Future of one-day cricket September 11, 2009

ICC looking at four 25-over innings in ODIs

Cricinfo staff
58

The ICC is considering a trial splitting of one-day matches into two innings of 25 overs for each team, Dave Richardson, the ICC's cricket manager, has said. The idea was mooted by Sachin Tendulkar last week.

"I quite like that idea, I believe South Africa may trial something along those lines," Richardson told BBC Sport. "This might work in day-night cricket where one team has to bat in day and the other at night. It provides something different and reduces the effects on the team who loses the toss and has to bat first on a damp wicket, for example."

Richardson believed the concept, discussed during the ICC's cricket committee annual meeting at Lord's in May, could breathe life into the 50-over format, which has been increasingly threatened by the rise in popularity of Twenty20 cricket.

Though two innings of 25 overs could lead to new strategies and even reduce the influence of winning the toss in favourable conditions, Richardson was eager to prevent results becoming predictable. His concern was that splitting the innings could take away scoring opportunities for the batsmen.

"I don't necessarily like the idea of playing two matches of 25 overs each with the openers batting again," he said. "The charm of one-day cricket is seeing someone batting at four and scoring a good hundred. If you bat in the middle order of a Twenty20 or a new 25-over innings, you're not to get much of an opportunity to hit three figures, one downside of the Twenty20 game."

The clamour for a fresh approach to the one-day game has grown considerably with players including Tendulkar 50-over games be played over two innings to provide similar overhead conditions for both teams. Tendulkar said the contests were becoming too predictable because results of "close to 75% of matches" could be predicted after the toss.

The England and Wales Cricket Board recently agreed to scrap the domestic Friends Provident Trophy, the only 50-over domestic cricket tournament, in favour of an expanded Twenty20 competition along with a 40-over format. Cricket South Africa are also likely to join the bandwagon as it considers changes to its 45-over competition.

However, Richardson said the experiment would have to be successful at the domestic level before changes could be made to the international game. "The bottomline is if we can come up with a product that is better than the existing one, then everyone would like to look at it," he said. "If it has been trialled successfully at domestic level, it may give the trial to give it the go-ahead at international level.

"The ICC has been proactive with ideas and innovations, like the powerplays. The idea of the 'super-sub' (scrapped in March 2006) wasn't as successful and got rid of quite quickly. One of the criticisms was that we trialled things at international as opposed to domestic level. Our tactics going forward are member countries trial changes first domestically and if they are successful, then we can take them on board at the international level."

The ICC's cricket committee is set to meet again in 2010 when the results of the experiment will be discussed.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • BoomBoomAdnan on September 15, 2009, 5:44 GMT

    The best idea is to make ODI like test cricket with no fielding restrictions and no limits on how many overs a bowler can bowl. This will be fair to the bowlers and will be much better contest between bat and ball. im sure we wont see one guy bowling 25 overs straight so all the teams would need to have alteast 4 specialist bowlers and it will be intesrting to see how the captains make their combinations. it will be true test for the bowlers, batsmen and specialy the captain.

  • mclarenx94 on September 15, 2009, 3:35 GMT

    The profits from 20 20 cricket are triggering all these riddiculous ideas. Real cricket is about skills and tehnique and not about going for cheap shots. In 20 20 batsmen get fewer balls to play, they score less hundreds and gritty match winning innings will only be memories. 20 20 is very much like baseball where the batter swings at every pitch hoping to hit a home run regardless of how good the pitch is. You wont see a number 6 batsman come in and score a hundred to save his team. 20 20 will also cause a further decline in talented bowlers b/c there is nothing in it for them. They only bowl 4 overs and feel relieved after bowling a dot ball. Wickets fall due to riddiculous shots. You will not see the likes of shane bond, curtly ambrose, waqar younis, dale steyn, brett lee if 20 20 becomes the focal point of cricket. Tendulkar is following the money hungry administrators to destroy cricket. He should retire b/c he will never be as good as Lara.

  • RBcric8r on September 14, 2009, 20:04 GMT

    Good Idea! RESUME 2ND INNING FROM WHERE IT STOPPED IN THE 1ST! So the batsmen can continue batting where they left and still get the same opportunities for scoring centuries. It is fair that way so that the younger crop get's equal opportunities for records...

  • Anneeq on September 14, 2009, 13:07 GMT

    This makes no sence, why turn into test cricket format? Cricket has become too over complicated now, with a no ball given when fielders are outside the circle during fielding restrictions, powerplays, this running into 'the danger end.' All these additional rules etc need to stop!! just keep it simple. Football for example is simple, the only 'complicated' rule is the offside one.

    Just do a 20/20, whats the point of two innings of 25 overs, i mean the more we innovate the more unrecognisable the games becoming, i say scrap 50 over cricket and just do tests and 20/20. 50 over isnt a pure cricket its an innovation just like 20/20, so i dont see this huge need to preserve it. Its the tests that need the preserving. We cant ignore how 20/20 has pulled in the crowds, essentially thats what sport is, its entertainment for the crowd. People say 'oh its just a crowd pleaser!' isnt that the whole point of sport? to entertain and please us?

  • ultimatewarrior on September 14, 2009, 8:39 GMT

    This is a very good idea to revive the ODIs by dividing into 4 segments of 25 overs. I am having 2 more suggestions on similar line: 1. Winner of toss will decide 4 segments of 25 overs as Team A-Team B-Team A-Team B OR Team A-Team B-Team B-Team A 2. Revision of Duckworth Method of calculating target of 2nd Inning that gives a little more advantage to team batting second with "all 10 wickets in hand"

  • BionicBowler on September 13, 2009, 20:30 GMT

    I think the format that would be best if it was 2 x SEGMENTS of 25 overs per side or split like American Football into 4 Quarters to make up 50 overs each. This way at half time the batsmen who were there at the end of the first quarter would just carry on their innings but this time under lights. To help speed up the game what about bowling from one end for 25 overs for one team, then the opposition bowls from the other end for the next 25? Then swap it over for the last half of the game. This would save a lot of time with time wasting over after over. The batsmen just swap around at the end of the over. This would speed up the game no end and still be fair.

  • gopikrishna63 on September 13, 2009, 9:31 GMT

    This is a great idea.Now there wont be too much importance on the toss.The only thing thought is, in the second innings the teams should resume from where they left of in the first innings, instead of the openers coming again.

  • 2.14istherunrate on September 12, 2009, 20:03 GMT

    As experts in pointless tinkering,silly schemes, and unwanted rule changes,as well as sacrificing everything else for money, ICC here are only being themselves.I would be very interested to see if this went beyond a season's use,after which most sensible people could say they'd said so all along.Probably the only really fruitful thing to do with 50 over ODI's is to try 40 over ones if one is looking for change. The other obvious thing is that there are too many played;which is not to say they should play more 20-20 or even Tests, but maybe have more hours away to rest and recuperate because too many players get injured too often,in my recollection far more than thirty years ago.

  • youfoundme on September 12, 2009, 12:40 GMT

    The ICC is killing the traditionalism and respectability that cricket has left slowly and surely. When the simple solution would be to cut back Twenty/20 cricket to 1 game per every 5 ODI's and 3 Tests, they are instead trying to make the latter shorter and "more entertaining" (which is total rubbish, we all know that money is the real cause for this nonsense).

  • spinkingKK on September 12, 2009, 12:13 GMT

    Playing two innings of 25 overs each is not the same. So, all the previous records and stats become meaningless. There will be no more centuries or far less of them compared to the current version. They may have to find a new name for the new format(Test XP?). My opinion is to just split them into two innings than playing two separate innings. Meaning, One team plays the 25 overs and then resumes it from where they left off after the 25 overs of batting from the other team. That way, the not out batsmen can come back and score their centuries or half centures. Only difference will be, they may be facing a bigger or lighter task when they resume,depending on what the other team scored in their first 25 overs. With regards to the other changes, I thought the substiute player was a good change. I don't know why it is a failure. With the substitue player option, an old great batsman or a player who is good in batting alone (Like Brian Lara or VVS.Laxman) could still play the ODI's.

  • BoomBoomAdnan on September 15, 2009, 5:44 GMT

    The best idea is to make ODI like test cricket with no fielding restrictions and no limits on how many overs a bowler can bowl. This will be fair to the bowlers and will be much better contest between bat and ball. im sure we wont see one guy bowling 25 overs straight so all the teams would need to have alteast 4 specialist bowlers and it will be intesrting to see how the captains make their combinations. it will be true test for the bowlers, batsmen and specialy the captain.

  • mclarenx94 on September 15, 2009, 3:35 GMT

    The profits from 20 20 cricket are triggering all these riddiculous ideas. Real cricket is about skills and tehnique and not about going for cheap shots. In 20 20 batsmen get fewer balls to play, they score less hundreds and gritty match winning innings will only be memories. 20 20 is very much like baseball where the batter swings at every pitch hoping to hit a home run regardless of how good the pitch is. You wont see a number 6 batsman come in and score a hundred to save his team. 20 20 will also cause a further decline in talented bowlers b/c there is nothing in it for them. They only bowl 4 overs and feel relieved after bowling a dot ball. Wickets fall due to riddiculous shots. You will not see the likes of shane bond, curtly ambrose, waqar younis, dale steyn, brett lee if 20 20 becomes the focal point of cricket. Tendulkar is following the money hungry administrators to destroy cricket. He should retire b/c he will never be as good as Lara.

  • RBcric8r on September 14, 2009, 20:04 GMT

    Good Idea! RESUME 2ND INNING FROM WHERE IT STOPPED IN THE 1ST! So the batsmen can continue batting where they left and still get the same opportunities for scoring centuries. It is fair that way so that the younger crop get's equal opportunities for records...

  • Anneeq on September 14, 2009, 13:07 GMT

    This makes no sence, why turn into test cricket format? Cricket has become too over complicated now, with a no ball given when fielders are outside the circle during fielding restrictions, powerplays, this running into 'the danger end.' All these additional rules etc need to stop!! just keep it simple. Football for example is simple, the only 'complicated' rule is the offside one.

    Just do a 20/20, whats the point of two innings of 25 overs, i mean the more we innovate the more unrecognisable the games becoming, i say scrap 50 over cricket and just do tests and 20/20. 50 over isnt a pure cricket its an innovation just like 20/20, so i dont see this huge need to preserve it. Its the tests that need the preserving. We cant ignore how 20/20 has pulled in the crowds, essentially thats what sport is, its entertainment for the crowd. People say 'oh its just a crowd pleaser!' isnt that the whole point of sport? to entertain and please us?

  • ultimatewarrior on September 14, 2009, 8:39 GMT

    This is a very good idea to revive the ODIs by dividing into 4 segments of 25 overs. I am having 2 more suggestions on similar line: 1. Winner of toss will decide 4 segments of 25 overs as Team A-Team B-Team A-Team B OR Team A-Team B-Team B-Team A 2. Revision of Duckworth Method of calculating target of 2nd Inning that gives a little more advantage to team batting second with "all 10 wickets in hand"

  • BionicBowler on September 13, 2009, 20:30 GMT

    I think the format that would be best if it was 2 x SEGMENTS of 25 overs per side or split like American Football into 4 Quarters to make up 50 overs each. This way at half time the batsmen who were there at the end of the first quarter would just carry on their innings but this time under lights. To help speed up the game what about bowling from one end for 25 overs for one team, then the opposition bowls from the other end for the next 25? Then swap it over for the last half of the game. This would save a lot of time with time wasting over after over. The batsmen just swap around at the end of the over. This would speed up the game no end and still be fair.

  • gopikrishna63 on September 13, 2009, 9:31 GMT

    This is a great idea.Now there wont be too much importance on the toss.The only thing thought is, in the second innings the teams should resume from where they left of in the first innings, instead of the openers coming again.

  • 2.14istherunrate on September 12, 2009, 20:03 GMT

    As experts in pointless tinkering,silly schemes, and unwanted rule changes,as well as sacrificing everything else for money, ICC here are only being themselves.I would be very interested to see if this went beyond a season's use,after which most sensible people could say they'd said so all along.Probably the only really fruitful thing to do with 50 over ODI's is to try 40 over ones if one is looking for change. The other obvious thing is that there are too many played;which is not to say they should play more 20-20 or even Tests, but maybe have more hours away to rest and recuperate because too many players get injured too often,in my recollection far more than thirty years ago.

  • youfoundme on September 12, 2009, 12:40 GMT

    The ICC is killing the traditionalism and respectability that cricket has left slowly and surely. When the simple solution would be to cut back Twenty/20 cricket to 1 game per every 5 ODI's and 3 Tests, they are instead trying to make the latter shorter and "more entertaining" (which is total rubbish, we all know that money is the real cause for this nonsense).

  • spinkingKK on September 12, 2009, 12:13 GMT

    Playing two innings of 25 overs each is not the same. So, all the previous records and stats become meaningless. There will be no more centuries or far less of them compared to the current version. They may have to find a new name for the new format(Test XP?). My opinion is to just split them into two innings than playing two separate innings. Meaning, One team plays the 25 overs and then resumes it from where they left off after the 25 overs of batting from the other team. That way, the not out batsmen can come back and score their centuries or half centures. Only difference will be, they may be facing a bigger or lighter task when they resume,depending on what the other team scored in their first 25 overs. With regards to the other changes, I thought the substiute player was a good change. I don't know why it is a failure. With the substitue player option, an old great batsman or a player who is good in batting alone (Like Brian Lara or VVS.Laxman) could still play the ODI's.

  • tfjones1978 on September 12, 2009, 11:54 GMT

    I think four innings of 25 overs each with 10 wickets is effectively two T20 matches. A better product would be Four innings of 25 overs with a MAX of 10 wickets (ie: 50 overs & 10 wickets split into 2 innings) for each team. Also, team that leads at half way point should decide the order of the last 2 innings (ie: A,B,A,B or A,B,B,A).

  • Themba on September 12, 2009, 9:34 GMT

    t20 is also heading the same route. There is just too much ODI`s being played. It the same match against the same country. Every match must be a special occassion. The long term solution is to cut down on ODIs being played. Play the T20 world cup over four years. Scrap the champions trophy.Also less international cricket means people will take more interest in domestic cricket.We cant have a situation where only 15 people in any country can make a decent living off cricket.

  • Asif_Iqbal on September 12, 2009, 8:59 GMT

    Bad Idea and if this applied I'm sure 50 over match will be scraped very soon and or it will heart the 5 day 2 innings test

  • Raj_pandian on September 12, 2009, 8:14 GMT

    Its a bad way of combating T20 cricket. 50 over's cricket is still more interesting and I really don't understand why people want to implement these stupid changes in it. Only few will get opportunity to prove themselves in this format ,may be the first 4 batsman and 4 bowlers. Then what is the use of playing cricket with 11 people. There is no point in playing two 25 over innings back to back,since it is nothing different from a 20/20 match. So people, please don't spoil the beauty of ODI.

  • sal485 on September 12, 2009, 8:02 GMT

    This is a nice idea of splitting ODI into two innings.But innings should be split into 30-15 or 35-15 overs two innings, instead of two 25 over innings.To allow maximum chance for everyone in first innings and to compete fieresly in 2nd innings. This format will maintain interest throughout the match.

  • Harvey on September 12, 2009, 7:04 GMT

    The reason I have become bored with 50 over cricket is not because of the format. It's because of the fact that due to the greed of international cricket boards and the ICC there's too much of it being played, and the matches have become meaningless to players and spectators alike. My solution would be to scrap the Champions Trophy and replace 5 and 7 match ODI series with 3 match series. A sense of occasion would be restored to ODI's, and each game would actually mean something. The gap created in the schedule would allow for more international Twenty20, and given how lucrative that format supposedly is, you would need to play fewer matches in order to make the same amount of money, thus allowing players more time between matches to recover their fitness and intensity. I wish the ICC would stop meddling with our sport. It's like the equivalent of FIFA calling for the first half of football matches to be scrapped because they produce fewer goals than the second half.

  • salamkarachi on September 12, 2009, 6:49 GMT

    Strange. This idea has been circulation for quite a some time and discussed many times by the commentators.Then why associated with Tendulkar?

  • Killer_Kal on September 12, 2009, 5:47 GMT

    Cricket is a great game and real technique of a cricketer can be tested only in a test match. But for any sport to sustain it requires viewers to support it. One day game was designed with such a purpose. But this great game should not be restricted to just a bunch of countries. So there is no harm in designing a new format or bringing changes to present format to generate interest and increase its viewers. I think splitting the game into 4 innings would be a great idea but total of 80 overs should be good(as told by nskaile) and not 100 to accommodate innings changes. There should be 12th and 13th man as well and they can be substituted only once for both the teams in the middle of the match after 40 overs. This would make the entire squad of 13 team players important and it would negate the effects of a bad batting or bowling display in the first innings on the second innings. This encourages strategies to be made and read what the other team might come up with

  • ashar_85 on September 12, 2009, 5:22 GMT

    The idea of splitting the 50 over cricket into two innings each side is a good idea to attract new fans to cricket but it might not be a good news for the middle order batsmen as it would cut down their chances of making high scores.Instead of splitting a 50 over cricket match into two innings of 25 over per side, the ICC should think upon splitting it into 30-20,35-15 or 40-10 per side because this will probably give some hope to middle order batsmen to score high runs and will also make the game more interesting and the last innings of the match will come out as a nail bitter for the fans.It is my request to the CricInfo team to forward this suggestion to ICC for consideration.

  • Boraan on September 12, 2009, 5:13 GMT

    people saying ths format s more confusing and cannot understand, lemme tell them it for smart people and guys plzz try n match the smartness n modernization with world. With this format nothing is changing, just inculcating some interest in game. Everything remains same. Stats won't change, Yeah batsman n bowlers would have to adjust with the format and everything on earth undergoes change, so why can't they. And coming to the last thing increased two breaks can be adjusted by cutting two drinks time. So time is not at all an issue. Hardly it will add ten minutes max.

  • Kishan718 on September 12, 2009, 4:42 GMT

    Answer to Starnger5... I know that commentrators and experts may have debated over this format many times in the past. But ICC never took them seriously, and while Sachin just said it lightly last week and now it's big news. To be really honest with you, I, myself, thought of this idea when I was back home in India about 8-9 years ago, but the poor thing is no one asked me for my opinion. Heh heh.

  • bobagorof on September 12, 2009, 4:40 GMT

    So the way to keep 50-over cricket popular is to make it into two 20-over matches? I am sure there are many better ways of dealing with the so-called 'slow period' in the middle overs than having a break in innnings. How would the loss of wickets work? Would a not-out batsman start an innings on his accumulated score? Goes against the established rules of multi-innings matches. Plus you'll have someone batting well for 50 and then having to get used to the pitch all over again - not really fair on the batsman. What if they get injured while fielding? 10 wickets each innings? Consistent with the current rules, but doesn't really offer anything different from a Twent20. Instead, how about a standard 50-over game but mandate when the powerplays can be taken eg between overs 20-40. Or limit bowlers to 8-9 overs each so a team has to use more part-timers. Much less drastic measures that actually look at the source of the problem!!

  • Alan James Sanders on September 12, 2009, 4:26 GMT

    The ICC are just ignoring the issue, which is quantity. Australia are playing England in 7 ODIs. That's too much, especially when you consider how one-sided the series is- who's going to take an interest in the last three or four games when the outcome is basically a forgone conclusion? After this, Australia go to India for 7 more ODIs- no Tests, mind you, just 7 more ODIs crammed into the calender. Why not just make it 3 ODIs for both sides to prepare for the Champions Trophy? Speaking of which, I suspect that the Trophy is going to have that bloated "Super 6" stage again, instead of a streamlined Group-Semifinal-Final stage which should be the standard for every ODI or T20 tournament. And the Champions Trophy should be held once every four years, in between World Cups. Like the Commonwealth Games is held every four years between Olympics- if you had the Olympics or Commonwaelth Games every other year I don't think any of them would be particularly memorable!

  • Cricfan27 on September 12, 2009, 4:16 GMT

    Even as a cricket fan I thought of such a thing in the mid nineties. Now as a player Sachin has realized that. Hope ICC will translate the Cricket Icon's iconic proposal into action.

  • Jeptic on September 12, 2009, 4:00 GMT

    BEAUTIFUL IDEA!!!!!! AS long as a batsman bats once. This will definitely add more in terms of strategy and not necessarily the team with the best ranking players will win but the one that can use such resources effectivley will win...GREAT!!!! Should have been done a long time ago!!!

  • Devrajmallik on September 12, 2009, 2:34 GMT

    My suggestion is for 20-20 two innings instead of 25-25 because at least then the scores scored from the innings in 20-20 test can go at par with the T-20 single innings match in the record books which can be good for the game. Then there is no harm in going for 20-20 test rather than 25-25....comments plz....Devraj

  • santhoshkudva on September 12, 2009, 1:37 GMT

    having too many formats can ruin the sport. isn't it a shame that after 130+ years of cricket, we are still trying to ascertain 'what could be' good for the game? also, changing rules too often dilutes the essence of the game. these days, it appears as if rules are modified/included just for the sake of convinience.

  • faforce on September 12, 2009, 1:30 GMT

    There's nothing wrong with experimenting for the sake of bringing cricket to more places but whatever happens, leave the test matches untouched. Test matches are for big boys so we shouldn't worry too much about bringing it to newbie countries to the world of cricket.

  • sabirshah on September 12, 2009, 0:41 GMT

    Yes...Its a great Idea. We have been playing in China with the same format and its really fun. Its name should be "25/25/25/25 limited over test match".It always has a decision. First team plays 25 overs and second team tries to finish the lead and extend their lead. then first team plays the second innings and tries to give a good lead. 2nd innings is the final one. And teams have to win. Test cricket rules like FOLLOW ON are also observed. And specially every batsmen has two chances to prove himself and every bowler has two spells to bowl. But the suggestion is that ODI shouldn't be changed...Just this new format of '25/25/25/25 limited over Test match" should be introduced... Sabeer (Shenyang,china)

  • on_the_level on September 11, 2009, 23:50 GMT

    The proposal of splitting the 50 overs into 2 lots of 25 overs each must require that the number of wickets remains at 10, and the number of overs per bowler remains the same as well. Given that, the proposal is not outlandish, and inherently more fair, as the conditions will be more equitable to both teams. In day/night games, the dew factor and lights factor would also be spread more evenly. In the event of uncertain weather, where D/L could come into play after say 25 or 30 overs, this will incentivise the batsmen to push the scoring rate along throughout, thus addressing the traditionally slower period between overs 20 - 40 in 50 over contests.

  • slugworth on September 11, 2009, 23:11 GMT

    ICC should ask NZC to trail the format. I'm all for the format I think it'll balance the conditions and the half way point when both teams have batted will make the over comparison valid and give it real meaning. Its like a Rugby game at half time the score is 16 - 8 you know who's leading the game, but you don't necessarily know which team will win. That is why splitting the innings is a good thing both teams have attacked (batted) both teams have bowled (defended). It emulates a balance that most other team games have attack and defence back and forth throughout the game, and cricket can do that when it splits the innings, this is what baseball already has (9 innings) of attack, defend attack, defend... so all the best with the trails.

  • nskaile on September 11, 2009, 22:52 GMT

    this is just crazy!!!! they are not even understanding why less ppl view 50 over game. main reason is the time it takes to finish the game, 8 Hours! they should have gone with 40 overs odi. it was the best idea!!!it will reduce 20 overs which will reduce lot of time and it will not bw boring!!!! this is just sad!!!

  • stranger5 on September 11, 2009, 22:32 GMT

    For god sack ...dont associate this idea with Sachin ,its been debated so many times by commentaters and experts...........

  • Peligrosisimo3 on September 11, 2009, 22:05 GMT

    Baseball is a game with a bat and a ball just like cricket and some of these games can last up to 5 hours. We don't see any moves in baseball playing countries to scrap its format for it to be "more global". I honestly can accept change but I don't accept this new proposal especially when I think that it is not necessary. Why is the ICC pushing this 4-25 overs per inning game? Is it because Tendulkar said that this would be a good idea. Is this representative of how the world feels about one day cricket? This to me would just be more confusing. Would batsmen try to score runs or conserve their wickets?The first innings would basically be like test cricket. No team would want to loose 5 wickets in 25 overs and a par score in T20 is about 140. Could even make the game more conservative as teams would look to conserve wickets for the second innings. Reduce the overs from 100 to about 70 and keep the 1 inning setup. ODI scores have gone up due to power plays. Not necessary right now!

  • Narendiran on September 11, 2009, 21:55 GMT

    I would like to ask the readers here to foresee Cricket in the next 50 years. What do you think it will be? Can anyone of you have any clear picture? At the same time visualize Football, I can clearly see atleast 15 more nations fighting in the league rounds. I can clearly see that Manchester United, Real Madrid, Arsenal continuing to amaze their fans crossing the borders of countries, cultures or colors. I can clearly see it will continue to bring the world to a stand still for 90 minutes of World Cup Finals every once in four years.

    I hope the current bunch of great people who are leading the board of cricket should understand that it is their minds & hearts that is going to decide what cricket will be in next 50 years. And rather than messing around with rules / regulations / moneys try concentrating in building a global talent and make this game truely global.

    I truely love cricket. Hope my grandson will be able to view, play, and enjoy it without any confusions.

  • Narendiran on September 11, 2009, 21:54 GMT

    I honestly dont understand why Cricket has become so much confused outdoor game and all is done in the name of evolution.

    Test Cricket,ODIs,Twenty20s,40 over ODIs (England made this official for 2010 county crickets),IPL, ICL (atleast this has been removed from the charts) and who knows there could be so many more

    However, the number of cricket playing nations have been constant for the past 5 decades. Many countries have just come and gone, do you remember these - Malaysia, Hongkong, Canada, USA, Bermuda

    Many more struggling to groom the talent like the Bangladesh, Kenya, West Indies (even struggling to pay their players), Srilanka (Players played for their country without even signing a contract for nearly an year).

  • mrmonty on September 11, 2009, 20:35 GMT

    Most of the people here are leaving comments without knowing what Tendulkar's proposal is. Read before you mouth off. The game has to evolve if it has to catch the imagination of the changing lifestyles worldwide.

  • svetlananastasiya on September 11, 2009, 19:55 GMT

    good for openers and higher middle order batsmen to score runs, what about lower order batsmen who determine to fate of the low scoring thriller??

  • the-anti-mule on September 11, 2009, 19:06 GMT

    so you want to make 50oves like test cricket. I agree with most the previous comments about the stupidity of this change. You know what why not keep it simple- reduce ODIs from 50 to 30 overs. you will get the balance between hitting and caution (although i dont know why that is so great, beautiful or important) and you can nip T20 in the bud. this just sounds so much cleaner to me.

  • howizzat on September 11, 2009, 18:02 GMT

    Its a bad and stupid way of combatting T20. Firstly it wont serve the purpose. Secondly its a timidest way of facing the challenge givng lame excuses. Thirdly there is no guarantee that people will rush to see this new version as one main factor, the TIME FACTOR still remains lopsidedly in favour of T20. So it will be a flop show and the debate and the dissection will continue. Then instead of this why not try to improve ODI, keeping its basic structure of single innings format intact. ICC should show patience for some more time instead of jumping into haste.

  • aaron.smih on September 11, 2009, 17:24 GMT

    This is very pity news. Launching Twenty20 has brought threat of scrapping to ODI 50-over, and now splitting and transforming ODI 50-over into ODI Test, 4 innings per 25-overs could brought threat of survival to the Classical Test Cricket. If Test Cricket, the ultimate of Cricket, doesn't survive, Cricket as we know it doesn't survive either. ODI 50-over and Twenty20 Crickets are not that Cricket as we know it - so, I don't bother for their future. Test cricket is here to stay, and so, no need this experiment, which is harmful to the cricket as a whole, and by this way ICC couldn't make the Cricket as global sport. Make Twenty20 format Cricket as a global cricket, and hand off from our valued Test Cricket! Test Cricket no need to spread beyond the test countries, it's too costly that we've got. The ODI 50-over should be scrapped altogether. In Cricket two formats are enough: Test cricket for its ultimate nature, and Twenty20 Cricket for its remuneration, which could include in Olympics

  • fataquie on September 11, 2009, 17:15 GMT

    There is room for evolution and existence of all three forms: test, ODIs, and T20. Tests should still exist as bi-lateral competition but ODIs and T20s should exist only as a few important multi-team tournaments which happen more frequently than now. For example, World Cups for both ODI and T20 occuring every year or at the least every two years. Asian cup happening every year, and similar stuff like that. That kind of calendar would generate more interest. Imagine England playing seven ODIs against Aussies right now...What is the interest in that? On the contrary, if England was playing seven games as part of some global compeition, the interest would be differnt. Just imagine, even in Football, if England was playing France seven consecutive games every two years, the interest will be lost. The problem isn't with the game, it is with the people running the game.

  • kesavramesh on September 11, 2009, 17:09 GMT

    I think there is one more thing we can do. Have power plays for the bowling team. Let the bowling team decide where to place their fielders. Like in a Test Match. During the batting powerplay there will be mandatory 2 (or) 3 fielders outside. This gives equal match to the bowlers and batsman.

    Today's matches are more towards batsmen. Lets make something interesting.

  • yaseenk2002 on September 11, 2009, 17:04 GMT

    ICC please don't destroy ODI cricket the essence of which is batting well for 50 overs!

  • Subra on September 11, 2009, 16:48 GMT

    Great idea to split it into two 25-over innings, but the second innings should be a continuation of the first.

    Siva from Singapore

  • vswami on September 11, 2009, 16:18 GMT

    I like the 25 overs split idea but I really hope they dont make each set of 25 overs a full innings. Let the batsmen take a break at 25 over mark and come back to resume their innings when its their turn to bat. I personally like the 50 over game and hope ICC doesnt tinker it to make it more complex than necessary.

  • Play_with_me on September 11, 2009, 16:05 GMT

    Playing two 25 over innings does not make sense to me. What if there is a rain interruption? Will the match be reduced to one innings or two innings with 10 overs each side. In that case we wont be able to witness the class of Dravids Kalliss etc. Also if this format is introduced, it might lead to lots of private leagues conducting this tournament like the IPL. Let us see cricket as a sport and not as any reality show or entertainment event. If still people require more glamor to this format add some more cheer gals and please do not alter the overs.

  • s.sri on September 11, 2009, 14:47 GMT

    I think this idea was tried in Australia in early 90s. I am not able to recollect the exact time. I guess it would become a lot more easier for batsmen. Already we see test matches ending within 4 days. I hope something constructive is done to maintain the balance between bat and ball.

  • acdctany on September 11, 2009, 13:42 GMT

    hi I do not understand why someone like Tendulkar is promoting a split of 50 over format to a 25 over an innings when he has retired from Twenty20 format !! what happens in the event of rain ? will the overs from the first lot of 20 overs be reduced or of the second lot of 25 overs ? Duckworth lewis is already complex method, it wud make it more complex.I think the 50 over should be totally scrapped.People in today's world do not have time to spend 8hours watching a game.Test cricket and twenty20 is the only solution to keep the fans in the game. thanks Avi

  • rbharath2 on September 11, 2009, 13:40 GMT

    There is no point in playing two 25 over innings back to back,since it is nothing different from a 20/20 match.Instead , each innings of a 50 over a side match should be split into two 25 overs,i.e team batting first should play 25 of its 50 overs and then team batting second should play the first set of 25 overs.There should be only 10 wickets in a match

  • _Rafi_ on September 11, 2009, 13:12 GMT

    A ridiculas idea. The beauty of 50 over cricket is batsman makes runs even 100 mixing cautious and attacking approach. If 25 in an innings them just u will see power hitting. Now what about bowlers? In odi when they do well then they got a long spell to make an impact. And now they will get only 5 over a match and only 2-3 overs per spell.

  • Vizhy on September 11, 2009, 13:06 GMT

    I agree that this 25 over format will surely rejuvenate the ODIs but one thing is for sure, if this follows the test match format with the whole team coming to bat again then this not gonna help.

    Just play your 50 over quota but distribute the inning into two halves. That will keep the records from the past meaningful, otherwise if Sehwag comes to bat twice in the same match he will average like 100 and players coming in the last 5 overs of each inning like 4th 5th 6th positions will average like 20.

    but to add the "MASALA" some rules can be put in like more wickets or runs in first inning something like that i cant say exactly but there is a possibilty. and yes for sure the super sub can come in.

  • Tom-T on September 11, 2009, 12:57 GMT

    I think it sounjds like a reasonable enough idea, but then I already understand the game. Imagine trying to explain all these rules and nuances to someone new to cricket.

  • Nipun on September 11, 2009, 12:57 GMT

    & it is a farce that when a match is rained out after one team has batted for full 50 overs,the next day,a whole new match is played.Why not give the other team the target which the team batting first had set the previous day ??? This would mean just a single ODI just simply taking place on 2 days die to weather conditions. 4 25 over blocks in ODIs,day night tests-the ICC is doing everything possible to kill the life out of cricket.Perhaps the ICC means International Clueless Council.

  • Nipun on September 11, 2009, 12:51 GMT

    It isn't surprising that the ICC is interested in this idea.The 50 overs format is facing a crisis for sure,but the chief culprit has been the ICC.What's it's problem ??? Is the worthless organisation tired of seeing mundane cricket in the middle overs ??? Why not enforce mandatory powerplays from the 21st-25th,31st-35th,& 41st to 45th overs,plus keeping the first 10 overs powerplays intact ??? Increased number of powerplays won't matter AT ALL,because the good bowler would see it as an opportunity to take wickets.There's no need for change in playing format;all that is needed is changed,more aggressive fielding setup.But knowing how brainless an organisation the hapless ICC is,there's no doubt that they won't even consider other alternatives.

  • lanka_86 on September 11, 2009, 12:22 GMT

    When I read the headline I assumed it meant 50 over innings just played 25 overs at a time with no other changes in rules. That would be good. If they did it a few years ago, it could have prevented the T20 format.

  • george18 on September 11, 2009, 12:02 GMT

    this seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to the overnight success of t20 cricket. ways to encourage more attacking play in the 50 over game in the "slower" periods is a more logical to go. Also it would help if meaningless games were trimmed from the program. But mostly we need more enterprising leadership.ON THE FIELD.

  • Ind_cric_lover on September 11, 2009, 11:55 GMT

    Yes we should split the game into 2 innings of 25 overs for each team but we should allow only max 10 wickets to fall combined over 2 innings. The idea of super-sub can be tried again in this format in the following way. Teams will play their 1st innings wih 11 players. When the 1st team's 2nd innings begins both teams can add the super-sub or subs at this point. This takes care of the issue we earlier had with super-subs that team batting 2nd had an advantage. In 25 overs a bowler can bowl a max of 5 overs. He can later play in the 2nd innings and can bowl another 5. A team basically resumes batting in the 2nd innings with possibly new players added and it has to field in the 2nd time using the changed team only. The middle order batsmen will be able to hit tons as well in this format. Add 5 overs of bowling and batting powerplays in each innings.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Ind_cric_lover on September 11, 2009, 11:55 GMT

    Yes we should split the game into 2 innings of 25 overs for each team but we should allow only max 10 wickets to fall combined over 2 innings. The idea of super-sub can be tried again in this format in the following way. Teams will play their 1st innings wih 11 players. When the 1st team's 2nd innings begins both teams can add the super-sub or subs at this point. This takes care of the issue we earlier had with super-subs that team batting 2nd had an advantage. In 25 overs a bowler can bowl a max of 5 overs. He can later play in the 2nd innings and can bowl another 5. A team basically resumes batting in the 2nd innings with possibly new players added and it has to field in the 2nd time using the changed team only. The middle order batsmen will be able to hit tons as well in this format. Add 5 overs of bowling and batting powerplays in each innings.

  • george18 on September 11, 2009, 12:02 GMT

    this seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to the overnight success of t20 cricket. ways to encourage more attacking play in the 50 over game in the "slower" periods is a more logical to go. Also it would help if meaningless games were trimmed from the program. But mostly we need more enterprising leadership.ON THE FIELD.

  • lanka_86 on September 11, 2009, 12:22 GMT

    When I read the headline I assumed it meant 50 over innings just played 25 overs at a time with no other changes in rules. That would be good. If they did it a few years ago, it could have prevented the T20 format.

  • Nipun on September 11, 2009, 12:51 GMT

    It isn't surprising that the ICC is interested in this idea.The 50 overs format is facing a crisis for sure,but the chief culprit has been the ICC.What's it's problem ??? Is the worthless organisation tired of seeing mundane cricket in the middle overs ??? Why not enforce mandatory powerplays from the 21st-25th,31st-35th,& 41st to 45th overs,plus keeping the first 10 overs powerplays intact ??? Increased number of powerplays won't matter AT ALL,because the good bowler would see it as an opportunity to take wickets.There's no need for change in playing format;all that is needed is changed,more aggressive fielding setup.But knowing how brainless an organisation the hapless ICC is,there's no doubt that they won't even consider other alternatives.

  • Nipun on September 11, 2009, 12:57 GMT

    & it is a farce that when a match is rained out after one team has batted for full 50 overs,the next day,a whole new match is played.Why not give the other team the target which the team batting first had set the previous day ??? This would mean just a single ODI just simply taking place on 2 days die to weather conditions. 4 25 over blocks in ODIs,day night tests-the ICC is doing everything possible to kill the life out of cricket.Perhaps the ICC means International Clueless Council.

  • Tom-T on September 11, 2009, 12:57 GMT

    I think it sounjds like a reasonable enough idea, but then I already understand the game. Imagine trying to explain all these rules and nuances to someone new to cricket.

  • Vizhy on September 11, 2009, 13:06 GMT

    I agree that this 25 over format will surely rejuvenate the ODIs but one thing is for sure, if this follows the test match format with the whole team coming to bat again then this not gonna help.

    Just play your 50 over quota but distribute the inning into two halves. That will keep the records from the past meaningful, otherwise if Sehwag comes to bat twice in the same match he will average like 100 and players coming in the last 5 overs of each inning like 4th 5th 6th positions will average like 20.

    but to add the "MASALA" some rules can be put in like more wickets or runs in first inning something like that i cant say exactly but there is a possibilty. and yes for sure the super sub can come in.

  • _Rafi_ on September 11, 2009, 13:12 GMT

    A ridiculas idea. The beauty of 50 over cricket is batsman makes runs even 100 mixing cautious and attacking approach. If 25 in an innings them just u will see power hitting. Now what about bowlers? In odi when they do well then they got a long spell to make an impact. And now they will get only 5 over a match and only 2-3 overs per spell.

  • rbharath2 on September 11, 2009, 13:40 GMT

    There is no point in playing two 25 over innings back to back,since it is nothing different from a 20/20 match.Instead , each innings of a 50 over a side match should be split into two 25 overs,i.e team batting first should play 25 of its 50 overs and then team batting second should play the first set of 25 overs.There should be only 10 wickets in a match

  • acdctany on September 11, 2009, 13:42 GMT

    hi I do not understand why someone like Tendulkar is promoting a split of 50 over format to a 25 over an innings when he has retired from Twenty20 format !! what happens in the event of rain ? will the overs from the first lot of 20 overs be reduced or of the second lot of 25 overs ? Duckworth lewis is already complex method, it wud make it more complex.I think the 50 over should be totally scrapped.People in today's world do not have time to spend 8hours watching a game.Test cricket and twenty20 is the only solution to keep the fans in the game. thanks Avi