Future of one-day cricket September 4, 2009

Tendulkar for two innings each in ODIs

Cricinfo staff
  shares 116

Sachin Tendulkar is in favour of one-day cricket but believes the 50-over format can be tinkered with in order to reduce the advantage gained by the team winning the toss. He said that the total of 100 overs could be split into four innings of 25 each, which would mean that no side would have the best of the conditions for the entire match.

Tendulkar said he first thought of the format during the Champions Trophy final in 2002 where India played Sri Lanka in Colombo. In that match, Sri Lanka batted 50 overs before rain washed out the game shortly after India began their chase. On the reserve day, rain once again forced an abandonment after Sri Lanka had completed their innings.

"I am for 50-over cricket. I think we should have 25 overs a side to start with. I thought of this during the 2002 Champions Trophy in Sri Lanka," Tendulkar told Times Now, an Indian news channel. "In the finals, we ended up playing 110 overs against Sri Lanka. First they played 50 overs and we played 10 overs before the rain interruption. The next day, Sri Lanka again played 50 overs and in the end we were declared joint winners. I thought, 110 overs and still no result.

"That is when I thought, we should have 25 overs first for one side and then the other, and then once again 25 overs for one side and then the other. Today, we can tell the result of close to 75% of matches after the toss. We know how the conditions will affect the two teams. But it [his idea] is not too dependent on the toss because, for example, in a day-night match both the teams will have to bat under lights. The conditions change very dramatically but this would ensure that it's same for everyone."

Tendulkar's comments come at a time when the future of the one-day game is being questioned. The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) has scrapped its domestic 50-over tournament while Cricket South Africa is considering changes to its domestic 45-over competition. The ECB is also 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.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY TeeJ on | September 8, 2009, 23:08 GMT

    It's very backward of a few attention seekers here to argue the impact Sachin Tendulkar on Cricket. The man clearly leads the charts and has spanned a career in which many players internationally had a debut, shined and retired. When a team loses a game only retards and imbeciles blame it on one player who has been a champion otherwise. To rate a player, you have to consider what he brings to the team and when a team wins or loses, every player has a part in it and not the whole. Like the test match against Pakistan in Chennai, if a person blames Sachin for that loss. They need to take a good look at themselves and start understanding what team sports mean. I don't want to make my comment directed only to Mr.Gomes because he obviously doesn't know what he is littering about. To any one out there, Sachin has played, lasted and has nothing to prove to anyone over here who talks up to seek attention. He is the elite league of sportsperson around the world. Naysayers can only sulk!

  • POSTED BY Burmanolo on | September 8, 2009, 13:09 GMT

    Mr V.Gomes/Hyderabadflick- As far as ODI's are concerned Sachin is the best BECAUSE not only has he played and survived 425 ODIS, but he has has the most runs by a massive margin, because Sachin has an avg of 44.37 higher than anyone who has scored 7000 runs or more, because at 36 he is still good enough to be included in any team in the world. Yes Bevan and Richards are have higher averages, but they have scored only 3/8th of Sachin's runs.History remembers individual achievements over team accomplishments. Its not entirely what sachin has done on the field that makes him the greatest, but it is what he has come to represent, it is the veneration that he commands, It is the relentless passion that he has, the crisp on drives that haven't changed since 1989.SO YOU TELL ME; almost 17000 runs, almost 50 100's, standing ovations at every ground, a career spanning 2 decades : In the words of the Late DAVID SHEPHERD " If sachin is not the best batsman in the world, then tell me who is?"

  • POSTED BY vignezh on | September 8, 2009, 12:57 GMT

    In response to V.GOMES I am surprised why you are so adamant in accepting the facts. I dont know what you have against Tendulkar. He has been accepted as one of the best batsman in the history of cricket. The whole world know this, and I am not bothered if one person wouldn't accept. Tendulkar has played for more than 20 years of international cricket, but with consistency. I am sure you would have acheived such a thing through your rubbish argument. Grow up mate. Dont shy to accept facts, I wouldn't deny ones stature just because I dont like their country.

    Cheers. Keep writing. Vignesh.

  • POSTED BY bat_bowl_field on | September 8, 2009, 11:16 GMT

    "V.Gomes" are you nuts? or having you been watching another game to the rest of us for the past couple of decades. Sachin is one of if not THE greatest of all time. It would be an insult to the game and the great man if there was any other opinion on the matter. He has won many games for India even though he played in a poor side for many years. Open your eyes and look at his record!

  • POSTED BY tendlya14 on | September 8, 2009, 4:36 GMT

    Regarding V.GOMES. i think uve already established Tendulkars status by comparing him to jordan and maradona amd pele. these above mentioned players were gifted no doubt but they had support good enough to be the best team in the world in their respective era's. sachin carried his team singlehandedly to one world cup final and a semifinal, with sporadic team support. and use stats-guru.....it realy is a treasure of information. If u check the record of ODI batsmen in finals u will see that sachin has won more finals for his country than any other individual has won his respective country.u will not find any other cricket player in any other era who has carried his team to wins. even ricky ponting is struggling to carry his team forward....this should help u understand how tough a task it is...and of course this being a difficult thing to do sachin obviously has more losses than wins...but overall...India has won nore games than she has lost in sachin's era. do get ur facts right.

  • POSTED BY Jeptic on | September 8, 2009, 3:32 GMT

    Mr. Gomes...I amfrom the WI but reading your comments on Sachin tells me that you are perhaps analytically bankrupt. Firstly, Sachin didn't lose the games. It is a TEAM that wins or LOSES. SEcondly, Viv, while an all time great, had the gratest bowling atttack on his side (did he win or the bowlers? ). In the day s of Dir Don, Australia was the strongest team around. India only got that way recently. Cricket is not a one man show!!! WAKE UP MAN - MAKE SOME SENSE!!!

  • POSTED BY Pratik_vodka on | September 7, 2009, 16:41 GMT

    Lets not make this about wether Sachin is the best player or not. But rather if the suggestion he has made is valid. Apart from Sachin being best or not is a matter of each ones opinion. If you can make Bradman the best ever batsmen then remember he hardly played agianst many teams and most if not all his records are against England mostly.So with Viv, he played with a team ofgreats around him. He really never came under the presures like what Sachin was where if Sachin is out People switch off TV sets as the result is know. We can keep making arguments and counter arguments as viewers and people who follow stats and graphs. What makes Sachin the best player ever for me is NOT even a single opponent i have heared who has played against Sachin has ever rated any other Batsmen higher than him. Its not the stats that speak only but a combination of many others. It is not easy to score the highest runs and stil lose repeatedly as other fail around you miserably & still 1 plays coz of fans

  • POSTED BY V.GOMES on | September 7, 2009, 13:25 GMT

    In response to "HyderabadiFlick", I understand that you must be from India and you are entitled to your opinion. But sometimes the facts don't lie. Sachin has a lot of runs because he has played more games than any cricketer in the world against all those players who have come and retired while he continues to play, and by they way he has NOT played very well against Murali and a few others, thus the dismal average in Sri Lanka (remember the last tour of SL). But my argument is - how a player who has lost more games than any other player in cricket be named the best player in cricket. Bradman, maybe. Viv Richards, maybe. But not Sachin. That would be insulting the game of cricket. Pele nor Maradona is not the biggest looser in international soccer. Jordan in not the biggest loser in International Olympics basket ball, in fact while he played Team USA won the Gold each year, unlike now. So how can the player who had LOST more games than any other player in world cricket, be the best?

  • POSTED BY Boraan on | September 7, 2009, 10:54 GMT

    For guys who have misunderstood the concept, Sachin is not talking about having two desserts a day as many people in the earlier comments have said. He's talking about breaking your meal into two halves. This new concept will make the game more interesting, with result not so predictable early in the game. this would be great fun. Would require more strategic captaincy. This will further test their skills and same goes for the players.

  • POSTED BY Pratik_vodka on | September 7, 2009, 9:06 GMT

    Think the idea is a good one if ODI is to survive as i see it year 2020 will mark the end of ODI's.

    50 overs split in 2 inngs with no second chances to batsmen. So it doesnt become 2 X T20 matches.

    First Inngs (team A) 25 over ( PP mandatory 10 overs, max 5 overs per bowler) Second Inngs (Team B) 25 overs (PP mandatory 10 overs, max 5 overs per bowler) Third Inngs (team A) 25 overs ( PP 5 overs batsmen choice and 5 overs bowlers choice) Fourth Inngs(Team B) 25 overs ( same as above)

    Batsmen still get 1 oppurtunity to bat and the second inngs for a team is just a continuation of the previous inngs. Also if it rains rather than D/L first inngs lead could decide the match. Since both teams will have a heads up on conditions. And also share the conditions while giving less advantage to team winning the toss.

  • POSTED BY TeeJ on | September 8, 2009, 23:08 GMT

    It's very backward of a few attention seekers here to argue the impact Sachin Tendulkar on Cricket. The man clearly leads the charts and has spanned a career in which many players internationally had a debut, shined and retired. When a team loses a game only retards and imbeciles blame it on one player who has been a champion otherwise. To rate a player, you have to consider what he brings to the team and when a team wins or loses, every player has a part in it and not the whole. Like the test match against Pakistan in Chennai, if a person blames Sachin for that loss. They need to take a good look at themselves and start understanding what team sports mean. I don't want to make my comment directed only to Mr.Gomes because he obviously doesn't know what he is littering about. To any one out there, Sachin has played, lasted and has nothing to prove to anyone over here who talks up to seek attention. He is the elite league of sportsperson around the world. Naysayers can only sulk!

  • POSTED BY Burmanolo on | September 8, 2009, 13:09 GMT

    Mr V.Gomes/Hyderabadflick- As far as ODI's are concerned Sachin is the best BECAUSE not only has he played and survived 425 ODIS, but he has has the most runs by a massive margin, because Sachin has an avg of 44.37 higher than anyone who has scored 7000 runs or more, because at 36 he is still good enough to be included in any team in the world. Yes Bevan and Richards are have higher averages, but they have scored only 3/8th of Sachin's runs.History remembers individual achievements over team accomplishments. Its not entirely what sachin has done on the field that makes him the greatest, but it is what he has come to represent, it is the veneration that he commands, It is the relentless passion that he has, the crisp on drives that haven't changed since 1989.SO YOU TELL ME; almost 17000 runs, almost 50 100's, standing ovations at every ground, a career spanning 2 decades : In the words of the Late DAVID SHEPHERD " If sachin is not the best batsman in the world, then tell me who is?"

  • POSTED BY vignezh on | September 8, 2009, 12:57 GMT

    In response to V.GOMES I am surprised why you are so adamant in accepting the facts. I dont know what you have against Tendulkar. He has been accepted as one of the best batsman in the history of cricket. The whole world know this, and I am not bothered if one person wouldn't accept. Tendulkar has played for more than 20 years of international cricket, but with consistency. I am sure you would have acheived such a thing through your rubbish argument. Grow up mate. Dont shy to accept facts, I wouldn't deny ones stature just because I dont like their country.

    Cheers. Keep writing. Vignesh.

  • POSTED BY bat_bowl_field on | September 8, 2009, 11:16 GMT

    "V.Gomes" are you nuts? or having you been watching another game to the rest of us for the past couple of decades. Sachin is one of if not THE greatest of all time. It would be an insult to the game and the great man if there was any other opinion on the matter. He has won many games for India even though he played in a poor side for many years. Open your eyes and look at his record!

  • POSTED BY tendlya14 on | September 8, 2009, 4:36 GMT

    Regarding V.GOMES. i think uve already established Tendulkars status by comparing him to jordan and maradona amd pele. these above mentioned players were gifted no doubt but they had support good enough to be the best team in the world in their respective era's. sachin carried his team singlehandedly to one world cup final and a semifinal, with sporadic team support. and use stats-guru.....it realy is a treasure of information. If u check the record of ODI batsmen in finals u will see that sachin has won more finals for his country than any other individual has won his respective country.u will not find any other cricket player in any other era who has carried his team to wins. even ricky ponting is struggling to carry his team forward....this should help u understand how tough a task it is...and of course this being a difficult thing to do sachin obviously has more losses than wins...but overall...India has won nore games than she has lost in sachin's era. do get ur facts right.

  • POSTED BY Jeptic on | September 8, 2009, 3:32 GMT

    Mr. Gomes...I amfrom the WI but reading your comments on Sachin tells me that you are perhaps analytically bankrupt. Firstly, Sachin didn't lose the games. It is a TEAM that wins or LOSES. SEcondly, Viv, while an all time great, had the gratest bowling atttack on his side (did he win or the bowlers? ). In the day s of Dir Don, Australia was the strongest team around. India only got that way recently. Cricket is not a one man show!!! WAKE UP MAN - MAKE SOME SENSE!!!

  • POSTED BY Pratik_vodka on | September 7, 2009, 16:41 GMT

    Lets not make this about wether Sachin is the best player or not. But rather if the suggestion he has made is valid. Apart from Sachin being best or not is a matter of each ones opinion. If you can make Bradman the best ever batsmen then remember he hardly played agianst many teams and most if not all his records are against England mostly.So with Viv, he played with a team ofgreats around him. He really never came under the presures like what Sachin was where if Sachin is out People switch off TV sets as the result is know. We can keep making arguments and counter arguments as viewers and people who follow stats and graphs. What makes Sachin the best player ever for me is NOT even a single opponent i have heared who has played against Sachin has ever rated any other Batsmen higher than him. Its not the stats that speak only but a combination of many others. It is not easy to score the highest runs and stil lose repeatedly as other fail around you miserably & still 1 plays coz of fans

  • POSTED BY V.GOMES on | September 7, 2009, 13:25 GMT

    In response to "HyderabadiFlick", I understand that you must be from India and you are entitled to your opinion. But sometimes the facts don't lie. Sachin has a lot of runs because he has played more games than any cricketer in the world against all those players who have come and retired while he continues to play, and by they way he has NOT played very well against Murali and a few others, thus the dismal average in Sri Lanka (remember the last tour of SL). But my argument is - how a player who has lost more games than any other player in cricket be named the best player in cricket. Bradman, maybe. Viv Richards, maybe. But not Sachin. That would be insulting the game of cricket. Pele nor Maradona is not the biggest looser in international soccer. Jordan in not the biggest loser in International Olympics basket ball, in fact while he played Team USA won the Gold each year, unlike now. So how can the player who had LOST more games than any other player in world cricket, be the best?

  • POSTED BY Boraan on | September 7, 2009, 10:54 GMT

    For guys who have misunderstood the concept, Sachin is not talking about having two desserts a day as many people in the earlier comments have said. He's talking about breaking your meal into two halves. This new concept will make the game more interesting, with result not so predictable early in the game. this would be great fun. Would require more strategic captaincy. This will further test their skills and same goes for the players.

  • POSTED BY Pratik_vodka on | September 7, 2009, 9:06 GMT

    Think the idea is a good one if ODI is to survive as i see it year 2020 will mark the end of ODI's.

    50 overs split in 2 inngs with no second chances to batsmen. So it doesnt become 2 X T20 matches.

    First Inngs (team A) 25 over ( PP mandatory 10 overs, max 5 overs per bowler) Second Inngs (Team B) 25 overs (PP mandatory 10 overs, max 5 overs per bowler) Third Inngs (team A) 25 overs ( PP 5 overs batsmen choice and 5 overs bowlers choice) Fourth Inngs(Team B) 25 overs ( same as above)

    Batsmen still get 1 oppurtunity to bat and the second inngs for a team is just a continuation of the previous inngs. Also if it rains rather than D/L first inngs lead could decide the match. Since both teams will have a heads up on conditions. And also share the conditions while giving less advantage to team winning the toss.

  • POSTED BY spalazhi on | September 7, 2009, 7:10 GMT

    Hello Sir Normally one innings ofa one day take 3 and 1/2 hours.If we split it into two it will take more than 4 hours to complete 50 overs, so it will not end in one day. Recently I read an interesting format of cricket named Tens Four cricket posted by Mr. Premjith, Lecturer in Automobile Engineering, Government Polytechnic College, Attingal in the web site poemhunter.com. Sunoj B S

  • POSTED BY HyderabadiFlick on | September 6, 2009, 19:14 GMT

    In response to V.Gomes. Cricket is a team sport and Tiger & Ali play(ed) individual sport and Plz FYI information George Foreman has a better record than Ali. And Jordan plays a sport which is seldom played at the international arena. Plz try to compare NBA to IPL, ICL and county cricket. You agree or disagree SRT is the greatest because he has played and survived against greats like Ambrose, Akram, Walsh, Warne, Donald, Pollock, Mcgrath, Murali, Waqar, Lee and yester year greats like Hadlee, Botham, Marshall, Qadir, Imran. Compare Tendulkar with Maradona. Sachin has been a part of a very ordinary cricket team for many years and 11 times India has lost when he scored a 100 in an ODI.I liked your discussions though. Keep writing.

  • POSTED BY cricsand on | September 6, 2009, 14:03 GMT

    I think all of you should watch the interview on youtube first to understand what he really meant. The words here in this article are lost in translation. For example, I don't think he said 75% of all games are decided on toss.

  • POSTED BY imirfan on | September 6, 2009, 10:23 GMT

    Not a good idea. You wll not see great players like Saeed Anwar, Tendulkar etc. there will not be any big hundreds and Saeed records will stay there for ever. I want Umar akmal or another pakistani to break 200 runs psycological barrier. I hope that his comments are just ignored.

  • POSTED BY V.GOMES on | September 6, 2009, 8:33 GMT

    In response to 'HyderabadiFlick', its not an out of the box idea. This idea has been touched before in the past. Like 'checkindia' said in his post, this seems to derived from baseball.

    As for Sachin being the greatest of all time,.. well that is a matter of opinion. After all he has LOST more matches than any cricketer in the world. After all what is the most important statistic in cricket, win or loss. Micheal Jordan didn't loose more games than any NBA player,.. Tiger Woods has not lost more games than any golfer,.. Mohammed Ali has not lost more fights than any boxer. So lets not call Sachin the greatest. We would be insulting the game of Cricket.

  • POSTED BY V.GOMES on | September 6, 2009, 7:33 GMT

    Reducing luck is one things, but an ICC coin that falls heads 8 out of 10 times is not luck. It's more to do with weight and gravity. We need to first look into replasing this ICC coin with a propper equally weighted one. Example: Take the tour of India 2009: ICC coin came heads 5 out of 5 times. Average loss on day-night games over 100 rums for the team batting second. Pakistan tour of Sri Lanka 2009: ICC coin came heads 4 out of 5 time. Average loss on day-night games over 100 rums for the team batting second.

    Current New Zealand tour of Sri Lanka: ICC coin comes heads 2 out of 2 times in the 20/20's. Team batting second lost on both occasions.

    Unfair for host countries who always have to flip the coin, hear the opponent call heads, and then loose the match. Especially island countires like West Indies where the night time brings in moisture and dew which makes the ball turn more and hold to the pitch. Why do you the Indian team has visited SL several times since the coin was chnaged last year,.. easy way to boost your ranking.

    First thing is first, lets get the ICC to change that coin.

  • POSTED BY checkIndia on | September 6, 2009, 6:07 GMT

    Its a very innovative idea.I think he`s taken this from baseball. Just to add on what he said,it actually wud be interesting if we have 40 overs i mean 20 per innings and runs,wickets are all carried over from 1st inn to 2nd Inn..Its not a T20. So, we have 2 formats which co-exist in terms of overs and still 40 overs will have all the essence of ODI.

  • POSTED BY V.GOMES on | September 6, 2009, 3:51 GMT

    I don't know why he is complaining, India has been benifiting from the ICC coiin when touring countries like Sri Lanka. The ICC coin falls heads 8 out of 10 tmes,.. yes thats 80% of the time. This is what really needs to be fixed first. This is a major disadvantage for host countries such as West Indies and Sri Lanka (who has to flip the coin), islands where the day-night matches are severely affected by the high-tide which brings in moisture in the air at night. The ball starts to turn more and stick to the pitch. Not to mention in grounds like the Premedasa Stadium in Colombo where the low flood-lights affect the visibility of the batsmen, the team batting second has a major disadvantage. It does not take a genius to figure that out: Take the tour of India 2009: ICC coin came heads 5 out of 5 times. Average loss on day-night games over 100 rums for the team batting second. Pakistan tour of SL 2009: ICC coin came heads 4 out of 5 time. Average loss on day-night over 100 runs.

  • POSTED BY HyderabadiFlick on | September 6, 2009, 2:24 GMT

    To start with, congrats to the greatest of our time "Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar" for suggesting an out of the box solution for ODI's. As he going to retire sooner or later. Sachin will surely continue as an Analyst or a commentrator and that is very good for the dying sport. With the knowledge we have, in world of sports the idea has to be implemented to make the format accepted world over. The T20 was started in England only this century and slowly but surely its being watched by millions. In Australia, Kerry Packer World Series was started in the 1970's with coloured clothing and under the lights and people have accepted it eventually and ICC approved it and changed the cricket forever. So, to implement this form of cricket BCCI must start at the domestic level and to make it popular, people of India are enough. I'm confident that Sachin will talk to the heads of BCCI to start this innovation as early as possible. Please Save ODI Cricket!!!

  • POSTED BY imadeel on | September 6, 2009, 0:44 GMT

    Worst idea ever!!!! Regardless of either it will be 10 Wickets per innings or Continuation of the previous innings, in both cases the History of cricket will suffer. What About the Greatness of Cricket which made us Fans of Cricket. What about Building Innings, Focus, Temperament and technique. If 15 Min Break in IPL is considered by Sachin as a Break in Momentum, then how could he justify the break in Momentum for 25 overs. It was 1 match against Srilanka which he is talking about. What about all the Other Great Results of ODIs. Its Better to DELETE the ODI and Test rather than Modifying the Greatness of Cricket. I am in favour of Cricket in its all Original Flavours. ODI (50-50) Test (5 days) and T20.

  • POSTED BY niaz_morshed on | September 5, 2009, 21:31 GMT

    may be its a good idea....but am feeling in other sense this could promote T20s more...coz in the end this will be nothing but splitting an ODI into two T20s [T25s in fact]....the beauty of ODI will be lost....and moreover that format will mock the test matches for sure....rain washed matches should played on a new day..if not possible let that match be abandoned....to meet the same playing condition need for either side.

  • POSTED BY SnowSnake on | September 5, 2009, 19:59 GMT

    I had posted a comment earlier and it generated a lot of follow up comments. I am replying to the debate. First the article says 25 overs per side (which I assume it to be 10 wicket innings). Assuming that this is not true then the idea gets even more stupid because the break in innings will cause disruption in concentration of a well set batsman and loss of momentum, if any. Additionally, if a team loses all 10 wickets in 25 overs then there will not be any second innings to play. The whole idea of balancing luck is stupid because before the toss each side has 50-50 chance of winning, so why should Tendulkar say that the side that has won the toss is lucky?(as if the captain on the winning side knew something more than the one on the losing side). As a related example, everyone knows that batting on 5th day in test cricket is a nightmare, do we now want to alternate batsmen from different teams one at a time to balance that factor?

  • POSTED BY nskaile on | September 5, 2009, 19:49 GMT

    sorry but i dont like this idea. i think it will make cricket boring!!

    40 OVERS ODI IS PERFECT!!!!!! cuz eve team try to score fast till 20th over and then try to build inning, so if we gonna have 40 over. 20 overs BANG BANG, from 20 to 30 build inning and last 10 overs, once againg BANG BANG :D

  • POSTED BY Quazar on | September 5, 2009, 17:32 GMT

    @hrgopal: I think he may have meant in Day / Night games. Just based on my own viewing experience, I agree with that observation for D/N games (even if the actual % is not precisely as large as 75%).

  • POSTED BY -Murad- on | September 5, 2009, 17:19 GMT

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    He doesn't want anyone else to BREAK his RECORDS of 15/16000 runs in ODIs, thats why he is proposing this idea.

    If it becomes 25/25 x 2, no one will ever be able to play a long innings and make tons of runs like he did.

    Quite a clever man. But it will not be happening..:-D

  • POSTED BY TwitterJitter on | September 5, 2009, 16:56 GMT

    It might help if the debate is on what he actually said which is 10 wickets for 50 overs which is played over 2 innings so that 1) advantage of the toss is reduced 2) teams can plan how they go about their 2 innings i.e go slow in the first 25, keep wickets, and then go for runs in the 2nd or vice-versa. i agree this article is not very clear on that but there is a youtube video of his interview with timesnow that is available and in it he clearly states that it will allow teams to plan their innings whether they want to be aggressive in the first innings or go slow and keep wickets and then chase it in second innings. Good or bad at least the debate should be on what he said that on what people imagined he said. No where in that interview does he imply that 20 wickets over 2 innings.

  • POSTED BY gangaphanindra on | September 5, 2009, 16:48 GMT

    its a pretty good idea. eventually it leads to an end to odi cricket and T20 format comes in to full picture but there will be huge loss to to bowlers as they will be hammered.... some changes should be made sticking to main idea....

  • POSTED BY mabbu on | September 5, 2009, 16:31 GMT

    @ snow(fl)snake - he means 10 wkts for 50 overs mate.. u either get it or u dont.. obviously u didnt..

  • POSTED BY KingOwl on | September 5, 2009, 15:36 GMT

    I am all for anything that reduces the impact of luck. We clearly saw that in the two T20 matches played under lights in Sri Lanka. NZ won the toss twice and it was almost guaranteed that they would win the match given the nature of the conditions in Colombo. But it has to be a case of the same inning continuing after a change over. Otherwise, it would be pretty dumb.

  • POSTED BY Lennon_Marx on | September 5, 2009, 15:11 GMT

    If I remember rightly New Zealand tried (or at least proposed) a variation of this sort of idea through Martin Crowe some years back, and am not sure how successful it was. I think the idea is a little convoluted if it's two separate innings but could work if the number of wickets lost (if not necessarily the runs) is carried over. While we're at it why not break the game into 5 ten over innings?

  • POSTED BY Biju_George on | September 5, 2009, 15:10 GMT

    Time has come to stop test cricket and re-think on 50 over game. Nobody has time to watch 5 day game and in some instance no results? horrible & ridicules!!. T20 is okey.

  • POSTED BY CiMP on | September 5, 2009, 15:10 GMT

    Gr8 to hear Sachin speak on cricket reforms/changes. But 2 innings of 25 overs makes it a double T25 match! I'd prefer completely abandoning the ODIs and make a T20 a separate type of game and not call it Cricket - like Snooker as different from Billiards and 100m spirit different from the Marathon.

  • POSTED BY Gopalakrishna on | September 5, 2009, 15:01 GMT

    Tendulkar's statement in this article, that we can tell the result of close to 75% of matches after the toss is incorrect. A distinguished member of Association of Cricket Statisticians {ACS}, Ric Finlay, has this to say

    In the 2759 ODIs that have come to a definite conclusion, the side winning the toss has won 1406 times, less than 51%. Since 2000, the corresponding figures are 640 out of 1221 matches (52.4%), and since 2005, 314 out of 601 (52.2%). Even in the last 12 months, it has been 58 out of 115. I would suggest winning the toss is not a determinant of the result of the match, one way or the other, which is as it should be. Perhaps Sachin, after doing his research, has decided that these percentages are close to 75%. It is a pity that cricketing notables make these claims, because the fawning public tend to believe them, and as a consequence, there is pressure put on administrators to make bad decisions.Can someone put him right? HRG, Cricket Statistician, India

  • POSTED BY Dragon_7654 on | September 5, 2009, 14:23 GMT

    (Continued... ) All in all, it's an idea worth looking at. I was always for this idea, even though it came before the advent of T20 - like others who posted here, we tried 2-inng for tennis ball cricket (gulli@iimb), only with fresh starts for batsmen; which as many others point out may not be possible in International Cricket for various reasons already enumerated; all our matches went to the wire, with teams coming back from a first inning deficit... great fun... It is definitely worth a try if it keeps the ODIs alive. As Martin Crowe pointed out each format has its role in the sport - with T20 spreading to new territories, ODIs to move serious but lower teams up the order, and limit tests to the top few. Imagine a 16 team (expanding to 32) T20WC, 12 team (expanding to 16) ODIWC, and a test cup involving only the top 8/9 teams (the last of which the BCCI is unfortunately not supporting - don't they realise that SRT, VVS, and Dravid to name a few can get us more laurels?)

  • POSTED BY Dragon_7654 on | September 5, 2009, 14:16 GMT

    Nothing to take away from the great SRT's thoughts, but 1) read Marting Crowe's 2006 Cowdrey Lecture (http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/spirit/mcc-spirit-of-cricket-cowdrey-lecture/2006-cowdrey-lecture-full-text,1197,AR.html) - He talks of not just this, but also a 2 inning format for 20-20 (a perverted version happened at IPL2!) 2) As 'Bedekar' pointed out this was tried out in Australia for some ODIs. I am unable to find the reference - Steve, please throw some light on this 3) 'Cricket Max' (the predecessor to T20) had '2 innings' in a limited over format, and most matches went to the wire 4) John Buchanan also said something to this effect in 2007, but Mr. Buchanan says a lot of things... so we shall discount that one.

    All in all, it's an idea worth looking at. I was always for this idea, even though it came before the advent of T20 - like others who posted here, (Continued...)

  • POSTED BY nikkam on | September 5, 2009, 13:44 GMT

    The more cricket is made shorter, the lesser will be the influence of external factors. In T20, the lesser overs make both teams even, but it soon becomes a slugfest where technique and innings building goes for a toss. One-day really tests the acclaimed T20 players technique, where the adjustment to the conditions have to be made and requires more concentration and technique bcos we have to face 10 overs from each bowler. Like in tests where the innings lead comes in to play, if ODIs are split in to 25 overs in two innings per team, the lead should be taken in to account, but in case both teams are equal by the first innings, then it becomes similar to T20 in the second innings. I think it is better to leave ODIs as it is or make it a 40 over contest, to reduce the long time associated.

  • POSTED BY kushalmehta on | September 5, 2009, 13:35 GMT

    re: Snowsake: Dude it is not a stupid idea at all..i think so you have got it completely wrong....tendullkar is suggesting that we have 2 innings with not 10 wks in each....10 wks in total.....in this way we can ensure that no team get the uppper hand by winning the toss...in india if a teams wins the toss it is more likely to win the game too....because we have a lot of due during the day night games and the team bowling second cannot even grip the ball....in this way when each tem plays 25 oves we can get a more balanced game.......

  • POSTED BY tfjones1978 on | September 5, 2009, 13:24 GMT

    I like the idea of two innings of 25 overs, but ONLY if the second innings is a continuation of the first. Or, each innings has 5 wickets each (pref 10 wks for both innings then 5 wks each though).

    I actually would prefer to see however, two innings each of 40 overs ... with breaks makes 12 hour day (say 9am-9pm), but would settle for 10 wk 50 over match, split into 25,25,25,25.

    Regarding Test Cricket. I know vinchester in his comments was being sarcastic, but I actually think that splitting test cricket into: * 4 sessions per day: 25,20,20,25. * Each team alternates batting sessions until someone wins.

    Benefits of this to test cricket: * Quicker Game: Most matches would be over 3 or 4 sessions earlier then at the moment. IE: Shorter games without reducing number of overs or days. * More Entertaining: Easier to know how each team is progressing, and less "time batting". * Easier to market: Countries like China, USA & others would find it easier to play and watch.

  • POSTED BY ShahidAfridiFan on | September 5, 2009, 13:21 GMT

    Its a pretty stupid idea coming from tendulkar. Wasnt he the one who was complaining about the 15min break during the ipl matches as they disrupted a batsmens momentum? if a guy has got 50* in the first 25 overs and he comes back in after 25 overs he will lose momentum and could easily get out, he will still have to work himself back into the crease to continue to get a hundred.

  • POSTED BY bangalibabu on | September 5, 2009, 13:20 GMT

    great idea we can have two 25/25 games in a day and also through a challange to 20/20 game i hope icc will look in this and also bcci can try this in india first

  • POSTED BY SnowSnake on | September 5, 2009, 12:31 GMT

    It is a stupid idea. In all, it is 50 overs and 20 wickets (10 wickets per 25 over innings). This makes is almost equal to two 20Twenty games. If anything this will look more like a baseball game than a cricket game. Batsman talent will not count for anything. With 50 overs and 20 wickets, it will be an average of 2.5 overs/wicket (50/20) and this will lead to slogging contest between teams because value of losing a wicket decreases (Just like 20Twenty). If anything I am surprised that Tendulkar, who is so much experience in the game, actually thought of this stupid idea.

  • POSTED BY faheim on | September 5, 2009, 12:15 GMT

    Great idea. One day cricket has become a dull version of T20 cricket. Some thing like this implemented will be very refreshing. And again its not only about the entertainment value, its also about the credibility of the 50 over format. As sachin says the results are too dependent on the toss. As a cricket fan i'd like to see teams winning when they play better cricket than the opposition, not because they were lucky enough to win the toss.

  • POSTED BY vijujack on | September 5, 2009, 11:48 GMT

    I commend Tendulkar on voicing this, though Ian Chappell talked about it a while ago. If the powers that be sat down & talked it through, having the innings split into two ( as different from two separate innings) with the first 5 overs & the last 5 overs as power plays in each segment makes for an interesting contect. This way the conditions of play will be equal and moreover the teams can respond better to the other team's gameplan. One day format was good upto a point but these days they have become dreary especially to those who think only 4's & 6's makes the game of cricket. Since we need to get everyone involved in the game this format can be tried at the national levels before going ahead at the international stage. An experiment can be conducted by using two different balls from the two ends, instead of having a new ball after 25 overs- this will ensure that the balls are in good shape. ICC can read the comments on this article and they can try to enrgise this format.

  • POSTED BY Noman_Yousuf_Dandore on | September 5, 2009, 11:25 GMT

    It's a pretty good idea if it means one innings in 2 blocks of 25 overs. I'd thought about it sometime back and posted it on a blog (prob. it was on cricinfo only). I think ICC should ask member boards to do a trial at domestic level immediately then we can take it from there. Cheers!! NYD

  • POSTED BY BEDEKAR on | September 5, 2009, 11:17 GMT

    Sensible idea coming ,of course, from the most sensible person. If I remember correctly,such games were played in Australia,quite some time back.Can Steve throw some light on it.

  • POSTED BY rustin on | September 5, 2009, 11:05 GMT

    Its not clear by the article whether the suggestion is to have the teams have two new innings or simply continue from where they had stopped in the previous inning. Two new innings makes no sense. If anything, it makes the one-dayers a joke. However if the 2nd inning is continued from the first, its exactly what ODIs need. It gives them a unique identity from tests and T20s and makes the toss less important.

  • POSTED BY bohurupi on | September 5, 2009, 10:50 GMT

    Simply ridiculous! Period!

  • POSTED BY adi23.7 on | September 5, 2009, 10:42 GMT

    Its not his innovation - its martin crowes

  • POSTED BY tapi on | September 5, 2009, 10:00 GMT

    Any sport played for a very long duration will not provide sustained entertainment.In the modern era people can afford to spend maximum 2-3 hours for watchinf any entertainment.As such Test Cricket played for 5 days is losing charm and many fans do not watch it.So first of all, we have to bring down the 5 days to 2 days or 1 day. Can the Test Cricket be modified to 50 overs each innings and two innings for each team? Or can T20 be modified to 25 overs each innings and two innings for each team? The cricketing experts can debate and arrive at a suitable one and only one version of cricket which would satisfy the players, public and the sponsors.-- tapi

  • POSTED BY vinchester on | September 5, 2009, 10:00 GMT

    Next some wise guy will say lets tinker with the present test format to nullify winning the toss. eg each team bat only 40 overs & let the other team bat 40 overs to make up 80 overs for the day & so on until both the innings are completed. Shall we accept this proposal also?

  • POSTED BY sameeullah on | September 5, 2009, 9:04 GMT

    well the idea of sachin is good but it need some modification. i don't want to see odi's wholy soley for batsmen .becuase if they are batting in two inngs then the bolwers will dies. it will be same as t20.wat is is best in odis is if some team get hammered in first 25 overs it can recover by taking wickets and getting all wicket in shortest time. if they break innings then batmens will be dominating odis and poor bolwers will die. My advice: wat they do they break Bowlings over only but in 2nd 25 overs only remaing batmens will bat not whole team again. this will have same advantage like odi and may be we get better results and decrease in luck factor too.

  • POSTED BY ruvvy on | September 5, 2009, 8:19 GMT

    Two innings is a bad Idea. Single innings but played with a break after 25 overs (when the opposing team bats for 25) is a good Idea. Sachin just wants to bat :) twice!!!.

  • POSTED BY atuljain1969 on | September 5, 2009, 8:16 GMT

    Idea is good & interesting, however Tendulakar should clear whether he wants each 25 over innings to start fresh or continue from where it left earlier. atul jain

  • POSTED BY Play_with_me on | September 5, 2009, 7:46 GMT

    I think 50 over format should be retained as such. Playing 25 overs would not encourage any test for batting skills as all the players would like to hit out of the park rather than playing constructive innings. We have a T20 format which is already providing wholesome entertainment to all. Regarding Sachin's comment on 2002 Champions trophy final where 110 overs of cricket yielding no result, I would suggest to resume the game from where it stopped on the reserve day. Had India batted on the reserve day chasing SL's target we would have definitely found a champion. On the whole I love the current 50 over format.

  • POSTED BY surajcrick on | September 5, 2009, 7:45 GMT

    The same idea was given long time back by Ian chappell..I am sure of this..I saw him give this suggestion a year back in a show on star cricket!

  • POSTED BY r1m2 on | September 5, 2009, 7:45 GMT

    I am glad to see that a leading cricketer is seeing some merit in transforming ODIs into something closer to a shorter version of Test cricket, rather than keeping it the duller version of T20. This is great. I believe this will keep the integrity of exiting 50 overs format, while providing Test like thrills in the shortest possible time. Here is my proposal: Two innings of 25 overs a side. Rules of innings similar to Test cricket: 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) Losing all wickets in one inning = no 2nd inning 3) Any one bowler is limited to 5 overs max per inning. 4) First 5 overs of each inning would be power-play. 5) If the team batting second fails to get within 150 runs of team batting first, they may be asked to follow on. Similarly goes the inning victory/loss. 6) Max 5 matches per bilateral series.

  • POSTED BY joel.taylor on | September 5, 2009, 7:43 GMT

    This idea would work, IF, the second period of batting was a continuation of the first, not a seperate innings. Would make it interesting for strategy to allow the team who loss the toss to decide during the secord "innings" what they would prefer to do, they could continue batting and maintain the momenteum from their first innings ar they could go back into the field, etc. This format could work, but I wouldnt want to see it as two seprate innings. There needs to be a difference in tatics from a T20 game and having 2 T25's in essence wouldnt be all that great.

  • POSTED BY Riaz_Come_on_Lanka on | September 5, 2009, 7:36 GMT

    I partially agree with Sachin on this. However I feel that the odi game needs to contain one 50 over innings for each side, split into two 25 over components, with two blocks of 5 over powerplays (one each for the bowling and batting side) within each 25 overs. This would eliminate the boring one sided games played between aZimbabwe and Sri Lanka, as they could effectively lose the game within half the innings (i.e., we may see only 50 to 75 overs of play), would also allow for more even conditions to be experienced by both sides, would also make the run chases more exciting and would bring about a whole new dimension in odi strategy that effectively eliminates the boring 20-40 over phase seen in the current odi game. What do you guys think?

  • POSTED BY criscr on | September 5, 2009, 7:34 GMT

    very constructive idea He said just to break it in two innings. that doesn't mean that you have to bat 20 wickets. Its 10 wickets only for whole of 50 overs. The second inning will continue from where the first innings ended. SO batsmen will be able to get the centuries also.

    It will be more strategic game then

  • POSTED BY Cricism on | September 5, 2009, 7:32 GMT

    It is worth giving a try. For those opposing it - guys, this is not two T20s... each batsman bats only once, second innings starts exactly where the first ended. In other words, one innings split into two!!

  • POSTED BY smartchum on | September 5, 2009, 7:27 GMT

    The ideal thing would be to make it 20 overs each instead of 25 overs. This way it will sync with T20 format and avoid two different formats, bowling/fielding restrictions, etc. In other words, One day game will be a T20 game with two innings each.

  • POSTED BY Riderstorm on | September 5, 2009, 7:22 GMT

    Not a good idea. To avoid the chance of making the ODI into 2 T20 matches, we can have two innings but the number for wickets that each team has for both teams will be ten each as it is in an ODI. In this way, the core structure of ODI remains alive and at the same time it eliminates the weather impact on the game and also, it strategically revives the ODI format. Also, it is more marketable as the game becomes more interesting and competitive.

    Would like to have comments/opinions on this idea. :)

  • POSTED BY kavigulmy on | September 5, 2009, 7:18 GMT

    ya this is good idea , but not the best one since we love to see more hundred scorings in one day by any batmen in top ,middle or even in the low orders sometime...... sachin is really great batsmen of this era..........

  • POSTED BY David_Doss on | September 5, 2009, 7:17 GMT

    Well, if its like continuing your innings from where you left after 25th over, then its worth. Else its double desert.

  • POSTED BY biplobmmh on | September 5, 2009, 7:03 GMT

    Fantastic! Why no other could thought about that so far? I think, that would be more interesting than Twenty20. I would request the officials to consider and go through it.

  • POSTED BY Charindra on | September 5, 2009, 6:58 GMT

    Hmm..... I think I like this idea. You have to take Sachin seriously because he doesn't come up with these radical ideas everyday, unlike Shane Warne who keeps on dishing them out for some publicity. It should be trialled in first class cricket before internationals though. And yes, that final in Colombo was extremely frustrating.

  • POSTED BY Remo_Bond on | September 5, 2009, 6:39 GMT

    Its a nice idea... but to ensure its still ODI cricket , a team shud have only 10 wickets for the entire duration of the match..

  • POSTED BY thunder_bear on | September 5, 2009, 6:30 GMT

    I reckon Sachin isn't talking about ending the innings completely after 25 overs and restarting again in the next 25 over segment. Rather it's a split of 50 overs into 25 overs. Therefore batsmen still retain chance of scoring centuries. It's actually not a bad idea considering the standards of bowling that have gone up since the advent of T20 cricket and this phenomenon could be made to replicate in the newer format by having shorter innings twice. The mid phase of one-day cricket(20 to 40 overs) was tending to grow more and more boring and predictable. Splitting innings could also act a tonic for game that is losing popularity in the wake of T20 format.

  • POSTED BY PankajSharma on | September 5, 2009, 6:19 GMT

    People who are saying this is like two T20 games - I do not think Sachin is proposing to bat all the folks again. One team would play for 20 over, the other team plays for 20 overs, then the first team starts from where they left. So whoever was out would not bat again. Else, we are talking about really high scores (800+ runs a day).

    I really liked the idea. Would help to keep one days alive...

  • POSTED BY cricsand on | September 5, 2009, 6:10 GMT

    To differentiate it from Two formats (Tests & T20s), what if the innings is split into two, where the 2nd one is a continuation of the 1st and not a new innings like Test. So the batsmen who remained not out at the end of the 1st innings of their side, will go out to bat the next 25 hours in the 2nd innings to chase down a score or set a target. So it means you still have to only take 10 wickets to win a match. And to let the bowlers have more of a say in the game, use the new ball for each innings. This adds a lot of new dynamics to current format and create interesting scenarios for teams to workout. Cricket is after a game of strategy, and that is when its most thrilling. There is a fair amount of 'cricketing skill' involved in ODI compared pure muscle power like T20. Also, I think the boundaries should be pushed back to a certain minimum distance set by the ICC. ODIs should be retained. I think there is definitely space for all three to coexist.

  • POSTED BY ramanan50 on | September 5, 2009, 6:05 GMT

    1.You may have N number of plans but weather can never be predicted and your balancing advantage will be on paper. 2.The scrapping of 50 overs ODI is that people, after the advent of 20/20, do not have the patience to sit through 100 overs and it must be admitted that lesser the number of overs, more exciting the game is. Hence, Sachin's plan is not suitable.

  • POSTED BY Peligrosisimo3 on | September 5, 2009, 5:59 GMT

    I respect Sachin for the great player that he is but I don't think that this idea is a good one. The question we have to ask is this. Do we want ODI's to be played like T20 cricket or not? I personally think that there is virtually no difference between 20 and 25 overs. We would just be watching 2 innings of T20 cricket which already has its place in international cricket. There is no need to convert ODI's to T20 cricket.Also how would resorting this format have solved what happened in the 2002 final. Would the teams start, knowing that they have 2 innings to bat and then have one declared the winner after one if there was rain?I think the flaw in what happened if I understand correctly was allowing Sri Lanka to bat again. If they batted 50 then their score should have stood.The match would have been completed on the second day.Until something is decided(like the eliminator over in T20 or the penalty shootout in football) then D/L will have to be used ofr rain interrupted matches.

  • POSTED BY Gizza on | September 5, 2009, 5:58 GMT

    Great idea as always from the little master. To the people commenting that this will only be like two Twenty20's are missing the point. Tendulkar is talking about splitting the innings into two, not making two separate innings. So the batsmen carry on from the first innings as it were. So it is still a 50-over game, not 2 innings of 25 overs.

    But of course the team who wins the toss will still need to bat their last half in the night and on a slightly deteriating pitch which will reduce the effect of the toss. Also in situations where there is a reserve day and rain on both days, there should be enough cricket to eek out a result as Sachin stated, giving the example of the 2002 Champions Trophy.

  • POSTED BY The_Freakster on | September 5, 2009, 5:54 GMT

    Its a good idea. And instead of having two separate 25 over innings (as most people here are rightly criticising as akin to two T25 games), the second innings should continue from where the first ended. In essense, each batsman still gets to bat only once in a game, for 50 overs if possible. And now that a batsman of Tendulkar's stature has called for it, I hope the BCCI take it seriously and implement it on a trial basis in the Ranji Trophy atleast. Only after watching a few trial games shall we be in a better position to judge, rather than outright tossing the idea away!

  • POSTED BY IanJF on | September 5, 2009, 5:21 GMT

    If 60 evolved into 50, then I cant see why it cant evolve into 40 ?? Double a T20 game should be the ideal balance for a ODI format. Maintain current PowerPlay system of 10+5+5. It may kick-off better than T20 cause T20 has only 6 overs of power hitting..

  • POSTED BY CRIC-SIS on | September 5, 2009, 5:20 GMT

    the idea is good, but i have a slight variation to offer.... lets make d total wickets available for spending throughout the 50 overs as 10 rather than 20 as it would happen in 2 innings.... so if u r to lose your entire quota of 10 wkts within d 1st 25 ovrs, u r not entitled 2 ur 2nd quota of 25 overs.... this would even see some excitin changes in batting lineups.... as in shud u go with 2 sets of openers.... d middle overs in d first quota of 25 overs will see consolidators like dravid n d middle overs of second quota of 25 overs wud see sloghitters like yusuf pathan come into action.... there will b a whole new set of strategies that will come into play.... n u'll still get a chance to see centuries scored (which is a difficult task in a T20 match or indeed, a 25-over innnings).... how do u guys find this idea.... plz lemme know at summeronthepoles@gmail.com.... plz prefix the subject of ur mail with "ODI IDEA".... thanx....

  • POSTED BY SatishT2105 on | September 5, 2009, 4:51 GMT

    Oh my God!!!! I think we have misunderstood what the original idea was in the first place. Sachin probably wants a break after the first 25 overs, where in if a side starts to bat and goes on till they complete 25 overs and resume their innings from where they left off after the other side has batted 25 overs. So, it wouldn't be apt for us to treat these two fold innings as T20 games. This sort of an innovation will need special application with a need for bowling attacks to adjust accordingly and making the effort to dent the opposition in the first half as much as they would love to do so the second time or for batting sides to plan their assaults in halves. By doing this, as Sachin Tendulkar says, he ODI game will do all it could possibly do to rid itself of the luck factor.

  • POSTED BY MOHAMMAD-AHMAD on | September 5, 2009, 4:46 GMT

    Its not a good idea because it will change ODIs into T20 and the whole scenario of Game. We are enjoying three type of cricket, Test, ODI and T20 after implementing such idea there will remain only two formats of game T20 and Test. After some time it will damage the Test cricket

  • POSTED BY adi23.7 on | September 5, 2009, 4:39 GMT

    They've already tried this concept in New Zealand - North Island vs South Island around the same time Tendulkar says he thought about it, maybe even earlier. Its Martin Crowe's innovation.

  • POSTED BY KoolKeshav on | September 5, 2009, 4:26 GMT

    This concept is doing rounds for quite some time, but I believe that 2 innings should not be like tests where we start afresh, it should rather be 1 inning split into 2. For example Suppose India batted first and scored 140-3 in 25 overs, when they bat again, they should resume the innings from the same point.... This would make it different from a T20Test, and would give teams to reassess things at break and play accordingly

  • POSTED BY Naren on | September 5, 2009, 4:13 GMT

    Duckworth Lewis will be difficult if it is rain affected and already it is awful in regular matches. Not sure if this is going to be any better. I feel the chasing team might have too much advantage in this format. Not impressed at all.

  • POSTED BY Bharat_number_1 on | September 5, 2009, 4:06 GMT

    It won't be like a t20 if there are just 10 wickets allowed for both innings.

    So if a team ends the first 25 overs on 100/5, they can only use remaining batsmen for the next 25 over inning. Someone not out in the first innings will be able to continue the next innings on his score.

    This will lead to some great innovations in the batting order point of view. Will give ODIs a brief surge of new crowds if not a better more regular following.

  • POSTED BY dilshang13 on | September 5, 2009, 3:50 GMT

    well i beileve most of the readers and commenters of this page have got it wrong... what tendulkar is suggesting is not two 20 20 innings...

    one team has 50 overs for the 10 wickets... you do not have a test match like condition of 20 overs..

    say after the first 25 overs the first 4 wickets have fallen for 100 runs... you will resume the second innings at 100 for 4, with the no.5 and no.6 batsmen at the crease... the batsmen who got out cannot come back in.

    it still ensures that the batsmen have to play sensibly and do a lotta thinking as they would in the current 50 over formats.. conserving wickets whilst managing runrates etc..

    i say good on tendulkar for pushing on this.. most games are decided upon the toss.. this helps to balance the chances each side has

  • POSTED BY Shan--IND on | September 5, 2009, 3:42 GMT

    Guys, its NOT 2 T20 innings back to back...

    the innings continues from over 26 to 50 in the 2nd half... the scores & the wickets remain the same as at the end of 25 overs...

    suppose if a team makes 140/3 in 25 overs... then their innings is stopped & the others comes and bat for 25overs... later after that the 1st team will resume their innings again from 140/3 in 25overs & play till the end of 50 overs...

  • POSTED BY lraj on | September 5, 2009, 3:26 GMT

    This might turn to be another one sided game where the batsmen get more chance to bat and for a shorter duration !! What might be more relevant is to follow a format similar to baseball. One team plays for 20 or 25 overs, however when they play their second innings they will have to continue with the batting line up that they had at the end of the first 25 overs. This way each team would play only for 10 wickets still holding the spirit of a 50 over a game !!

  • POSTED BY Boraan on | September 5, 2009, 3:21 GMT

    well, why 2 T20's???? !!! continue the innnings from where it's left if team batting first is 3 wickets down in 1st innings and the other is 1 wicket down. they will continue from there. No T20, No test match , New innovative one-day cricket. And this keep the game through out interesting as each team will try to go past the other teams score but the number of wickets fallen will have an impact. Just Imagine the fun of contend in each inning Think smart guys!!!!!!

  • POSTED BY yasir2008 on | September 5, 2009, 3:15 GMT

    I don't think so it's a good idea. This will lose the charm of One day cricket.

  • POSTED BY asimshamim on | September 5, 2009, 2:40 GMT

    Hey everyone. Iits a weird sort of an idea from Sachn Tendular and I could not expect such kind of a hilarious thought from him. Well I've been a cricket follower for the last 15 years and have hardly missed any match. To me T20 cricket should be abolished. Its an absolte absurdity and the people in ICC who promoting T20 are doing it just for the sake of money.

  • POSTED BY Afta on | September 5, 2009, 2:36 GMT

    With all the talk going arround in the reduction of the overs in the 50 over game. I think the idea of the two inning day game would be the best. Both teams will have to bat under the best conditions. Look at the games at the Premadasa stadium in Colombo any team that bats first has a clear advantage and most of the time they win the game. Its so unfair! because the ball starts mioving under lights! In the two inning ODI both teams will have the advantages of batting first. The only change I would suggest is that the batsman if out in the first 25 overs cannot come to bat in the second 25 overs, otherwise, it will make a mockery, as Tendulkar can have a double shot at batting..! Play the one day game as its played now but split the innings. The 20 over game may have crowds. but on a cricketing point of view it does not have the flair. I call it the RAMBO game. as the later batsmen hardly get to bat. With the reduction of overs why not reduce the number of players to 7..?

  • POSTED BY davidwebb on | September 5, 2009, 2:07 GMT

    Just stick to T20. I think it will be too much for 2 innings

  • POSTED BY gzawilliam on | September 5, 2009, 1:59 GMT

    What is wrong with the world these days? Don't we have any patience anymore?

    Do we need to have a result so quickly and see exciting cricket 100% of the time?

    I for one ( as a cricket player myself) like the 50 over format because it tests your skills to an entirely different level. The way Rashid bowled against the aussies last night was enjoyable to watch. And then we get idiots like Andrew Miller writing "The ECB has taken it upon itself to destroy 50-over cricket, and they really do have a point. For 92 out of 100 overs, this was as awful as any international contest can be".

    This was a good normal one day match to watch. maybe it had its yawn points.

    Tendulkar's comments are plain stupid for a player of his calibre. What will happen to the centuries scored by the batsmen? The bevan style innings of scrapping through 20 overs of good bowling and still making 5 an over??

    All we want these days is 10-15runs an over or its boring. Smash bang and its over. good bye

  • POSTED BY kummi on | September 5, 2009, 1:51 GMT

    Hmmm... Saeed Anwar is gonna be happy more than anyone... his ODI record would stay intact forever... That apart this is a wonderful thought from Sachin who had spent the max minutes on field playing intl cricket... Sir Sachin should probably correct that long pending ODI record of Chennai by 2011 WC before current 50-over format is tinkered... Sachin we adore you for everything you do and speak

  • POSTED BY nbg2006 on | September 5, 2009, 1:37 GMT

    Its not like two t20s because you do not have 22 wickets with you. You have to pace the innings using 11 wickets. So it will be really interesting. That is a very good suggestion and will make the one days interesting again.

  • POSTED BY Mughil on | September 5, 2009, 1:31 GMT

    I am not for this idea. For me 50 overs is like a mix of Test & T20. The art of building an innings by a batsman & working on a batsman to get him out by a Bowler, would never happen if ODIs are split.

  • POSTED BY hulk777 on | September 4, 2009, 23:58 GMT

    With time taken for teams changing innings, i guess only 4 innings of 20 overs is possible. Lets be more creative, the captain loosing the toss can decide whether he will bat/bowl 2 consecutive innings or alternate. By that way there is no advantage for winning the toss. If he was asked to field first, If the wicket is breaking, the captain of the loosing team can bat his 40 overs at a streach and ask the captain winning the toss to chase.By that way toss only decides who bats the first innings. I also think Instead of new innings it should be a continuation of the previous. With this scenario, i guess too many options are possible in a match and makes it more interesting. I am sure, with the kind of interest some one would have thought about this. But i think officials are the ones who make the call. We should thank Sachin for speaking up his Idea. Its less important whether he thought about it in 2002 or not.

  • POSTED BY Kirk-at-Lords on | September 4, 2009, 23:27 GMT

    The momentum builds...! With the Little Master now proposing innovation from within the very heart of modern cricket (India), change cannot be far off. Better still, it is clear that club cricketers are experimenting with new forms (10-over innings, 20-over innings) and players and supporters alike are beginning to come up with some nice twists. I particularly like the one for the toss: winner chooses one innings order of play; loser chooses the other innings order. The traditional toss is something which has never sat too well with me, since so much can ride on the flip of a coin. The phrase "Win the toss, win the match" should never be heard in today's competitive, audience oriented cricket. I have proposed using team rankings to determine who sets the innings order (which at least would tend to create some additional balance among the sides), but for those who insist on the drama of a toss, this would be a happy meeting ground for shorter forms of the game.

  • POSTED BY MukulKhairatkar on | September 4, 2009, 23:10 GMT

    The Idea is fantastic. I think the runs/wickets should be carried forward and effective result should be displayed as one ODI and not one game with four innings. This way ODI rankings and records can be continued without changing the format.

  • POSTED BY ITEMM on | September 4, 2009, 22:46 GMT

    In response to "anilkp" - I think you misunderstood Sachin's concept here. I am sure that he doesn't want to "shorten" the game but ONLY make it even for BOTH teams as far as advantages go either with whether conditions, natural conditions, toss etc. A game according to his concept would be something like this:

    ITEMM CC (bat first - 25 overs) - 154/4 RAPCHICK ITEMM CC (bat - 25 overs) - 175/5

    ITEMM CC (bat 26-50 overs - only 6 more wickets in hand because they have lost 4 wickets in the 1st inn) - 170/3 - Total - 324/7

    Now RAPCHICK ITEMM CC needs - 149 (324-175) with 7 wickets in hands from 25 overs to win the game.

    Hope this little example above helped cleared Sachin's idea - I truely believed that's what he meant above in interview.

    If that's the case, we will be able to preserve 50 over format with a Test structure and with a T20 spice :). Teams will have to plan BOTH of their innings and bat/bowl/strategize accordingly.

    I shall call it an "ITEMM" idea!

    Jai HO!

  • POSTED BY slugworth on | September 4, 2009, 22:17 GMT

    @ anilkp, I don't think Tendulkar is suggesting 2 sets of 10 wickets per 25 overs. He is saying that the game is split into 4 sets of 25 overs, however a team only has available to them 10 wickets.as per a normal 50 over match. eg. team A 1st 25 ovr. are 110-3. Team B 1st 25 ovr. are 99-1 at the half way point in the game Team A lead by a 11 runs. with 7 wickets still available. Team B trail by a 11 runs but their conservative approach has given them 9 wickets at their disposal for the final 25 overs. I believe this format is the way to go and will save the 50 over game from a slow and painful death.

  • POSTED BY BiSONN on | September 4, 2009, 21:38 GMT

    Adding further, will this not change the way a player has been playing one day cricket all his life? Won't he now have to all of a sudden - in the middle, or let's even towards the end of his career - change the way he approaches the game completely? And I'm surprised that Tendulkar, being a batsman, does not feel this. Let's say he's opening the batting. After 25 overs he is 80*. Any other match, he would be focussing on getting to three figures and then pushing on to a big score. Instead, he then has to take the field for 25 overs, maybe even bowl an over or two, get back on the field, get his eye in AGAIN, and then hopefully he's still batting in the same flow.

    Or - even worse - what if he gets injured while fielding? Sort of dampens the "third" innings a bit. And, what should a poor all-rounder do? Focus on batting, run back after the 25th over (since he's opening the bowling - yeah I'm making it harder), bowl 5-6 overs, come back, re-focus on batting and then go bowl again.

  • POSTED BY spysid on | September 4, 2009, 21:30 GMT

    If this system is implemented, will the team with the most runs win even in cases where the team batting last doesn't loose all its wickets (the match is ended as a draw in test cricket)? May be this this idea could be implemented either as a 2-innings ODI or a 25 over per innings test cricket.

  • POSTED BY preeshcode on | September 4, 2009, 21:21 GMT

    This format will slowly morph into one T20 contest. Two T20 contests in a day is probably an overkill.

  • POSTED BY Lapogc on | September 4, 2009, 21:20 GMT

    Great idea for sure. At the same time I agree with those who think this would be a 'double-dessert'. I think with some tinkering in format it could be successful - e.g., batsmen who were out in first innings cannot come back in 2nd innings or, bowlers have a limit of overs in combined innings, field placement restrictions and perhaps a (unique) number of 4s/6s restriction so that teams will have to navigate to maximize their scores. Just a few ideas to make it interesting.

  • POSTED BY MahaPauline on | September 4, 2009, 21:16 GMT

    This is Such a Great Idea..People saying Bad are Getting Confused by the fact Sachin wants to say..

    First team will bat for 25 overs and then when they resume after the oponents 25 overs, the fallen wickets will be counted as fallen..that is if india is 150 for 2 after 25 overs and imagine Sachin and Yuvraj is batting then after the oponents 25 over, Sachin and Yuvraj will retain the batting with the score 150 for 2...

    So it cant be 2 T20s, sorry folks, Genius Cant be understood easily...U have to be a Sachi Fan...to have atleast Little Wisdom!

  • POSTED BY BiSONN on | September 4, 2009, 21:04 GMT

    I'm amazed that so many people like this idea - and this is coming from an Indian who is (obviously) a huge fan of Tendulkar. Luck plays a role in every sport, a bit more so in Cricket, but that doesn't mean that drastic changes are required. What about umpiring decisions then? What if, even in this new format, one team gets one bad decision and the other team gets away with one in their innings - giving them a "two-up". How will that be evened out? Third-umpire for LBW's like we have tried already? Yes, that will DEFINITELY make things a lot more fair, BUT it takes away a lot more. It stops the flow and, simply put, just makes things boring.

    If anything, to combat the disadvantages of playing under lights, how about teams started practicing under lights every now and then - especially before a ODI or a T20 series? I don't know if teams actually do this or not. It'll make them more used to playing under lights and when the time comes to perform under them, they'll be better prepared.

  • POSTED BY faz05 on | September 4, 2009, 21:03 GMT

    Just kill one day cricket already in favor of 20-20. People need to give up their whole day to watch the game and while it was fine before the advent of 20-20, now it just feels like the ODI is an odd man out. It's still pretty long in duration but doesn't test the application and skill of teams like a test match.

  • POSTED BY anilkp on | September 4, 2009, 20:13 GMT

    This is not a constructive idea now, although it was in 2002. This would look like two T20 games in a day. In Sachin's own words, that would be same as eating desserts twice a day with no real meals. Why not call that a T20T (T20 Test)? The goal of that format will be to spend 10 wickets in 25 overs and score as many runs as possible-just same as T20. The innings duration in a format is central to the game's planning, execution, innovation; and to the players' evolution. Test matches--as most would agree--give the utmost motivation and opportunity for classical innovation and evolution. A legend of the game must not suggest something that would devalue that integral core of the game.

  • POSTED BY Vijay_P_S on | September 4, 2009, 19:58 GMT

    Interesting concept.. I like it.

  • POSTED BY GirishP on | September 4, 2009, 19:56 GMT

    Even better would be that at the time of the toss, one team decides whether to bat or bowl during the first innings and the other team decides whether they bat or bowl during the second innings ! More masala more magic !

    Girish

  • POSTED BY BatTheCricket on | September 4, 2009, 19:46 GMT

    Great idea here! But I am sure I have read this suggestion before, maybe on one of Cricinfo's columns itself... can't say if it was Ian Chappell or some one else. Can Cricinfo confirm this?

  • POSTED BY Golibaaaz on | September 4, 2009, 19:45 GMT

    I dont think so that it is a nice idea.there will not much difference then between T20 and ODI

  • POSTED BY ksharma423 on | September 4, 2009, 19:43 GMT

    Dear Mr Sachin Tendulkar,

    This is an awesome format for sure. This format was implemented by our club Burlington Cricket Club (www.burlingtoncricket.org) this year during our Annual Charity Cricket tournament BCC CUP 2009. We have gone a step further and have split the current T20 version in two innings. Although we play with hard Tennis Ball, all that matters is splitting the innings and making it competitive and fun. I sincerely appreciate you coming out with your thoughts as this will help our club Burlington Cricket Club as we are trying very hard to popularize the format in USA. For more information on the format we used, please visit www.burlingtoncricket.org

    Thanks, ~Karthik.

  • POSTED BY varg on | September 4, 2009, 19:23 GMT

    no good. then it's just basically like two 20/20 matches back to back. no chance to score centuries. bad idea.

  • POSTED BY DKT27 on | September 4, 2009, 19:13 GMT

    Great idea. The best idea for the game. Will work wonders. Will be more better than T20.

  • POSTED BY YoBro on | September 4, 2009, 18:20 GMT

    smart chap, Tendu...nice idea. Thinks like me.

  • POSTED BY bonaku on | September 4, 2009, 17:45 GMT

    great idea. Then we will have more results and even the contest will be more even. Great say from the legend.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY bonaku on | September 4, 2009, 17:45 GMT

    great idea. Then we will have more results and even the contest will be more even. Great say from the legend.

  • POSTED BY YoBro on | September 4, 2009, 18:20 GMT

    smart chap, Tendu...nice idea. Thinks like me.

  • POSTED BY DKT27 on | September 4, 2009, 19:13 GMT

    Great idea. The best idea for the game. Will work wonders. Will be more better than T20.

  • POSTED BY varg on | September 4, 2009, 19:23 GMT

    no good. then it's just basically like two 20/20 matches back to back. no chance to score centuries. bad idea.

  • POSTED BY ksharma423 on | September 4, 2009, 19:43 GMT

    Dear Mr Sachin Tendulkar,

    This is an awesome format for sure. This format was implemented by our club Burlington Cricket Club (www.burlingtoncricket.org) this year during our Annual Charity Cricket tournament BCC CUP 2009. We have gone a step further and have split the current T20 version in two innings. Although we play with hard Tennis Ball, all that matters is splitting the innings and making it competitive and fun. I sincerely appreciate you coming out with your thoughts as this will help our club Burlington Cricket Club as we are trying very hard to popularize the format in USA. For more information on the format we used, please visit www.burlingtoncricket.org

    Thanks, ~Karthik.

  • POSTED BY Golibaaaz on | September 4, 2009, 19:45 GMT

    I dont think so that it is a nice idea.there will not much difference then between T20 and ODI

  • POSTED BY BatTheCricket on | September 4, 2009, 19:46 GMT

    Great idea here! But I am sure I have read this suggestion before, maybe on one of Cricinfo's columns itself... can't say if it was Ian Chappell or some one else. Can Cricinfo confirm this?

  • POSTED BY GirishP on | September 4, 2009, 19:56 GMT

    Even better would be that at the time of the toss, one team decides whether to bat or bowl during the first innings and the other team decides whether they bat or bowl during the second innings ! More masala more magic !

    Girish

  • POSTED BY Vijay_P_S on | September 4, 2009, 19:58 GMT

    Interesting concept.. I like it.

  • POSTED BY anilkp on | September 4, 2009, 20:13 GMT

    This is not a constructive idea now, although it was in 2002. This would look like two T20 games in a day. In Sachin's own words, that would be same as eating desserts twice a day with no real meals. Why not call that a T20T (T20 Test)? The goal of that format will be to spend 10 wickets in 25 overs and score as many runs as possible-just same as T20. The innings duration in a format is central to the game's planning, execution, innovation; and to the players' evolution. Test matches--as most would agree--give the utmost motivation and opportunity for classical innovation and evolution. A legend of the game must not suggest something that would devalue that integral core of the game.