|
ICC news
Lorgat, Hussey not convinced on one-day changes
July 19, 2010
|
|||
|
Related Links
Peter English : Thumbs up, reluctantly
News : Cricket Australia considering radical one-day changes News : CA confirms split-innings one-dayers News : Hussey 'not a fan' of 40-over cricket News : World Cup 2015 likely to stay at 50 overs News : Cricket Australia considers new 40-over format Players/Officials:
Michael Hussey
| Haroon Lorgat
Series/Tournaments:
Australian Domestic Season
Teams:
Australia
|
|||
Cricket Australia might be keen to foist split-innings one-dayers on the supporters but their own players are not yet convinced the format will work - and neither is the ICC. The chief executive of the ICC, Haroon Lorgat, has said he is not a fan of the concept, while one of Australia's most experienced ODI players, Michael Hussey, is sceptical about the new innovations CA is considering.
The Australian board is looking at a number of options it could trial during its split-innings games in the coming domestic season, including a "super striker", a designated batsman who is able to bat in both innings. The CA chief executive James Sutherland was in London on Sunday to brief the Australian Test players on the ideas, which will be trialed before next year's 50-over World Cup.
Hussey has already professed his love for the traditional one-day format and after hearing CA's plan, little had changed. Despite being a batsman himself, the notion of one player being able to bat twice in a game held no appeal for Hussey, who said the Australian players were still in favour of the existing ODI format.
"I don't think it is right because one of the great challenges about batting is you get your chance and if you get out first ball you appreciate your wicket so much," Hussey said. "If you know you've got a second chance it doesn't sit right with me.
"It's more for the fans really, more for the entertainment value. If there's someone like a Chris Gayle who obviously draws a lot of people to the game, if he does happen to get out first ball at least some of the population - certainly not our fielding team - will be happy that he'd get another chance. But I must admit it doesn't quite sit right with me."
Nor do some of Cricket Australia's ideas appeal to the ICC chief Lorgat, despite the fact that the game's governing body has encouraged national boards to experiment with limited-overs cricket at the domestic level. Instead of a major overhaul of the ODI format, Lorgat would prefer to see fewer meaningless games played, with 50-over games contributing to a team's path to the World Cup.
"I must admit I'm not yet a fan of that," Lorgat told Test Match Special on Friday when asked about split-innings one-dayers. "A lot of people feel that 50-over cricket is under threat. I'm not one of those pessimists. There may be a few tweaks, but when people talk about fundamentally bringing in the bulldozer and revamping 50-over cricket, I'm not one of those sceptics at the moment.
"I think sometimes there are too many one-day games in a [bilateral] series. If we are able to structure some sort of league that has got meaning, that allows you to qualify ultimately to the World Cup, that creates a lot more context. Then of course there is the sheer volume of it, and at what times of the year we play it. All of those factors we should look at first before we fundamentally look at altering that format of the game."
The ICC remains confident the 2015 World Cup will be a 50-over competition and it believes that ODIs are still popular, especially on the subcontinent. However, crowds have dropped off for one-day internationals in Australia, where this summer there will be a seven-match series against England following the Ashes, and even the players concede there is room to improve.
"If it could be made better or more interesting for the fans, and more interesting for the players as well, then you've got to look at trying to make things better all the time," Hussey said. "We're open to suggestions but I think we've got to be pretty careful not to try and change too much."
Brydon Coverdale is a staff writer at Cricinfo
Feeds: Brydon Coverdale
© ESPN EMEA Ltd.
| Comments have now been closed for this article |
||||||
TopE-mail
Feedback
Print
Brydon Coverdale
Assistant Editor Possibly the only person to win a headline-writing award for a title with the word "heifers" in it, Brydon decided agricultural journalism wasn't for him when he took up his position with ESPNcricinfo in Melbourne. His cricketing career peaked with an unbeaten 85 in the seconds for a small team in rural Victoria on a day when they could not scrounge up 11 players and Brydon, tragically, ran out of partners to help him reach his century. He is also a compulsive TV game-show contestant and has appeared on half a dozen shows in Australia.
Sponsored Links
Watch Bollywood movies for free
Citibank NRI Account, Fast Reliable & Secure Way to
Transfer Money. Apply Online Now!
Access your Indian Rupee earnings from anywhere in the world.
ICICI Bank Money2India brings " locked exchange rate" and a free gift
on registering and transfer of USD 250 and above.
BUY England 2012 official Test & ODI kit
Available now at Cricshop
Less matches, no change format. More meaningful series. Bang vs WI or Pak. NZ vs SL or Eng, SAF vs Aus or India
Posted by champion1469 on (July 20 2010, 04:33 AM GMT)these changes are ridiculous. hussey and lorgat are 100% right, leave the game the way it is, it is up to the players to provide the 'entertainment', by skilled efforts with bat, ball and fielding, not through innovative yet ultimately short sighted changes. even 20/20 in england is now experiencing a dip in interest, same as odi's, and all due to overexposure and meaningless games.
Posted by Kirk-at-Lords on (July 20 2010, 02:54 AM GMT)Regarding match context -- that is very important and should be maximised in all forms of cricket. A Test Championship and seeding for the World Cup make perfect sense. This is not a substitute for improving ODI playing conditions, which provides immediate context and interest for supporters. Both forms of context need important changes, so experimentation should commence and continue at a brisk pace until such time as all forms of cricket emerge as worthy games to play and watch.
Posted byThe solution is to get rid of these 7 match bilateral series. What's the point? A two-team ODI series should comprise of 3 matches. A split-innings match is like putting 2 T20s side by side and we already have T20 matches.
Posted by Kirk-at-Lords on (July 20 2010, 02:38 AM GMT)What >>is<< Mr Lorgat on about? As article author Coverdale tactfully points out, ICC officially encourages member experimentation. Cricket AUS does so, and then Mr Lorgat whinges! Then Mr Lorgat proposes still more tweaks to the "beloved" ODI! There have been so many rules changes already, including one (super-substitutes) that seemed to come and go in the space of a single Test match. Just what might Mr Lorgat have in mind? We are left to wonder ... Now, a solid, near-great pro like Michael Hussey has a point about double-dipping in the batting (also true for bowling), but that is a key dynamic of Tests. Of course, pitch wear would be far less of a factor in an ODI, but that is not something that should stop experimentation with the 2-innings format. I for one am deeply grateful to CA for their courage and daring in this matter.
Posted by S.N.Singh on (July 19 2010, 23:57 PM GMT)SPLITING THE 50 OVERS COULD BE VERY ENTERTAINING. THE FIRST 25 OVERS COULD BE ATTACKING AND THE SECOND 25 OVERS THE TEAM MAY BE ABLE TO CONTROL THE GAME. BOTH HALF SHOULD CARRY THE RULES AS OF 20/20L WITH SLIGHT CHANGE IN THE LAST HALF. WITH LESS PEOPLE IN THE RING. THIS WILL BE GOOD CRICKET. IT IS AN ADVANTAGE FOR RAIN AFFECTED MATCH. S.N.SINGH
Posted by threeheadedmonkey on (July 19 2010, 23:19 PM GMT)Meaningful games are the way. Games need context and teams should be playing towards qualifying for world events and i think these qualifiers should include the associate nations and try to boost them onto the big stage, at the moment they get to qualify against other associates noone cares about but the impact of them playing real sides could boost cricket in those countries. T20's should only be used as domestic comps and tour show cases before an ODI takes place.
Posted by 10dulkar100 on (July 19 2010, 21:07 PM GMT)(Continuing where I left off) Imagine Australia vs South africa 3 tests/4 tests with 5 ODIS in ENGLAND? I would watch it. I'm sure a lot of you would too. It would be interesting to see the Ashes in India. Then we can see what punter is really made of. Interesting tri series between 3 competitive sides is the best way to save ODI cricket. PERIOD. End of story.
Posted by 10dulkar100 on (July 19 2010, 21:07 PM GMT)#1 - Playing 2 test matches is the most pointless thing ever, regardless of what teams are facing each other. #2 - Have competitive teams face each other. Imagine a series betwen the top 3 sides in the world, Australia India & SouthAfrica. Or maybe Sri Lanka vs NZ vs WI in a tri series. Now that's competitive. Always have people play games against countries that are ranked near each other. No meaningless bangladesh australia or stupid india srilanka games. Never have more then 5 ODIs. regardless of what team, 5 ODIs are too many. For sub continent sides playing abroad, it should be 3+ tests (Ideally 4) and 5 ODIS with maybe 1-2 T20s Also, stop with all the grounds with an lightening fast outfield added to the fact that the grounds are smaller then ever before and the bats are better then ever before. Test matches should allow everyone, fast bowlers, spinners & batsmen to show their skill. (Example: South african/English pitches). Also, start having teams play abroad.
Posted by jaztech on (July 19 2010, 18:40 PM GMT)I think it's been pretty well known by most observers of the game for quite some time that the problem has been far too many games and far too many inconsequential games. And the reason for this is that the cricket administrators have been keen to make as much money as they can. Any current 'interest' in reinventing the game is window dressing simply to continue to make more money by playing more and more games. The administrations do not care about the game of cricket.