Australian news June 10, 2010

World Cup 2015 likely to stay at 50 overs

34

The ICC is confident the World Cup will still be a 50-over competition in 2015, despite Cricket Australia considering a new two-innings one-day format. The CA board will discuss the concept, which could involve two innings of either 20 of 25 overs, at a meeting this week with the view to testing it in state cricket this summer.

The former coach of Australia, John Buchanan, has for many years been spruiking the idea of one-dayers split into two innings per side. He believes the future of the game lies in shorter formats, with Test cricket also retained, and 50-over matches fall into a no-man's land between the two versions.

"If Cricket Australia are contemplating making changes to it, I think congratulations to them for looking at that," Buchanan told Cricinfo. "I'd support any changes that make it look more like the 20-over form. It has been in need of an overhaul for some time ... and has been and will continue to lose popularity unless something is done with it.

"Games won't finish by the end of 10 overs into the second innings of a normal 50-over game, where one side has either dominated with the bat or been completely dominated by the ball and the game has really lost interest. By being able to quarterise the game it should enable the game to have longer life from a spectators' point of view."

England and South Africa have already dropped 50-over cricket from their domestic schedule in favour of 40 overs, but Cricket Australia's two-innings idea takes that concept even further. It could also mean that many players around the world will have limited exposure to the 50-over format, which in some countries will be played only at international level.

That raises questions over the 2015 World Cup, to be hosted by Australia and New Zealand. But the ICC is confident the event will remain in its current 50-over format by the time that tournament rolls around.

"The ICC is committed to the three forms of the game, being Test cricket, 50-over cricket and Twenty20 cricket," an ICC spokesman told the Sydney Morning Herald. "We have a working party of eminent chief executives set up to look at the context and content of international cricket."

However, the ICC's general manager of cricket, Dave Richardson, last year said he "quite liked" the idea of two-innings one-day games. "If it has been trialled successfully at domestic level, it may give the trial to give it the go-ahead at international level," Richardson said last September.

Part of the appeal of a split-innings one-day game is that the home team is guaranteed to bat during the more popular second session. There is often less interest in matches in Australia when Ricky Ponting's men have batted first, with fans less likely to turn up to the game after work or watch it on television.

"There's no doubt in the world there's time for some change," Steve Crawley, the head of sport at Channel Nine, said in the Australian. "There's no doubt they [Cricket Australia] are up for it. You've got to hope they can lead the world."

The idea has also won support from some former players including Ian Chappell and Dean Jones. Chappell said the game would become more tactical when split into two innings per team, while Jones called it "a fantastic idea".

Brydon Coverdale is a staff writer at Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • AnasNZ on June 12, 2010, 10:12 GMT

    This is exactly what I suggested to Greg Chappell and Tony Greg a while ago via one of their CricInfo online talk show. I further suggested a format for mini tests for different levels of test status via which nations could qualify for the larger version of test cricket.

    1. Two 20/25 over innings each side to complete the test in one day 2. Two 45/50 over innings each side to complete the test in two days 3. Two 70/75 over innings each side to complete the test in three days 4. Two 90/100 over innings each side to complete the test in 4+ days

    This will be a very good mechanism to groom national sides and have a grading system for them to qualify to full test status (the 4th suggestion above).

  • Avery_Mann on June 11, 2010, 23:12 GMT

    We'll just end up with teams conserving wickets in last 5 overs of their first innings and first 8 of their second, then going for broke in their final 12. It won't change the tempo of the games. The 50 over format is fine as it is, the only problem is they are playing too many games; 7 game series and multiple tri-series etc. is too much.

  • zashrafi on June 11, 2010, 21:45 GMT

    Great Idea 4 innings in a day. This one gets my vote!!!

  • crictonite on June 11, 2010, 14:27 GMT

    40 overs per side is not such a bad idea. It should have been done a while ago to cut down on match time. However, having two innings per side is a horrible idea. It's a step backwards, like cricket does not have enough delays already.

  • on June 11, 2010, 8:20 GMT

    50 or 40 is not the matter, Bangladesh will be the champion in 2015 world cup.

  • NicCan on June 11, 2010, 8:16 GMT

    What about 2 innings for T20 matches. They used to be great back in 2005 - a real run fest and the players palying dressups, and Hamish Marhsall's hair that could hardly fit into Edan Park. Now it is all so tactical with the batsmen pacing themselves for a serge in the last 6 overs or so. The middle third is alomst like 50 over matches. Here's for 2x10 over innings.

  • CricketingStargazer on June 11, 2010, 6:48 GMT

    deanc, two-innings limited-over cricket would not be my preferred option, but it's hard to see it not comining in the next 5 years. I suspect though that, when it does, it will be as 2x20 overs. The 50 over format is dying a death. It's last great bastion was India and, there, the IPL is going to kill it.l

  • deanc on June 11, 2010, 0:58 GMT

    I support the change assuming the concept is that a 50 over match will be two 25 over split innings with the continuation of runs and/or wickets and not an actual new 2nd innings. However there should be some exhibition matches (international or domestic) to evaluate and refine the concept further before it is formally introduced. Assessing other comments below and considering the waning public interest with the current 50 format it's clear to see the Pros far outweigh the Cons with this concept. The one-day game has evolved continuously since it's inception by Packer and Co in the 1970's. 40 years on and times have changed with bum's on seats the reality of the situation, and although I'm a traditionalist if the current 50 over format doesn't reinvented itself then it will sooner than later disappear forever.

  • BionicBowler on June 10, 2010, 11:43 GMT

    For future ODIs I say YES to split innings (i.e. 4 quarters) but NO to two innings of 25 per side. It should work like this: *Each innings of 50 overs will be split into two phases of 25 overs. *Each team has 10 wickets at its disposal for its entire innings. *A team's second phase will continue from the point at which the first phase ended. *20 overs of powerplays, 10 of which will be the first 10 overs, with the other 10 split into two blocks of five, one taken at the fielding team's discretion, the other at the batting team's discretion. By being able to quarterise the game it should enable the game to have longer life from a spectators' point of view and fairer as conditions remain similar for both sides. No drinks breaks - just 10 minutes break at first 25 overs, then 20 minutes at 'half time' with a furthe 10 minutes break at the end of 75th over of the game. SIMPLE, FAIR and a UNIQUE differentiated cricket product of the ODI format.

  • CricketingStargazer on June 10, 2010, 10:51 GMT

    The One-Day game has evolved continuously, but people just forget it. How many people remember that it started as 65 overs per side with 15 maximum per bowler? Or that the first three World Cups were played with 60 overs per side and maximum 12 overs per bowler? Or that the cut to 50 overs only came to adjust to the slower pace of games and shorter twilight in the Indian sub-continent, because too many games in the 1987 World Cup would not have been completed in a day had they been 60 overs per side? The current 50 overs format was a historical accident, not something set in stone. The tendency over the years has been to shorten the game, so it is not so surprising that some people want to see that trend continue. That said, I am wary of the idea of a two-innings format because it would reduce even further the batting role of players outside the top 4 in the order, but there is nothing terribly wrong with the 40-over-a-sidecricket, which I used to watch in England on Sunday afternoons.

  • AnasNZ on June 12, 2010, 10:12 GMT

    This is exactly what I suggested to Greg Chappell and Tony Greg a while ago via one of their CricInfo online talk show. I further suggested a format for mini tests for different levels of test status via which nations could qualify for the larger version of test cricket.

    1. Two 20/25 over innings each side to complete the test in one day 2. Two 45/50 over innings each side to complete the test in two days 3. Two 70/75 over innings each side to complete the test in three days 4. Two 90/100 over innings each side to complete the test in 4+ days

    This will be a very good mechanism to groom national sides and have a grading system for them to qualify to full test status (the 4th suggestion above).

  • Avery_Mann on June 11, 2010, 23:12 GMT

    We'll just end up with teams conserving wickets in last 5 overs of their first innings and first 8 of their second, then going for broke in their final 12. It won't change the tempo of the games. The 50 over format is fine as it is, the only problem is they are playing too many games; 7 game series and multiple tri-series etc. is too much.

  • zashrafi on June 11, 2010, 21:45 GMT

    Great Idea 4 innings in a day. This one gets my vote!!!

  • crictonite on June 11, 2010, 14:27 GMT

    40 overs per side is not such a bad idea. It should have been done a while ago to cut down on match time. However, having two innings per side is a horrible idea. It's a step backwards, like cricket does not have enough delays already.

  • on June 11, 2010, 8:20 GMT

    50 or 40 is not the matter, Bangladesh will be the champion in 2015 world cup.

  • NicCan on June 11, 2010, 8:16 GMT

    What about 2 innings for T20 matches. They used to be great back in 2005 - a real run fest and the players palying dressups, and Hamish Marhsall's hair that could hardly fit into Edan Park. Now it is all so tactical with the batsmen pacing themselves for a serge in the last 6 overs or so. The middle third is alomst like 50 over matches. Here's for 2x10 over innings.

  • CricketingStargazer on June 11, 2010, 6:48 GMT

    deanc, two-innings limited-over cricket would not be my preferred option, but it's hard to see it not comining in the next 5 years. I suspect though that, when it does, it will be as 2x20 overs. The 50 over format is dying a death. It's last great bastion was India and, there, the IPL is going to kill it.l

  • deanc on June 11, 2010, 0:58 GMT

    I support the change assuming the concept is that a 50 over match will be two 25 over split innings with the continuation of runs and/or wickets and not an actual new 2nd innings. However there should be some exhibition matches (international or domestic) to evaluate and refine the concept further before it is formally introduced. Assessing other comments below and considering the waning public interest with the current 50 format it's clear to see the Pros far outweigh the Cons with this concept. The one-day game has evolved continuously since it's inception by Packer and Co in the 1970's. 40 years on and times have changed with bum's on seats the reality of the situation, and although I'm a traditionalist if the current 50 over format doesn't reinvented itself then it will sooner than later disappear forever.

  • BionicBowler on June 10, 2010, 11:43 GMT

    For future ODIs I say YES to split innings (i.e. 4 quarters) but NO to two innings of 25 per side. It should work like this: *Each innings of 50 overs will be split into two phases of 25 overs. *Each team has 10 wickets at its disposal for its entire innings. *A team's second phase will continue from the point at which the first phase ended. *20 overs of powerplays, 10 of which will be the first 10 overs, with the other 10 split into two blocks of five, one taken at the fielding team's discretion, the other at the batting team's discretion. By being able to quarterise the game it should enable the game to have longer life from a spectators' point of view and fairer as conditions remain similar for both sides. No drinks breaks - just 10 minutes break at first 25 overs, then 20 minutes at 'half time' with a furthe 10 minutes break at the end of 75th over of the game. SIMPLE, FAIR and a UNIQUE differentiated cricket product of the ODI format.

  • CricketingStargazer on June 10, 2010, 10:51 GMT

    The One-Day game has evolved continuously, but people just forget it. How many people remember that it started as 65 overs per side with 15 maximum per bowler? Or that the first three World Cups were played with 60 overs per side and maximum 12 overs per bowler? Or that the cut to 50 overs only came to adjust to the slower pace of games and shorter twilight in the Indian sub-continent, because too many games in the 1987 World Cup would not have been completed in a day had they been 60 overs per side? The current 50 overs format was a historical accident, not something set in stone. The tendency over the years has been to shorten the game, so it is not so surprising that some people want to see that trend continue. That said, I am wary of the idea of a two-innings format because it would reduce even further the batting role of players outside the top 4 in the order, but there is nothing terribly wrong with the 40-over-a-sidecricket, which I used to watch in England on Sunday afternoons.

  • SathyaPeraboina on June 10, 2010, 10:27 GMT

    I read somebody talking about 'roots' here... 50 over format is certainly not the 'roots' of cricket... this game needs innovation, and splitting the game into 2 innings will certainly bring more interest... I am all 'FOR' this change.

  • GlobalCricketLover on June 10, 2010, 10:26 GMT

    To bring down the cost of losing a toss, the captain winning the toss should be able to decide whether they want to bowl or bat first in the first half (i.e. in the innings 1 and 2) and the other captain deciding whether they want to bat or bowl first in the later half (innings 3 and 4). That way 'lose the toss lose the match' will not happen.Whether it's an early start on a muggy day or a day-night match with dew coming in, we will still have a fair match.

  • on June 10, 2010, 9:56 GMT

    I have been for split innings since 1996. A 50 over game is simply too long, with too many boring patches in it. This recent SA-WI series drummed that home more than I ever remember, I'd watch the first 10 overs, then mow the lawn, water the garden, cook dinner hang up the laundry, watch the super 14 final and it would still be the first innings....seriously! The only use for ODI's is entertainment and it certainly isn't that anymore. A two innings-a-side game would at least give sides a fightback chance, at this stage T20 is too much of a toss-up to be suitable judging for World Champions.

  • LALITHKURUWITA on June 10, 2010, 9:52 GMT

    Martin Crow of NZ introduced 2 innings of 10 overs short format.

  • Cric.Analysis on June 10, 2010, 8:36 GMT

    The 50 over format is dying. Either this format should be changed to make it more popular or the world cup be played in another format. Australia, England, and SA are scraping the 50 over format and therefore it will soon become the least popular format of the game and the world cup can not be played in the least popular format. T20 seems to be the most likely contender for the world cup.

  • SampathCFO on June 10, 2010, 8:21 GMT

    I do wish 50 over cricket stay but not in the current format of one team playing all 50 overs first followed by another. Conditions and toss play a vital role in most of the matches with the most recent example being the tri-series at Zimbabwe. There were hundreds of instances where toss played a very crucial factor in the outcome of the match like a tri-series in Sri Lanka last year..

    It will be better if both the teams play two instalments of 25 overs so that conditions assume less importance. For example, if the ball swings in the evening or dew factor comes to play, let both the teams enjoy the advantage. However I wish that only 10 wickets should be provided for both the instalments together.

  • cooldroplets on June 10, 2010, 6:53 GMT

    50 overs game is good as it is. This is a platform before you reach the elite group which is test cricket. By having this format in place where would bowlers be placed. If this is the format that is expected then take out the over the head no ball rule. There needs to be a format which is healthy between the bat and the ball. The rules should change based on the continents being played. This will keep everyone interested.

  • on June 10, 2010, 6:42 GMT

    Ok here is the question, will it be two new innings, like test cricket or will it be a continuation as the team has 10 wickets to play with accross two innings and the people at the crease after the 1st innings continues in the second? If it is two whole innings, then say goodbye to 100s from players, no way will i support that. If the players continue in the second innings, this still gives them the possibilities of getting hundreds, which might make it interesting.

  • on June 10, 2010, 6:36 GMT

    It's a fascinating concept. I would love to see such format matches. I still remember the same format match been played in NZ, and India played in that match. It's a two innings 20 or 25 over per side match. I can't recall it precisely, it was in 1999 or 2003 NZ tour. But even in that epoch where T20 hadn't been emerged, I was excited with the entertainment. Regarding the future of ODIs, yes ICC has to take a step forward to survive this format. Being a spectator, I love watching test cricket for the temperament, class, talent and technique of a player, I love watching T20 as it gives fast entertainment in such a short duration. Where ODIs fall? Do they provide enough entertainment as T20s do? Do they offer challenges, take most out of a player as Test Matches do?

  • howizzat on June 10, 2010, 5:59 GMT

    40 OVER a side, single innings ODI format is viable one and makes the game more interesting. Because it makes the game whole ONE HOUR shorter and gets rid of 20 OVERS of mid overs boredom. At the same time it retains all ingredients of One Dayers which otherwise would have been lost by two-innings a side drama. ODI can be made more exciting by few more innovations. Like, 1) Allow a playing 12 so that one player in the team will be different while batting and fielding. 2) Allow two of the bowlers to bowl 10 overs(in 40 over a side) and make it mandatory too.3)Make first 5 ovres and the last 5 overs normal play and make 6-15 and then26-35 as power play to reduce mid-over boredom. 4)Eliminate Toss by allowing the teams to decide alternately to ensure level playing field.5)Reduce time factor by penalising wides by runs. 6)Redefine LBW so as to make batsman freer to take more risks. 7)Abandon D/L. To create level play use available time of Rain hit match to have a minimum 10 overs a side.

  • elmo_leon on June 10, 2010, 5:52 GMT

    people should understand that there should be some difference between all 3 formats. test cricket is great! t20s are exciting and ODIs are a mixture of so many skills. it should remain as the 50 over game. what these 'anti-50 over' people don't understand is that trying to make the ODI much like t20s will only diminish the value and excitement of 20/20s, won't it? they'll understand it only after some time! and who knows, there might be a day where people start blaming 20/20s saying that they are too long, let's have a 10 over version! I'm so glad that the ICC is being so patient as to not make any STUPID changes to this lovely one-day game i grew up loving! in what other sport could you take a whole day-off from work and other commitments and come watch the sport you enjoy?

  • pacyCricket on June 10, 2010, 5:49 GMT

    50 overs cricket should stay for sure. It is what gives Cricket identity from other sports . a football, hockey like games are all short lived. But a good game of 50 over cricket goes for almost a day- that requires sheer interest for any viewer to last the distance. Split innings cricket is equal to T20 so then what special we r achieving. Right now it has the correct balance 3 unique formats of cricket Test, 50 over & T20. If we bring in split innings it would resemble to test in one way and T20 in other. After sometime the whole new format will get extinct and only any 2 formats will survive with one being T20 and the other as either TEST or split innings.

  • cheesemethod on June 10, 2010, 5:36 GMT

    When 50 over cricket is played to its potential its an exciting game with far more tactics than t20. A lot of the critisim came when Australian at home played 5 ODIs against the West Indies then 5 against Pakistan. All 10 matches were pretty much walk overs and became boring. Then Australia travelled to NZ and once again showed us why 50 over cricket is still alive and well.

    NZ did have a 2 innings game invented by Martin Crowe called cricket max (originally it had 4 stumps each end from memory and a couple of other silly things) and doublt points for hitting in the "V". It was played domestically quite a bit but never taken very seriously.

    If ODIs turn into a 2 innings smash 'em up game its going to lose the feel of what ODI cricket has become, it will basically be 2 t20 games at once. Wreckless swinging rather than carefully paced innings.

    The solution is to keep a standard international tour of 2-3 tests, 3 ODIs, 3 t20s.

  • on June 10, 2010, 5:36 GMT

    Keep to the roots, you'll never get above ground.

  • Caesar on June 10, 2010, 5:31 GMT

    Its a great idea.. however I don't think it's gonna add a new dimension to the sport at all. The reason is, what kind of skill would you require to succeed in this new format, pretty much the same as the 20 over game. So if I am a captain would I really pick Dravid or a Langer in my side, don't think so, albeit would make some good viewing !

  • bobagorof on June 10, 2010, 5:14 GMT

    I was dead against this idea in a comment I made on a similar article (which Cricinfo didn't post) - but if one HAS to trial a new format of the game, why not have a few exhibition matches first, rather than jumping in and replacing the whole domestic setup? If the new format proves overwhelmingly more popular over a reasonable length of time (taking into account novelty value), then you can change based on some valid financial and supporter-base reasons. But changing to a new format without first surveying the lay of the land... well no wonder cricket's popularity is struggling.

  • Agni.anand on June 10, 2010, 5:11 GMT

    it will be either an exciting Test Match or a boring T20 rather T25

  • emmwill on June 10, 2010, 5:03 GMT

    The International Comedy Club (ICC) obviously has its head in the sand. They are always reactive rather than proactive when it comes to innovation and creativity. This is a new and workable idea that should be implemented and then evaluated. The ICC should not just throw it aside without considering the pros and cons. I guess I do not expect better of the clowns on the ICC board.

  • HISXLNC on June 10, 2010, 3:26 GMT

    gud idea. needs fine tuning though.

  • vikas_raik on June 10, 2010, 3:22 GMT

    I remember a split inngs match played bwn India and Newzeland in india's 2nd last tour of Nz.India lost that match.. I think this is an idea worth trying..when so many experiments like supersub,pp,referal has been tried and tested why no this??

  • on June 10, 2010, 2:36 GMT

    It's a fascinating concept. I would love to see such format matches. I still remember the same format match been played in NZ, and India played in that match. It's a two innings 20 or 25 over per side match. I can't recall it precisely, it was in 1999 or 2003 NZ tour. But even in that epoch where T20 hadn't been emerged, I was excited with the entertainment. Regarding the future of ODIs, yes ICC has to take a step forward to survive this format. Being a spectator, I love watching test cricket for the temperament, class, talent and technique of a player, I love watching T20 as it gives fast entertainment in such a short duration. Where ODIs fall? Do they provide enough entertainment as T20s do? Do they offer challenges, take most out of a player as Test Matches do?

  • jessek92 on June 10, 2010, 2:17 GMT

    Cricket needs 50 over formats... 2020 is good but we still need the vaRIETY THAT is brought in by one day cricket.... keep to the roots....

  • redneck on June 10, 2010, 2:02 GMT

    any of the people commenting in the article whether they be former players/coaches, cricket australia reps or channel 9 reps. when was the last time any of them had to pay to go see a cricket match???? a long time ago i would imagine. yet these are the people who think its a great idea. in reallity the best idea would be to survey people going to games next summer. they are the people paying the money to go see matches how about getting their opinion before they try and make it the format for the world cup and shovel it down our throats!

  • champion1469 on June 10, 2010, 2:01 GMT

    personally id like to see the 50 over game stay as it is. this format presents its own unique challenges to the cricketers that play it, it is neither a hard graft for days or a slog for a couple of overs. where would the cricketers such as michael bevan and chris harris etc fit in? this allows for challenges such as scoring in timely fashion, placing the ball into the field rather than smashing it over, and also allows for players to be able to change the tempo of the game if they are good enough. keep all 3 formats so hat the players can continue to be tested.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • champion1469 on June 10, 2010, 2:01 GMT

    personally id like to see the 50 over game stay as it is. this format presents its own unique challenges to the cricketers that play it, it is neither a hard graft for days or a slog for a couple of overs. where would the cricketers such as michael bevan and chris harris etc fit in? this allows for challenges such as scoring in timely fashion, placing the ball into the field rather than smashing it over, and also allows for players to be able to change the tempo of the game if they are good enough. keep all 3 formats so hat the players can continue to be tested.

  • redneck on June 10, 2010, 2:02 GMT

    any of the people commenting in the article whether they be former players/coaches, cricket australia reps or channel 9 reps. when was the last time any of them had to pay to go see a cricket match???? a long time ago i would imagine. yet these are the people who think its a great idea. in reallity the best idea would be to survey people going to games next summer. they are the people paying the money to go see matches how about getting their opinion before they try and make it the format for the world cup and shovel it down our throats!

  • jessek92 on June 10, 2010, 2:17 GMT

    Cricket needs 50 over formats... 2020 is good but we still need the vaRIETY THAT is brought in by one day cricket.... keep to the roots....

  • on June 10, 2010, 2:36 GMT

    It's a fascinating concept. I would love to see such format matches. I still remember the same format match been played in NZ, and India played in that match. It's a two innings 20 or 25 over per side match. I can't recall it precisely, it was in 1999 or 2003 NZ tour. But even in that epoch where T20 hadn't been emerged, I was excited with the entertainment. Regarding the future of ODIs, yes ICC has to take a step forward to survive this format. Being a spectator, I love watching test cricket for the temperament, class, talent and technique of a player, I love watching T20 as it gives fast entertainment in such a short duration. Where ODIs fall? Do they provide enough entertainment as T20s do? Do they offer challenges, take most out of a player as Test Matches do?

  • vikas_raik on June 10, 2010, 3:22 GMT

    I remember a split inngs match played bwn India and Newzeland in india's 2nd last tour of Nz.India lost that match.. I think this is an idea worth trying..when so many experiments like supersub,pp,referal has been tried and tested why no this??

  • HISXLNC on June 10, 2010, 3:26 GMT

    gud idea. needs fine tuning though.

  • emmwill on June 10, 2010, 5:03 GMT

    The International Comedy Club (ICC) obviously has its head in the sand. They are always reactive rather than proactive when it comes to innovation and creativity. This is a new and workable idea that should be implemented and then evaluated. The ICC should not just throw it aside without considering the pros and cons. I guess I do not expect better of the clowns on the ICC board.

  • Agni.anand on June 10, 2010, 5:11 GMT

    it will be either an exciting Test Match or a boring T20 rather T25

  • bobagorof on June 10, 2010, 5:14 GMT

    I was dead against this idea in a comment I made on a similar article (which Cricinfo didn't post) - but if one HAS to trial a new format of the game, why not have a few exhibition matches first, rather than jumping in and replacing the whole domestic setup? If the new format proves overwhelmingly more popular over a reasonable length of time (taking into account novelty value), then you can change based on some valid financial and supporter-base reasons. But changing to a new format without first surveying the lay of the land... well no wonder cricket's popularity is struggling.

  • Caesar on June 10, 2010, 5:31 GMT

    Its a great idea.. however I don't think it's gonna add a new dimension to the sport at all. The reason is, what kind of skill would you require to succeed in this new format, pretty much the same as the 20 over game. So if I am a captain would I really pick Dravid or a Langer in my side, don't think so, albeit would make some good viewing !