. The ICC will over the next few years try to rejig the ODI format in hope of its survival. I have no doubt the games admistrators will eventually look back and realise that the 50 over format did infact evolve and ultimately fulfill its original purpose. It evolved into T20 cricket.

  • LITT on August 28, 2009, 13:16 GMT

    like most of comments, i would also like if 50 over format is altogether scrapped. But lets have a look at scenario from a different prospective. Suppose it T20 bubble bursts in next couple of years (b'cos of it becoming hit or miss game), even though there are very less chances, but if it does and ICC also decides to scrap 50-over, then what will be the future of cricket?? It will be a great shame.

    I think the best way-out is to wait & watch till T20 version matures and this will also save ICC from a financial disaster, which can happen due to cancellation of events like WC 2015 and Champion Trophies in-between.

  • AJ_Tiger86 on August 28, 2009, 9:44 GMT

    The 50 over game should be scrapped altogether. There's no point of having a 40 over game when there is Twenty20 cricket. 50 over cricket is the second most boring sport on the planet after Basketball.

  • AARON.IFTEKHAR on August 28, 2009, 8:14 GMT

    After shortened or evolved OD limited over Cricket into solely Twenty20 Cricket, once again going to revamp ODI structure in cricket is totally useless and foolishness. Logically an average or middle format, ODI 50 / 45 / 40 / 35 /30 - over format, gives a mixed taste - sweet'n'sour taste, nothing good for the development of cricket, except killing of time and revenue accordingly. First of all we must decide why we need an extra format or a revamped ODI structure in cricket - 1) to improve quality of the game and proficiency of the player - you've classical test format; 2) to get some extra revenue - everyone knows only T20 can give that; 3) to spread cricket all around the world - beyond the test countries no other countries will accept a longer version of cricket. So, ICC should review it, and be scrapped it altogether. @ bobagorof, tell us logically point by point, by removing the format entirely what would be a massive loss to the game, except some tension and drama.

  • adian on August 28, 2009, 8:08 GMT

    Hey buddies,,,,, i strongly agree with 40 overs format but let me share a new format of my own with u,,,, what do u think if out of eleven players only six players will do bating and five will bowling..... the six players wil be specialist batsman while the five specialist bowlers,,,, no tailenders no tension,,,hahahha,,,,, u know how i got this idea,,,,, let me tell u this as well,,,,,, very funny but real,,,,,,,resently in one of the ODI between paksitan and sri lanka,,,,,,, sri lanka were 80/6 but then andrew methews came and played tremendous 50,,,,,, and sri lanka easily survived by making a good total,,,,, pakistan didt get that total and lost that match,,, after match i use to think about various aspects of the match ,,,,,, and that night suddenly i got ths idea,,,,,, coz the tailender realy created tension ,,,,, hahhhhah just kiding,,,,,, same happen in 2nd test between australia and england,,,,, where the tailenders save the match,,,,,,,,so wot do u think abt this format

  • winners3 on August 28, 2009, 8:07 GMT

    they are changing the 50 over game to revive the test game the best way to revive it is that if a tem is 300 above in the their 2nd inings on the 4th day at any time on this day, they have to declare and then other team has to chase it. If the other team fails to chase it loses. This way both team will trie to draw. However if a tem is still in its first inings on 4th day it will have ti declare and the other team has to score as many runs as it can on the 4th day and set it the total by end of day and has to declare. Again the fist tem has to chase all runs or it loses. If falling on the 4th day it has to set has to get in lead and set runs. if does not get into lead by end of day it will lose. If in lead the other team chases down runs to win. to save the draw system this should be done in 1 or second matches of series

  • vijaypratap on August 28, 2009, 6:25 GMT

    I agree ODIs are a complete waste of time. main problem is, ODIs have always been boring, in the middle overs 15-40 it is a slow, drab process, just players going through the motions. I think ODIs should be 40 overs, with 2 powerplays. start the match at 4 pm finish at 10.30pm, there is no other way to save this format. T20 also needs some changes: otherwise it has become a hit or miss affair, batting skills dont matter kind of thing, tailenders come in and swing their bats and they score 20-30 runs which eventually decides a match. I suggest, have 3 designated bowlers, who will not be allowed to bat, and 3 batsmen, 1 WK, and 4 allrounders. SO each team will have only 8 batsmen, that will give good batsmen a chance to spend some time in the middle.

  • moronosaurus on August 28, 2009, 5:45 GMT

    ODIs are a waste of time - I only watch Tests and T20s now. And I agree with shahidmahmood - the 40 over game is useless unless it was played over two innings of T20. (I'd suggest having the batting order reversed in the second innings, but I suppose that's sillier than even one of Kesavan's ideas.)

  • umairsddq on August 28, 2009, 5:44 GMT

    @ bobagorof its true tht many ODIs hav had very dramatic endings but if u look at T20s most of them hav nerve -wrecking endings. but as a cricket myself i think 50-50 is helpful in developing a player so they should keep it at domestic level but abolish it at international level and introduce at T20 x2 innings format!

  • cricbytes on August 28, 2009, 3:58 GMT

    One more thing, did Football or soccer whatever you call it changed even once. Only those games gain world wide status that retain there features and that is the base and basic features. You can add or delete minor things from time to time but the real thing remains solid.

  • cricbytes on August 28, 2009, 3:43 GMT

    40 over cricket what it will be called ... F40s ... really its amazing to note that with ODIs giving no problem at all why the change is required. The change just for a change does not make any sense. Only the retired players from ODIs are making statements about the ODIs to go just to have a say in the media because they are not discussed in media any more. The likes of Shane, Hayden falls into it. So you wanna change. Yes i accept innovations and new ideas should be added but that should enhance the format and not to completely drop the format. ODI format is perfect which requires all the skills of tests and t20s. You want to have quick runs in first 20 and last 5 to 6 overs. And the Patience and maturity of test cricket comes in the middle overs. Its really a mix of both.

  • shahidmahmood on August 28, 2009, 3:21 GMT

    I say that that they stick to the 50 over format but also bring a 20 overs x2 innings/side. But there's no point of bringing 40 overs/side instead of 50.

  • bobagorof on August 28, 2009, 3:18 GMT

    I respectfully disagree with AARON.IFTEKHAR that 50-over format cricket gives nothing. I have seen many 50-over matches that are full of tension and drama - far more than any of the Twenty-20 matches I've seen. An example is the World Cup match between England and Australia in 2003. Australia, chasing 205 after England fought back from 87/5, were reduced to 114/7 off 32 overs. Bevan and Lee, then Bevan and Bichel managed to defy the English bowlers and survive for the remaining 18 overs to scrape a win with 2 balls to spare. That match sticks with me still. I'm all for reducing the number of matches in a series (England and Australia are about to play a 7 match series!), particularly in areas where there aren't a large number of grounds or travel between grounds is easy, but removing the format entirely would be a massive loss to the game.

  • redneck on August 27, 2009, 23:47 GMT

    if it aint broke, dont fix it! ofcoarse the ecb want to change the structure of one dayers as they have been the worst preforming team since the formats inception! i hate that all CEOs of sporting bodies in any sport now try and run things like a buisness. always try to grow and expand the game with stupid innovations like this one, under some dellusion that it will appeal to more people. all these type of moves do is turn people that are already cricket supporters off the sport! and another thought all the statistics that have been recorded over the first 30 odd years of ODI's would be pretty much worthless if it switches to 40 overs.

  • LOL_kumaran on August 27, 2009, 23:01 GMT

    I agree with AARON.IFTEKHAR.

    50 50 has to be scrapped. Test cricket and 20-20 cricket are the best formats and they would complement each other pretty well.

  • Peligrosisimo3 on August 27, 2009, 22:18 GMT

    The 40 over a side is a good idea I think. The T20 is just too short and is over in no time. It is merely just swinging the bat at the ball. Cricket was really not meant to be played like that.After a while it just becomes very monotonous and repetitive. With the innovation of the batting power play the game has evolved a bit and has become more interesting. The 30 over a side I think is still a bit too hectic. The 2nd power play can be taken from a block of 4 overs say 22-25 and the last five will still basically be the "happy hour slog".40 is alright even 35 would be ok. I don't think that the runs for wides is a good idea as one could find bowlers purposely bowling wides. Say a bowler has bowled 5 good balls and the over has gone for 3 runs then the bowler could then purposely bowl a wide ball to not concede boundary. Or say in the last ball of the match 4 runs is needed the bowler can think to himself. I just bowl a wide and game over. 40 or 35 would be ideal for me.

  • dashe on August 27, 2009, 22:17 GMT

    ARE YOU GUYS KIDDING, ONE DAY CRICKET IS AWESOME. THE BOWLER ACTUALLY GETS 10 OVERS TO OPERATE AND GET INTO A GROVE, SOMETHING 20 20 CRICKET DOES NOT ALLOW. SERIOUSLY DO YOU WANT BOWLERS TO DIE. 50 50 IS DOING GREAT IN ASIA AND IN AUSTRALIA NEWZEALAND EVERYWHERE. JUST BECAUSE ENGLAND SUCK, THEY HAVE COME UP WITH THIS IDEA. ITS LUDICROUS.

  • NewAgeCricket on August 27, 2009, 21:48 GMT

    More than two formats of any game is an overkill. Every game is defined by the 'Moments'( 4 6 wkt etc) that will be remembered even after the game and Result being the most important. ODI became an instant hit as it reduced the time between such moments. Time is even costlier now and T20 provides more worth for the time spent. Now the ODI is redundant and even Test will soon loose its appeal if it does not provide times' worth. There are lot of aspects of Tests that do not provide any value for the time. Ex., watching a tired bowler vs. tailender. How much time can we afford between two good 'Moments'. Finally, there should be a mechanism not an intention to provide the most important moment of a game- 'Result'. Its ltime to club Test and ODI. Each Team will field 12 players and 6 wkts/inngs. Each team gets 200 overs for both inngs together plus addl overs saved by bowling out opposition before their quota. Each day will have 80 overs with an option of new ball after 60 overs

  • Paul_JT on August 27, 2009, 21:20 GMT

    If a third format is to exist alongside Test and Twenty20, then one innings each of 40-over with fielding restrictions for the first 12-overs is the strongest option. It is in proportion with Twenty20, long enough to fill a full day and conveniently shorter than 50-over. PowerPlays, SuperSubs and DoubleTwenty20 are confusing the issue. KISS - keep it simple stupid!

  • tigers_eye on August 27, 2009, 21:14 GMT

    ECB doing this cause they don't have quality spinners who dictate the middle overs in ODIs, which they call boring?

  • JAZ_SINGH on August 27, 2009, 20:23 GMT

    What a joke from the ECB. As if the ICC will ever listen to them. If it was the BCCI then yeah they would have no choice apart from listen to them.

  • cr1cketman on August 27, 2009, 20:20 GMT

    I wish T20 was never invented! It is slowly but surely consuming and KILLING the game of cricket altogether.

  • r1m2 on August 27, 2009, 19:47 GMT

    I think ODI should be transformed into a mini version of Test, and not seem so similar to T20. I think this is how the ODI format should be transformed: Two innings of 25 overs a side. Rules of innings should be similar to Test cricket, with few exceptions such as: 1) The not-out batsmen from first innings have to continue in the second innings. I.e. it's still 10 wickets to bat across 50 overs. 1-10 wickets should bat out in order from inning1 to inning 2 for the team. 2) Any one bowler is limited to 5 overs max per inning. 3) First 5 overs of each inning would be power-play.

  • D.V.C. on August 27, 2009, 19:18 GMT

    Has anybody making these suggestions considered the impact a change in this format would have on Associate Cricket. This is the longest form of the game played by most Associate countries, shortening it could have dire consequences for the development of the game in those areas.

  • tfjones1978 on August 27, 2009, 19:15 GMT

    I love the idea. I would scrap 50 over cricket and replace with: * 2 Innings per side, 40 overs per innings (12 hour game, eg: 9am - 9pm). * 15 players per team (11 starters + 4 bench), where captain can substitute upto 4 times during match (similar to football sports). * If TeamX fails to bowl overs by schedule, TeamX looses overs/runs. * If TeamY bowls out TeamX before schedule, TeamY gains overs/runs.

    I would change test cricket by: * Two 25 over & Two 20 over sessions each day (instead of Three 30's), being 25,20,20,25. * Each side takes turns batting session by session. EG: A 0/100, B 3/60, A 2/180, B 5/130, etc ... until either one side wins or 20 sessions is complete (ie: drawn). * 15 players per team (11 starters + 4 bench), where captain can substitute upto 4 times during match (similar to football sports).

    T20's focus needs to be on playing against Associate countries more (competition wise).

  • thunderpaws on August 27, 2009, 18:22 GMT

    why not wee fire crackers in the stumps that go off when the batsman's out or perhaps the wicket could be replaced with an ice rink or even use a pink ball?

  • chintumani on August 27, 2009, 18:09 GMT

    Even stop thinking about such stupid ideas. 50 becomes 40 then 30 then 20 then 10 and cricket disappears. Every cricket fan loves a 50-over game and test game rather than a "commercialised" 20 over format. If money is the only thing for which cricket is played then probably scrap everything and have 20-over "gully" type cricket .It was really hard to hear such things from Warne too.

  • zainhilal94 on August 27, 2009, 17:22 GMT

    This is a piece of joke. As far as Asia is considered, one day cricket is doing really fine. The other countries need to find their own ways to grow interests in the game among the fans. If there's something that should be reviewed, then it should be test cricket. Rather than day and night test cricket I would like to see a world series every year as proposed by Mathew Hayden. It will create more interest among the cricket fans and every match would mean something. This is I think the best way to keep test cricket alive. They need to scrap off the FTP and think about a world series. One day and T-20 should be played like they're being played right now.

  • howizzat on August 27, 2009, 17:14 GMT

    40 Overs a side is a very very good idea. It finishes the game two and half hours early. D/N matches can be started as late as 4PM onwards. But two innings per side is a super non sense. More innovations such as , 1.Further redustion in time can be achieved by penalising WIDES by runs and not by rebowling. How exciting will the over be if penalised as First wide-2Runs, 2nd wide-4 Runs,3rd wide-6Runs and 4th wide-terminating the over by a maximimum for the overs by 36 Runs!! 2.Each team to chose 13 players and playing any eleven at a time. 3. Doing away with TOSS and asking the teams alternately to bat and field in a series of games and thereby reducing the bad luck factor. 4. Doing away with overdose of matches and a series of not more than 4 matches at a time and keeping sanctity of the tormat. 5. Of the 40 overs 2 bowlers are allowed to bowl 10 overs each or one is allowed to bowl 12 Overs and the list should go on.

  • Tiptop32 on August 27, 2009, 16:58 GMT

    A 30 or 35 overs match will make it very interesting to watch as we have witnessed in the rain interrupted ODI matches where both sides played for same number of overs. 40 overs will be too many in the Twenty20 era. A 30 or 35 overs match will have the elements of both 50/20 over matches. Hope ICC makes it 35 overs.

  • AARON.IFTEKHAR on August 27, 2009, 16:49 GMT

    No-no-no, no needs any 40-over format in cricket. Along with OD 50-over, 45 / 40-over games should be scrapped altogether, as all they have evolved into solely Twenty20 Cricket, which originally introduced by the ECB, in 2003. In cricket two format is enough. Test format gives the ultimate proficiency of the cricket, and Twenty20 gives revenue, dynamism and globalism of the cricket. Now Twenty20 Cricket needs to include in Olympics and other major games, like Asian Games, African Games, Commonwealth Games, and proposed South Asian Subcontinental (SAS) Games. The "time-killing" ODI 40 / 45 / 50-over format cricket gives nothing, nothing at all - nothing materially, spiritually, or proficiently. Even ODI World Cup events in 2011 and 2015 could transformed to T20i World Cup successfully. Internationally cricket only needs launching of World Test Championship Cup ASAP.

  • ChinmayD on August 27, 2009, 15:49 GMT

    ODI is very, very safe. It's still the favourite format of the game in India. Ultimately, that is all that matters if you are looking at the financial side of things.

  • the-anti-mule on August 27, 2009, 15:45 GMT

    Yes. Review it and scrap it. If at all scrap both T20 and 50 overs to make a 30 over version. This would be best of both worlds.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • the-anti-mule on August 27, 2009, 15:45 GMT

    Yes. Review it and scrap it. If at all scrap both T20 and 50 overs to make a 30 over version. This would be best of both worlds.

  • ChinmayD on August 27, 2009, 15:49 GMT

    ODI is very, very safe. It's still the favourite format of the game in India. Ultimately, that is all that matters if you are looking at the financial side of things.

  • AARON.IFTEKHAR on August 27, 2009, 16:49 GMT

    No-no-no, no needs any 40-over format in cricket. Along with OD 50-over, 45 / 40-over games should be scrapped altogether, as all they have evolved into solely Twenty20 Cricket, which originally introduced by the ECB, in 2003. In cricket two format is enough. Test format gives the ultimate proficiency of the cricket, and Twenty20 gives revenue, dynamism and globalism of the cricket. Now Twenty20 Cricket needs to include in Olympics and other major games, like Asian Games, African Games, Commonwealth Games, and proposed South Asian Subcontinental (SAS) Games. The "time-killing" ODI 40 / 45 / 50-over format cricket gives nothing, nothing at all - nothing materially, spiritually, or proficiently. Even ODI World Cup events in 2011 and 2015 could transformed to T20i World Cup successfully. Internationally cricket only needs launching of World Test Championship Cup ASAP.

  • Tiptop32 on August 27, 2009, 16:58 GMT

    A 30 or 35 overs match will make it very interesting to watch as we have witnessed in the rain interrupted ODI matches where both sides played for same number of overs. 40 overs will be too many in the Twenty20 era. A 30 or 35 overs match will have the elements of both 50/20 over matches. Hope ICC makes it 35 overs.

  • howizzat on August 27, 2009, 17:14 GMT

    40 Overs a side is a very very good idea. It finishes the game two and half hours early. D/N matches can be started as late as 4PM onwards. But two innings per side is a super non sense. More innovations such as , 1.Further redustion in time can be achieved by penalising WIDES by runs and not by rebowling. How exciting will the over be if penalised as First wide-2Runs, 2nd wide-4 Runs,3rd wide-6Runs and 4th wide-terminating the over by a maximimum for the overs by 36 Runs!! 2.Each team to chose 13 players and playing any eleven at a time. 3. Doing away with TOSS and asking the teams alternately to bat and field in a series of games and thereby reducing the bad luck factor. 4. Doing away with overdose of matches and a series of not more than 4 matches at a time and keeping sanctity of the tormat. 5. Of the 40 overs 2 bowlers are allowed to bowl 10 overs each or one is allowed to bowl 12 Overs and the list should go on.

  • zainhilal94 on August 27, 2009, 17:22 GMT

    This is a piece of joke. As far as Asia is considered, one day cricket is doing really fine. The other countries need to find their own ways to grow interests in the game among the fans. If there's something that should be reviewed, then it should be test cricket. Rather than day and night test cricket I would like to see a world series every year as proposed by Mathew Hayden. It will create more interest among the cricket fans and every match would mean something. This is I think the best way to keep test cricket alive. They need to scrap off the FTP and think about a world series. One day and T-20 should be played like they're being played right now.

  • chintumani on August 27, 2009, 18:09 GMT

    Even stop thinking about such stupid ideas. 50 becomes 40 then 30 then 20 then 10 and cricket disappears. Every cricket fan loves a 50-over game and test game rather than a "commercialised" 20 over format. If money is the only thing for which cricket is played then probably scrap everything and have 20-over "gully" type cricket .It was really hard to hear such things from Warne too.

  • thunderpaws on August 27, 2009, 18:22 GMT

    why not wee fire crackers in the stumps that go off when the batsman's out or perhaps the wicket could be replaced with an ice rink or even use a pink ball?

  • tfjones1978 on August 27, 2009, 19:15 GMT

    I love the idea. I would scrap 50 over cricket and replace with: * 2 Innings per side, 40 overs per innings (12 hour game, eg: 9am - 9pm). * 15 players per team (11 starters + 4 bench), where captain can substitute upto 4 times during match (similar to football sports). * If TeamX fails to bowl overs by schedule, TeamX looses overs/runs. * If TeamY bowls out TeamX before schedule, TeamY gains overs/runs.

    I would change test cricket by: * Two 25 over & Two 20 over sessions each day (instead of Three 30's), being 25,20,20,25. * Each side takes turns batting session by session. EG: A 0/100, B 3/60, A 2/180, B 5/130, etc ... until either one side wins or 20 sessions is complete (ie: drawn). * 15 players per team (11 starters + 4 bench), where captain can substitute upto 4 times during match (similar to football sports).

    T20's focus needs to be on playing against Associate countries more (competition wise).

  • D.V.C. on August 27, 2009, 19:18 GMT

    Has anybody making these suggestions considered the impact a change in this format would have on Associate Cricket. This is the longest form of the game played by most Associate countries, shortening it could have dire consequences for the development of the game in those areas.