June 20, 2010

Don't change the rules, play better

A two-innings format is not going to make one-day cricket more attractive. What it needs is more imaginative captaincy and less gimmicks
82

There'll be a 50-overs-a-side World Cup played in the subcontinent in early 2011, complete with Powerplays, restrictions on field placings and the number of overs delivered by a bowler, and with one team batting during the day and another at night. However, what form the World Cup of 2015 in Australia and New Zealand will take is anyone's guess. For a game that's supposed to be gasping for breath, the 50-over version is generating serious debate and much of the speculation is emanating from Australia.

The animated discussion has occurred because of the perception that since the dramatic arrival of Twenty20 cricket, the longer limited-overs version is mundane. The main charge levelled at ODIs is that the middle period of an innings is so predictable that if you nod off, read a book or repair to the bar in that time, the only thing you'll miss is the exercise provided by participating in the Mexican wave.

This criticism does have some merit. However, the reason behind this perceived dullness of ODIs is not so much the increased anticipation provided by a hectic Twenty20 match but a combination of unimaginative captaincy and a reliance on gimmicks to prop up the longer game.

The "formulated" nature of the middle overs of an ODI preceded the inception of Twenty20 cricket. Whenever the fielding captain stops trying with all his might to capture a wicket and relies more on the opposition batsmen committing cricketing suicide, the game stops being an interesting contest. When the batting side is happy to score at five or six an over without taking any risks, and the fielding side is content to concede runs in singles, the game loses its meaning.

There's only one reason to play cricket and that's to win the contest. You won't always achieve that pleasing result but players will have fun trying if the captain strives to make the contest interesting. When a fielding captain's mind is clouded with negativity, the game can become tedious, and if spectators feel that way, then spare a thought for the fielders. At least the fan can go to the bar or, in the worst case, get up and go home; the player has to stay on the field and endure his punishment.

Selectors must be more pro-active. If a captain has misplaced his imagination, then he should be reminded by the chairman that he'd better rediscover it, otherwise he'll find himself either unemployed or back among the rank and file.

If you want the 50-over game to suffer the same fate as dial-up email and ashtrays, then come right out and say so. But turning it into a two-innings limited-overs match is simply more Twenty20 cricket by stealth

The introduction of Powerplays has firmly entrenched the thought in many a captain's mind that between these "adrenaline rush" periods, the idea is mostly about keeping wickets in hand. That's not the way batting should work. A batsman must attack every delivery as his first priority, hoping to score multiple runs. If that's not possible, the next option is to sneak a single, and if the delivery is just too good, then look to survive it and prosper from the next ball. As Dr WG Grace so eloquently put it: "I don't like defensive shots, you only get threes."

The administrators can't legislate to make players better or captains more imaginative; it's immaterial if you play 40 or 50 overs a side, or split the innings in two halves, or play a two-innings limited-overs game. If one team is vastly superior to the other and one captain is desperate to win and the other is hoping he doesn't lose too badly, then two things are assured: the result will quickly be a foregone conclusion and the game will lose any semblance of excitement at about the same time.

If you want the 50-over game to suffer the same fate as dial-up email and ashtrays, then come right out and say so. But turning it into a two-innings limited-overs match is simply more Twenty20 cricket by stealth.

In the meantime, until selectors get more proactive on captaincy, or administrators discover a miracle cure for an uneven spread of talent, it won't much matter what legislative changes occur. Many games will cease to be contests early in the proceedings. As long as only about half the playing nations are truly competitive at international level in any game of substantial length, and this number decreases the moment the pitch has some life, legislation isn't the answer.

Former Australia captain Ian Chappell is now a cricket commentator and columnist

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • faisalsharif73 on June 23, 2010, 12:13 GMT

    To give spice to the middle overs of 50 50 over match. restrict bowling/batting powerplays to be used from 20 th to 40th overs.

  • Dilmah82 on June 22, 2010, 22:16 GMT

    To kamranwasti: Firstly the best world cup format to judge a team was in 1992 where all teams played each other. But its not so practical today unless the number of teams decrease. Secondly I think pitch conditions, bats, and rules tend to favour batsman more today than any other period in time. Part of the reason is that the ICC is run by the BCCI, who is in turn controlled by various media in India, who want lots of matches with lots of runs that go the full distance. Thirdly, to say Sri Lanka were not wothy winners of the 96 WC because they didn't bowl any teams out is utter rubbish. The team with te most runs wins! There were 2 boycotted matches, and in the semi final India would have been easiily bowled out if the crowd didn't behave disgracefully and start burning seats, and throwing objects on the field!!!

  • bobagorof on June 22, 2010, 9:54 GMT

    Why are people always saying 'Ban Tests' or 'Ban ODIs' or 'Ban Twenty20'? If you don't like it, then don't watch it - but don't stop others from watching and enjoying it. I don't like Twenty20s, and I don't watch them. But other people like them, so good for them. I enjoy a good ODI, where there is a contest between teams - I'm not a fan of the PowerPlays, but seeing teams fight back from adversity (which doesn't happen in Twenty20s) is gripping. I love Tests too, particularly if it's closely fought. Even if it's a draw, it can be highly engaging as long as both teams (or even just one of them) is trying for the win. Where Tests become boring is when they try to be Twenty20s and have pitches that favour the batsmen too much. Each form of the game has its own style and flavour that appeals to other people.

  • Tahertech on June 22, 2010, 8:51 GMT

    Dont play 50 over game, but instead of 50 over ODI make it to 32 overs ODI one drinks, 12 overs powerplay, each bowler 6 overs max, u can make a difference of 3 hrs a day, in this 32 overs format u will find all type of shots, risks, bowling and commitment, time limit shud be 145 minutes to complete 32 overs, so the play is fast n hopefully all will enjoy, in todays world time matters a lot, i find guys just watching last 10 overs match where the results are measured, well in t20 u dont find it very fast n not all type of players have the chance over there to show up their skills, but in 32 overs format u will hv enough time to keep the game alive from all angles, n it will be more interesting, not boring as in ODI it is between 26th over to 38 th over. International cricket can attract lot of countries in this format.

  • Nampally on June 21, 2010, 23:37 GMT

    The 50 over ODI is easily the best format of Cricket of the current 3 formats. One has to understand the reasoning behind a 5 day test format before passing judgement. The 50 over abridged format avoids drawn games and has sufficient action from both the sides. It gives both bowlers and batsmen equal chances to make the best of the situation. Slight tweaking might be in order but by and large it is a good format to judge a team's ability & skills. Even in this fast paced ,odern life, a true cricket fan can easily spare a day to watch it. Actually most of the league matches at the club level or village cricket is played in a format similar to the ODI with some modifications. It might also be the preferred format for the county Cricket in UK. It is here to stay. The 20/20 version is more like a Yahoo type. It isn't Cricket with orthodox strokes. 5 Day test match version is too slow & mostly ends in No decision.This is the reason why the ODI 50 over version is here to stay.

  • on June 21, 2010, 17:23 GMT

    Why not play the 50 over game with no restriction on the number of overs a bowler can operate? The only restriction that should be available would be no more than 4 fielders outside the restricted circle. Let the good bowlers attack trying to get wickets without being afraid of edges and mishits flying to the boundaries. Five fielders in the circle would mean that singles are not automatic atleast in one half of the field. This way, you have both the teams attacking throughout without resorting to pushing for singles with no risks. As for the powerplay the way it is constructed now_ It is farcical in the name of cricket. A bowler like Bishen Bedi would stand minimal chance of even getting into Kngs XI Punjab leave alone representing India. He would be asked by his coach to throw darts into the block hole and given a film of Jayasuriya to study and emulate.

  • krs_spidey on June 21, 2010, 16:26 GMT

    evryone here has 1 common suggestion to make ODIs more intresting that is reduce ODI quantity and me too agree with all of them, not just for ODIs but for tests also, everyone is screaming to reduce quantity of cricket for more than a decade now, since 1990s cricket's both forms r being played in excess, now that we have the 3 hour t20 game, use t20 to globalise cricket in china, europe, US. 10tests 20ODIs and 12-15 t20i shud be max limit for any nation to play in a calendar yr, this means max 85 days of international cricket for any nation(excluding icc events of course that is ICC ODI wc and ICC t20wc), scrap champs trphy, no need for it now since t20wc is goin to be held evry 2 yrs, WAKE UP ICC, FOCUS ON QUALITY NOT QUANTITY, why cant changes be made to current ftp thats been planned upto 2012, do all of us have to endure it till 2012 and suffer more spineless and meaningless matches

  • py0alb on June 21, 2010, 13:45 GMT

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with the format in itself. A genuine contest between two evenly matched teams both striving to win can be an absorbing spectacle. The stupid gimmics like the moveable powerplay and the supersub only detract from the game.

    What we desperately need is less utterly meaningless fixtures and one sided games. T20 should be considered the "global" game, bringing cricket to new markets, not 50 over cricket.

    Restrict the 50 over world cup to the top 8 teams plus 4 qualifiers, and restrict the number of ODIs to 12 per team per year (4 sets of a best of 3), with the results counting towards seedings towards the world cup in a transparent fashion.

  • on June 21, 2010, 13:34 GMT

    Test cricket has been played for well over 100 years, and considering that, has had relatively few rules changes. Why one-day cricket must undergo so many rules revisions is beyond me.

    As for fast paced action cricket, I wonder why the Hong Kong Super Sixes version of the game never caught on? Perhaps it was due to the lack of skill involved and the absurdity of only 4 outfielders?

    20/20 cricket is merely an avenue to introduce people to the game, and a way for associate nations to compete on a day by day basis. Test cricket is just that, a TEST, and will remain the epitomy of Team sport for a long time.

  • on June 21, 2010, 10:45 GMT

    Test should be banned forever. because people don't have time to watch it or go to the ground and watch there. Test match makes cricket bad image believe me or not. if anybody knows about test match they will say it's so boring game. So please ban test cricket and play less ODI's as well. T20 should be play all time. T20 makes very exciting cricket. Play more and more T20 as you can and bring more countries like USA, China, Europe, Russia and etc.

  • faisalsharif73 on June 23, 2010, 12:13 GMT

    To give spice to the middle overs of 50 50 over match. restrict bowling/batting powerplays to be used from 20 th to 40th overs.

  • Dilmah82 on June 22, 2010, 22:16 GMT

    To kamranwasti: Firstly the best world cup format to judge a team was in 1992 where all teams played each other. But its not so practical today unless the number of teams decrease. Secondly I think pitch conditions, bats, and rules tend to favour batsman more today than any other period in time. Part of the reason is that the ICC is run by the BCCI, who is in turn controlled by various media in India, who want lots of matches with lots of runs that go the full distance. Thirdly, to say Sri Lanka were not wothy winners of the 96 WC because they didn't bowl any teams out is utter rubbish. The team with te most runs wins! There were 2 boycotted matches, and in the semi final India would have been easiily bowled out if the crowd didn't behave disgracefully and start burning seats, and throwing objects on the field!!!

  • bobagorof on June 22, 2010, 9:54 GMT

    Why are people always saying 'Ban Tests' or 'Ban ODIs' or 'Ban Twenty20'? If you don't like it, then don't watch it - but don't stop others from watching and enjoying it. I don't like Twenty20s, and I don't watch them. But other people like them, so good for them. I enjoy a good ODI, where there is a contest between teams - I'm not a fan of the PowerPlays, but seeing teams fight back from adversity (which doesn't happen in Twenty20s) is gripping. I love Tests too, particularly if it's closely fought. Even if it's a draw, it can be highly engaging as long as both teams (or even just one of them) is trying for the win. Where Tests become boring is when they try to be Twenty20s and have pitches that favour the batsmen too much. Each form of the game has its own style and flavour that appeals to other people.

  • Tahertech on June 22, 2010, 8:51 GMT

    Dont play 50 over game, but instead of 50 over ODI make it to 32 overs ODI one drinks, 12 overs powerplay, each bowler 6 overs max, u can make a difference of 3 hrs a day, in this 32 overs format u will find all type of shots, risks, bowling and commitment, time limit shud be 145 minutes to complete 32 overs, so the play is fast n hopefully all will enjoy, in todays world time matters a lot, i find guys just watching last 10 overs match where the results are measured, well in t20 u dont find it very fast n not all type of players have the chance over there to show up their skills, but in 32 overs format u will hv enough time to keep the game alive from all angles, n it will be more interesting, not boring as in ODI it is between 26th over to 38 th over. International cricket can attract lot of countries in this format.

  • Nampally on June 21, 2010, 23:37 GMT

    The 50 over ODI is easily the best format of Cricket of the current 3 formats. One has to understand the reasoning behind a 5 day test format before passing judgement. The 50 over abridged format avoids drawn games and has sufficient action from both the sides. It gives both bowlers and batsmen equal chances to make the best of the situation. Slight tweaking might be in order but by and large it is a good format to judge a team's ability & skills. Even in this fast paced ,odern life, a true cricket fan can easily spare a day to watch it. Actually most of the league matches at the club level or village cricket is played in a format similar to the ODI with some modifications. It might also be the preferred format for the county Cricket in UK. It is here to stay. The 20/20 version is more like a Yahoo type. It isn't Cricket with orthodox strokes. 5 Day test match version is too slow & mostly ends in No decision.This is the reason why the ODI 50 over version is here to stay.

  • on June 21, 2010, 17:23 GMT

    Why not play the 50 over game with no restriction on the number of overs a bowler can operate? The only restriction that should be available would be no more than 4 fielders outside the restricted circle. Let the good bowlers attack trying to get wickets without being afraid of edges and mishits flying to the boundaries. Five fielders in the circle would mean that singles are not automatic atleast in one half of the field. This way, you have both the teams attacking throughout without resorting to pushing for singles with no risks. As for the powerplay the way it is constructed now_ It is farcical in the name of cricket. A bowler like Bishen Bedi would stand minimal chance of even getting into Kngs XI Punjab leave alone representing India. He would be asked by his coach to throw darts into the block hole and given a film of Jayasuriya to study and emulate.

  • krs_spidey on June 21, 2010, 16:26 GMT

    evryone here has 1 common suggestion to make ODIs more intresting that is reduce ODI quantity and me too agree with all of them, not just for ODIs but for tests also, everyone is screaming to reduce quantity of cricket for more than a decade now, since 1990s cricket's both forms r being played in excess, now that we have the 3 hour t20 game, use t20 to globalise cricket in china, europe, US. 10tests 20ODIs and 12-15 t20i shud be max limit for any nation to play in a calendar yr, this means max 85 days of international cricket for any nation(excluding icc events of course that is ICC ODI wc and ICC t20wc), scrap champs trphy, no need for it now since t20wc is goin to be held evry 2 yrs, WAKE UP ICC, FOCUS ON QUALITY NOT QUANTITY, why cant changes be made to current ftp thats been planned upto 2012, do all of us have to endure it till 2012 and suffer more spineless and meaningless matches

  • py0alb on June 21, 2010, 13:45 GMT

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with the format in itself. A genuine contest between two evenly matched teams both striving to win can be an absorbing spectacle. The stupid gimmics like the moveable powerplay and the supersub only detract from the game.

    What we desperately need is less utterly meaningless fixtures and one sided games. T20 should be considered the "global" game, bringing cricket to new markets, not 50 over cricket.

    Restrict the 50 over world cup to the top 8 teams plus 4 qualifiers, and restrict the number of ODIs to 12 per team per year (4 sets of a best of 3), with the results counting towards seedings towards the world cup in a transparent fashion.

  • on June 21, 2010, 13:34 GMT

    Test cricket has been played for well over 100 years, and considering that, has had relatively few rules changes. Why one-day cricket must undergo so many rules revisions is beyond me.

    As for fast paced action cricket, I wonder why the Hong Kong Super Sixes version of the game never caught on? Perhaps it was due to the lack of skill involved and the absurdity of only 4 outfielders?

    20/20 cricket is merely an avenue to introduce people to the game, and a way for associate nations to compete on a day by day basis. Test cricket is just that, a TEST, and will remain the epitomy of Team sport for a long time.

  • on June 21, 2010, 10:45 GMT

    Test should be banned forever. because people don't have time to watch it or go to the ground and watch there. Test match makes cricket bad image believe me or not. if anybody knows about test match they will say it's so boring game. So please ban test cricket and play less ODI's as well. T20 should be play all time. T20 makes very exciting cricket. Play more and more T20 as you can and bring more countries like USA, China, Europe, Russia and etc.

  • Swampy5 on June 21, 2010, 10:29 GMT

    The split innings approach is worth trying, but I think other changes could prove more interesting. To help get attacking cricket in the middle overs, remove the restriction on the number of overs the bowlers deliver or have a 20-over limit for each bowler. This may encourage captains to use their attacking/in-form bowlers more. Using 2 balls (i.e a new ball at each end) is also worth trying. Another reason the middle overs are dull is the ODI game has become a batsman's game. Bowlers often aren't really trying to get wickets - they get them by luck or batsman error. So there needs to be a balance between bat and ball - change the bowling restrictions, get rid of the boundary ropes and encourage 220-250 pitches for an actual contest between batsman and bowler, not 300-350 wickets where you may as well have a bowling machine delivering the ball instead of bowlers. Oh - and cut down the amount of ODIs as well! Too many meaningless series/tournaments - ODIs should be cut by 25% at least.

  • AB99 on June 21, 2010, 10:10 GMT

    No teams to play more than 18-20 games per year, no bilateral series more than 5 matches, no same two teams to play more than 5 matches per year except World Cup year, drop Champions Trophy - what is its purpose? Have some genuine changes like - any two bowlers can bowl 12 over per innings, batting power play to be done before the 30th over, make the game more bowler friendly with sporting wickets - the low scoring tense games have more audience than the high scoring drabs, change the "pitching outside off stump" LBW rule to include the same to encourage bowlers. get rid of D/L system and call the match as no result which would affect the ICC points and hence ranking, make two tiers of teams - with Ireland, Bangla Desh, Zim, etc and the bottom two test teams in the tier two and promotion / relegation every year .... Mr Chappel: awaiting your response, thanks

  • on June 21, 2010, 9:34 GMT

    Very good article. Whether it is test, ODI or T20, a one-sided affair will always remain one-sided. The best thing to do is make laws such that captains have to field attacking fields. This will not only increase the runs scored but will also get more wickets and make it more competitive.

  • robheinen on June 21, 2010, 9:24 GMT

    You're absolutely right. There is however a thing called 'percentage' play. This dictates that wickets should be kept in hand during the middle overs in order to be able to hit out at the end of an innings. Strangely enough the like of Jayasurya and Gilchrist had a license to hit out from the word go. It would be interesting to see what happens if more of these licenses were issued. Besides all this I have seen enough thrilling limited overs matches: Edgebaston 1999, Old Trafford England v. Australia { Allan Border } in the 80s, to mention two. And there are many, many more. To be fair, I have to say that to me the thrill of t20 is.....none.

  • SampathCFO on June 21, 2010, 8:48 GMT

    One way we can make ODIs more interesting is to change rules regarding powerplay as below: 1. Instead of having two block of power plays, we can give 5 overs of powerplay each to batting team and fielding team to choose their powerplay overs according to their choice. For example, if a batting team chooses to have power play with two well set batsmen and they lose a wicket in first or second over, they should be given the option to quit power play and resume it a little later.

    2. Batting side should be eligible to take Power play only between overs 21 and 40. Power play option will lapse at the end of over 40.

  • oops282 on June 21, 2010, 8:39 GMT

    ODI should be played on 1996 WC format. only first 15 overs of mandatory power play . No Batting bowling power play shud be included . Why make this beautiful game so complex .

  • Garigipati on June 21, 2010, 8:37 GMT

    Here is a format to make the 50 Over ODI more interesting. There are 4 powerplays, each of 5 overs. Two will be chosen by the fielding side and two will be chosen by the batting side. Restrictions may be as follows: The powerplays may be chosen by either side at any time, subject to some restrictions If no powerplay is called upto the 20th over by either side, then the 21-25 overs will be compulsorily designated the first of the powerplays of the bowling side. Next, the bowling side has to conclude their power plays by the 40th over. This will make the game more interesting as it would test the strategic gamesmanship of the two teams in seeking their power plays and would also keep the spectators on the edge.

  • RaghuramanR on June 21, 2010, 8:04 GMT

    If the choice of 'powerplay' is left to batsmen, the strategy chosen by the fielding captain will be interesting, especially during the initial overs. Batsmen obviously need not chose the initial overs as powerplay because with the new ball, they may look at 'settling down' and not 'hitting out'. Fielding captain on the other hand has to look at taking wickets with new balls and the fielders will be inside the circle. So even with just 10 overs as powerplay, we can have 20 effective overs of powerpay. The first 10 overs may be used by fielding side to 'attack' and get wickets (irrespective of whether batting side has chosen it or not). The other 10 overs can be chosen by batting side when they think they can attack. This idea should have used long back because if not for the normal method, Sachin would have never opened the innings, forget about scoring so many hundreds.

  • akajaria on June 21, 2010, 6:43 GMT

    I believe Ian Chappell was one of the proponents of this. Its not the first time Mr. Chappell has made a complete U-turn on his suggestions. If you got to fill up a column, use some other material than making some outrageous suggestion once and then joining the bandwagon in condemning it with another ludicrous one.

  • Meety on June 21, 2010, 6:31 GMT

    20/20 is not a great form of cricket. T20 is entertainment almost devoid of the charactor of cricket. I rarely find the "middle overs" of a 50/50 match boring - it is tense as both sides try to wrestle the initiative. Maybe the powerplays can only be taken between overs 20 to 40. Once upon a time ODI captains use to bring in an extra fielder into the circle to put pressure on the batsmen - doesn't happen anymore. 40 overs a side will spell the end of the longer format. I still don't think that 20/20 is a great format to choose a World Champion, should be included in the olympics & played at regional/franchise level. 50/50 over tournaments should be reduced to just the world cup and say 3 to 5 matches on a test tour.

  • bje71 on June 21, 2010, 3:22 GMT

    T20 will save the ODI the same way ODIs have saved test cricket. When sides are scoring 350+ regularly in 50 overs eveyone will be saying how great it is.

  • RaghuramanR on June 21, 2010, 3:11 GMT

    I am not sure if the entire choice of 'powerplay' overs could be taken by the batsmen in middle. That probably will involve strategy and testing the bowler's skills. Most teams usually bring the spinners on when the field restrictions are no longer in place. If the choce is left to batsmen, then the fielding captain and more importantly the bowlers have to be good enough. It does have a risk even for the batting team because they have to make their 'chosen' powerplay overs COUNT.

  • evenflow_1990 on June 21, 2010, 2:33 GMT

    i think the issue of 50 over cricket is seriously overhyped. it remains my favourite format. it takes a certain level of class to be good at the 50 over game - you need a decent amount of defence and attack. i actually enjoy the accumulation period of a one day international to be completely honest. i think is the players have an issue with it they will deal with. look at the sri lankans in 1996 - they disagreed with the method, and took to the attack in the first 15 overs, as opposed to the last 10 overs which was traditional and i believe begun by the pakistanis in 1992. now this is the accepted model. if there is a problem with the current model, the change will come from the players, not from the legislators.

  • ToMegaTherion1986 on June 21, 2010, 2:28 GMT

    I agree with Ian Chapple completely. I think having all these gimmicks and tinkering with the rules has to stop. The uncertainty is what is killing the format at the moment. I think Ian has hit the nail on the head with this one. Here is an Idea 1) Have field restrictions for all 50 overs of an ODI, never mind this whole power play thing. 2) Off bonuses too the players if they score at a certain run rate or more, lets say around 6 an over for the innings. 3) make 6's worth 8 instead, and 4's worth 5 runs

    Basically offer incentives to hit more boundaries and encourage batsman to have a go.

  • MeeraKrishna on June 21, 2010, 2:28 GMT

    I feel that with the proposed change of split inn., with the total number of wickets to be 10 again this would make the game similar to middle period of an ODI. The captain would be forced to retain as many wickets as possible at the end of the first so that they can try and accumulate more runs in the 2nd half. Or the captains would be forced to retain some of his batsmen for the 2nd innings. This would make it more batsmen friendly format. The captains would be forced to select team with 8 batsmen+ 3 bowler combination or even go to the extent of using all part timers in the side and the trade of bowling may get lost.

  • JoseBautista on June 21, 2010, 1:35 GMT

    cricket used to be only test cricket and odi until 2007 where everything changed. i miss the old times like 2003,2004,05. they were the classic times until cricket changed into something else.

  • slugworth on June 21, 2010, 1:31 GMT

    I think people generally mis understand the concept of split innings. It is the unknown in the format that is the appreal it is this idea as a team batting "second" in a split innings only knows half the story not the full story ie they only know that by the 20th over they need to be around 103/3 but thats all they know if they want they can try and chase this down inside 15 overs and lose one or two extra wickets along the way or thaey can preserve there wickets. Its the unknown ingrediant in the format that makes it more apprealling to the spectator and that true bounce back 2nd split also.

  • rko_rules on June 21, 2010, 1:10 GMT

    Well said Ian Chappell,we r not in favor of changing the format of ODIs or splitting it into 2 innings.Guys Contact Haroon Lorgat, ICC chief on twitter n post ur views 2 him.One day cricket is actually in our blood, it's like our spouse, we may be sometimes bored of it bt cant live without it, thats how we grow up watchin it since our childhood days n it should remain like that only. I dont understand, in cricket if we go through a lean phase, we immediately start raising our voice 4 the need of the changes n i v seen the best of cricket followers or cricket commentators r very much among those,who want changes. They themselves put these things in normal man's mind that cricket needs modification, then normal man will think in that way only. Instead we shud proudly say, THIS IS CRICKET, CRICKET IS THIS, so wat if it's goin thru lean phase, the golden days of cricket n days of packed stadiums will definitely come back. I m sure, football must ve seen lots of bad days bt it never changed

  • TheTrikster on June 20, 2010, 22:53 GMT

    The aim should be to even the contest between bat and ball. The bowlers have it too hard with the way the rules/organizers/media etc all tend to lean towards a batsmen friendly game. Here are suggestions to help fielding captains to be more positive and aggressive in their intent:

    1(a) Incentive for taking wickets: Every wicket lost = -10 runs for the batting side. This gives an incentive to fielding captains to attack more often. For example slip fielders would stay in place more often because even if a couple boundaries were conceded, a wicket would even things out. 1(b) For starters the above rule could be in place during non-powerplay overs only. 2. Backfoot no-ball rule to be reinstated: Fewer no-balls, less time lost, and taller fast bowlers would be able to get closer to the batsmen by over stepping the crease. 3. Legalize chucking! or at least allow base-ball style chucking from a static position! Will bring in far more innovation in bowling than anything else.

  • 2.14istherunrate on June 20, 2010, 22:51 GMT

    I get the impression that real lovers and afficionados of cricket do not really want the changes mooted in various places and certainly do not want T20 to dominate.Too much gimmickry is really what the argument is about,and it seems at present that the game's rulers are pandering the whole time to spectators for whom cricket is not the first or even second sport oif choice-hence pandering to the football crowd who want something to do in their offseason.Of course money enters the argument and in this day and age it governs everything else But at bottom games filled by infinite fours and sixes become as monoitonous as 20 overs of 5 singles an over. Sport like all of life has an element of repetitiveness and really to suddenly gear the nature of games to the needs of ADD sufferers is to miss the point.Not everything of value in this life is immediately accessible, and the balance between balll and bat is a far moire important aim than replicating the instant thrill world of T20 in ODI

  • on June 20, 2010, 21:52 GMT

    welll!!! lets first understand the level of entertainment involved with a sport is far less in the eyes of the player.ost of the players want to win games convincingly rather than u know, have fun in the middle.u can have fun!but the reason why the sport is played shud be never lost!!! So i honestly feel, dere shud be no change regarding any aspect of any type of cricket!!! nothing is going to die off! I completely agree with chapell , its better the quality of cricket being played is improved rather than having changes!! P.S: remember super sub????

  • lokeshjb on June 20, 2010, 21:04 GMT

    I do not want Ian wants to say here. Mate its 50-50 you just cant go about hitting whatever comes. As many have said here 20-20 is rubbish and more of an entertainment than Cricket.

    I am here in Oz and I can see why Cricket Australia is pushing for 2-2 innings Onedayer. Ppl here like 20-20 more, but that does not mean that u push to change the game.

  • on June 20, 2010, 19:45 GMT

    Seriously T20 isnt even cricket. its a pass time thats just quick and fun. Have a batsmen go out and bat 30 balls and score 50 runs and hes an awesome cricketer. Like Kerion Pollard. When he bats 20 odd balls he scores liek 30 plus maybe. But does he last more than 35 balls. BARELY. Thats nots cricket. The bowler tries to restrict, the batsmen tries to just swing the ball. There isnt much contest. ODI cricket has some good contest adn tests a batsmens ability to get set play well and then take off. test match is real cricket. It tests your ability as a cricketer. So all this talk about 2 t20 innings in a match by each time is rubbish. CA need to just let the game play. Yes i do suggest that the developing teams play aganist weaker nations and tournaments like the ZIM tri series not be played because that was boring. Set up more match with top sides, have more t20 in a series so the tour isnt dull when you have weaker teams playing.

  • amol_v on June 20, 2010, 18:44 GMT

    I understand your feelings Mr. Chappel... but if this unimaginative captaincy is working for the teams and making them win matches, then why on earth would they like to change it??

  • on June 20, 2010, 18:19 GMT

    I completely agree with Sir Michael Hussey, there is no need to tinker with the existing 50-over game, it is not going to change anything!!

  • on June 20, 2010, 17:43 GMT

    this game is unfortunately getting diluted, and its quite sad to see it happening. The cricket game has a perfect balance now, the extremes of 20/20 and 5 day tests with ODi's balancing it out. If the ODI is going to be replaced with 4 innings of 20 overs, doesn't that just make it a prolonged form of twenty/20? What is the use of that? The bridge between tests and one day will be disconnected. We all realize that revenue is very important, but administrators and the concerned governing bodies are already making quite enough from the twenty/20 formats, they perhaps should be reminded that they should only earn to provide for the players and the overall continuity and health of the game. To be forthright, changing the ODI format is shameless profiteering by people who do not have cricket's best interests at heart.

  • Munkeymomo on June 20, 2010, 17:13 GMT

    Get rid of all of it and just play test matches.

    :D

  • HamidMushtaq on June 20, 2010, 16:43 GMT

    ODI cricket is indeed boring. I only watch the last 10 overs of the second innings and even that when the match is close! otherwise I don't even bother to watch them!

  • ShankarV on June 20, 2010, 16:30 GMT

    Here we go again. Ian cannot resist the temptation to take the bully pulpit and go back to his old, trite arguments like "until selectors get more proactive on captaincy, or administrators discover a miracle cure for an uneven spread of talent, it won't much matter etc..." Ian, apparently has two problems (1) how selectors choose their captains and (2) how unevenly spread cricketing talent is. The first concern is, of course, quite puerile. Selectors choose captains based on a variety of considerations, some of which may have little to do with cricket. Commentators may have their opinions, but they have to understand that selectors, despite their seemingly irrational ways, ultimately want to win. Theirs is a balancing act and commentators, bereft of those pressures, can write a few scathing words and feel good about themselves. As for the uneven spread of cricketing talent, this has been a recurrent theme in Ian's writing. We can't all be as good as the Aussies eh, mate.

  • enigma77543 on June 20, 2010, 16:22 GMT

    If we look at older ODIs,we can see that there was a contest between bat & ball,now its no contest & that more than anything else is killing the game & now its almost starting to resemble baseball,I'm sure 400 will be par score in a few years time the way things are going with the game being so heavily loaded in batsmen's favor. I say lets get rid of powerplays & restrictions on the number of overs they can bowl, get rid of boundary ropes (let the batsmen hit a freaking six & not hit a four get six for it) & batsmen shouldn't be allowed to use bats any thicker than those used in say 80s & before so that BATTING skill becomes a priority for batsmen, not SLOGGING skill & last but not least,ICC should form a "pitch committee"to ascertain the quality of pitches that they're not skewed too far in favor of batsmen or bowlers,at least for matches where top 10 teams or so are involved & if certain grounds fail to prepare good pitches then ICC shouldn't allow matches there until they fix things

  • enigma77543 on June 20, 2010, 16:06 GMT

    I completely agree with Crictonite,Ajay Jadeja,Bunner & Kamranwasti that if we're to make ODIs a better product to watch then we must get rid of restrictions on bowlers whether its the stupid powerplays,restictions on the no of overs they bowl,the bouncers,the boundarylines & should put restrictions on bat thickness. Those who like 20-20s & all the slogging (not batting) that goes on in there are NOT true Cricket fans & the game needn't be fiddled with for their satisfaction If I just wanted to see the ball getting smacked around then I'd be watching baseball not cricket but I watch cricket because in cricket,the batters have (or rather used to have) style,grace & elegance while bowlers get an equal opportunity to showcase their skill & they're not just pawns of the game If ICC doesn't pay attention to the quality of bowlers & their wellbeing by preparing better pitches & by taking away their restrictions then this game is definitely going to go down the drain.

  • on June 20, 2010, 15:33 GMT

    Ian is right here.......50 overs match is the best format to test a players abilities.....twenty 20 cricket should not be given more importance

  • Murtaza. on June 20, 2010, 15:23 GMT

    I love one-day (50 overs) cricket, not 40 overs, or T20 or two times 20 overs for every side. 50 over cricket should remain 50 over cricket. If some one do not like 50 overs cricket so donĀ“t see it, just see your rubbish T20. if some feel its boring so forget see cricket choose another sport, Hockey, Foot-ball because these short time games. or see baseball if you want see only hitting. 50 overs cricket is much better then T20... make liveley bounsy wickets.

  • waspsting on June 20, 2010, 15:10 GMT

    Idealistic attitude from Ian Chappell here.

    ODI's have been going for 30+ years, and the current rules under which it has been played has been played 100s of times.

    Exactly what "imaginative captaincy" do you think can radically change it? None. its all been tried, and anything radical is likely to lead to a heavy loss.

    its almost like opening theory in chess. Its all formulated, and the formulations are the best thing on offer - proven and tried by hundreds and hundreds of attempts at experimentation. Criticize it as stale - its the best thing out there for a team that wants to WIN.

    Don't know the alternative - but Chappell's suggestion is goofy - idealistic, not practical.

  • on June 20, 2010, 15:08 GMT

    I still dont understand why there is talk of finishing 50 over cricket.

    It is England and Australians who have problems with that.Have you ever heard from an Asian player of changing the format.

  • on June 20, 2010, 15:04 GMT

    I disagree with Ian because i believe the ODI is still a very intresting form of the game. It is some where beetween complete slogging and completely responsible batting. The batting is sensible yet of an aggresive nature. The bowling is defensive yet wicket taking tactics are employed. ODI's create a unique kind of cricket and it would be a big blow for the game if they were stopped.

  • crictonite on June 20, 2010, 15:00 GMT

    How can you expect the bowling captain to be imaginative when so many things are working against his team: field restrictions, free hits, shorter boundary, 1 bouncer an over and so on. Not to mention the extra pressure of going through the overs quickly to avoid being fined. You might as well put the bowling team in straitjackets.

  • on June 20, 2010, 14:26 GMT

    Yup...25 overs and two innings mean simply more 20-20 by stealth. Try eliminating all stupid restrictions from an ODI. There shouldn't be any fielding restrictions or short ball restrictions or powerplays or any such kindaa nonsense. One particular bowler should be allowed to ball 15 overs so that the captain can take a call if one of his bowlers had an off-day, or to reduce the dependability on part-timers as 'fifth bowler'. Pitches should be more lively, not just a belter and boundaries should be bigger. Non-strikers should be barred from backing off too-fa. If technology becomes more reliable then more decisions should be made using TV cameras (there shudn't be any referrals, simply the third umpire should be more proactive).

  • achu007 on June 20, 2010, 14:14 GMT

    Quite "bad" article i must say.He must be joking saying that taking singles must not be promoted during mid overs because teasing the fielders and running quick runs too is skill and ODI demands it.Regarding the split innings idea it is a good one even the best ODI batsman Sachin has advocated for it...........................

  • ww113 on June 20, 2010, 13:48 GMT

    Ian,it is funny that noises against the 50 over game are now coming from Australia.I still remember the annual torture of the Australian tri series (not to mention having to suffer Tony Greig and Bill Lawry.) A major reason for boring ODIs is the proliferation of meaningless games and tournaments.The middle overs can be made more entertaining by keeping fielding restrictions throughout the innings.And 50 overs should be reduced to 40 or 35.

  • bunner on June 20, 2010, 12:52 GMT

    I've said it before and I'll say it again. The best way to improve any limited over cricket is to abolish all the gimmicks ( powerplays etc). And ABOLISH THE LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF OVERS BOWLED PER PLAYER. It then mirrors a proper game of cricket

    That way fielding captains have control of their resources and can attack. It avoids the need for bits and pieces players and having to bowl people you don't really want to. The present rules straitjacket a captain into conforming to a pre-ordained plan of attack

    Imagine a test match where no one could bowl more then 16 overs before a new ball was taken . How tedious.

  • on June 20, 2010, 11:24 GMT

    I still find ODIs are way more competitive and interesting than the T20 rubbish...atleast there's proper cricket played!!! T20 seems to be popular only because of its short duration that people can afford to watch it more but everyone knows quality of cricket is poor... Should we ban 11 a side footy and start playing 5 a side because some people find boring to watch couple of hours for just a couple of goals??? No we shouldnt..we dont want AMERICANISATION of our beloved sports...we dont want them to become like baseball n basketball where you just keep taking turns to score n see who ends where before that buzzer goes off!!!

  • nikhildevdesai on June 20, 2010, 11:19 GMT

    I agree with Ian. The satisfaction of a team winning a close match after grinding for 7 hours is far better than see a team winning in T20. We need better pitches that includes in the subcontinent but the curators are either not serious or lack knowledge. Ind vs Pak, Ind vs Aus, Aus vs SA, are still "glued on your seat" contest and generate high eyeballs, but it doesn't mean we should have 7 odi series, that is overkill. We need to have more tri series also, but please no sri lanka, maybe something like Aus, SA, Ind or PAK, IND, AUS, or PAK, IND, SA, or SA, PAK, AUS.

  • kamranwasti on June 20, 2010, 11:08 GMT

    The 1996 World Cup was really bad advertisement for one-day cricket. That was one of the turning points in the destruction of the One-Day game.

    Everyone knew that UAE, Holland, Kenya and Zimbabwe would be knocked out and after that any team winning three matches would be the World Champions.

    Sri Lanka did that with defensive bowling on wickets which were so dead that at the end South Africa had dropped Alan Donald from their lineup! Sri Lanka, by the way, could not dismiss a single team even one during the whole World Cup. Nothing to take any credit away but this shows how pathetic our experts were to let this thing get away unnoticed.

    Just some food for thought: It took some seriously good batting from Imran Khan to hit Joel Garner and Curtley Ambrose for 20 odd runs in two ODIs in Sharjah (in 1989 and in 1985). With these stupid innovations, any future Garners and Ambroses would suffer stillbirths.

  • kamranwasti on June 20, 2010, 11:02 GMT

    Just abolish the tampering that ICC started to do in the early 1990s:

    1. Abolish Champions Trophy. Instead allow occasional multi-team events like there were Hero Cup and Nehru Cup in India and Austral-Asia Cup in Sharjah.

    2. Go back to the 1980s formula - Bring the bouncer back. I repeat. Bring the bouncer back. Still baffles me that Australians, out of all people, were behind this. With all the armour that the batsmen put on, even Bodyline would have failed.

    3. Go back to the 1980s again - No test series of less than 3 tests and 3 or 5ODIs.

    4. Get better wickets - "A better wicket" should not be a bowler's graveyard.

    5. Remove powerplays: The 15 over thing was bad enough. It is equally thrilling to watch a batsman playing and missing some seriously good bowling.

    6. Decide for now that a par score of 250 should be a good total and all wickets and conditions etc. should accommodate that. India would never have won the 1983 World Cup in today's circumstances.

  • shaen on June 20, 2010, 11:01 GMT

    Don't change the rules, play better Nuff said! I'm confused by all this negativity coming from CA who are supposed to be cricket lovers. I was there in Glouster Park when the first 50 over match was played in Perth. It was fantastic. I loved it. I still do and have never missed a game deliberately since. The only change I've ever heard that makes any sense is perhaps 12 overs per bowler. 20 over games are fun, occasionally. But they are basically meaningless to the real lovers of cricket.

  • ianChappellFan on June 20, 2010, 10:51 GMT

    ian himself was a fan of the 2 innings 40 over contest, seemingly he is doing a u-turn on his idea.

    since ian is such a keen baseball fan, i have an observation to make...in baseball teams are well aware of stats like, a batters average against left handed and right handed pitchers, and their stats towards left field and right field, so the pitching is done as per this data. in cricket this is not the case so much. and this is more applicable in cricket, since sixes are not as dominant as home runs, and there is a lot of runs along the ground.

    for example if we know that razzaq scores all his runs in the V, pack it with fielders, leave square of the wickets totally empty, and if we know he is not good with spinners, make spinners bowl at him. then lets see how many he can score away from his comfort of V.

    i think cricket captains are not as agressive about their field placings as they should be, some dabble with it a bit but no one takes it to another level.

  • powergrip on June 20, 2010, 10:46 GMT

    am i to understand that you havnt checked out the powergrip yet then ian. i dont like defensive shots either,the difference between me and w.g grace that i have far better balance and you know what happens when you have your head still, body balanced and have the confidence in your technique, BANG.

    i am no expert at this new technique as yet,the videos i have on youtube are like a documentary,this is what happens when i havnt played for 20 years,pick up a bat with the powergrip and start belting the ball with a bat that is designed for a traditional grip.

    i get better and better everyday and i totally agree with old school batting coaches that players today are using bats that are too heavy.

    if you want to checkout what i have created go to 'goodwin powergrip' at youtube i am currently working with elite martial arts professionals,new video soon,would love some honest feedback

  • podichetty on June 20, 2010, 10:35 GMT

    I can't agree with you more Ian. 50 over cricket should remain 50 over cricket, but it can be made more exciting. Administrators should think in that direction rather than reducing it to 40 overs or dividing it into 4 sessions of T20 cricket as there is no meaning in it. By doing so, we would be deprived of the famous comebacks made by some teams after having their backs to the wall in the initial period. We should not look beyond the famous 1999 world cup semi-final between australia and south africa. Would that classic been possible if 50 overs were divided. Would that steve waugh-bevan partnership that saved australia been possible if 50 overs were divided. Hope the administrators are listening !

  • Goabnb on June 20, 2010, 10:21 GMT

    Whats the point in split innings? I love to watch cricket, I even wathc the full 5 day test because it is fun to watch. But those who find a ODI boring to watch because it 'takes too long,' when you'll just got bored of split innings. If you get your way in ten years we'll see a one over innings per side. If you find cricket boring, watch baseball or some other fast played sport and LEAVE CRICKET ALONE. Its fine the way it is.

  • Nerk on June 20, 2010, 8:45 GMT

    Quite agree with Ian here. ODI continues to have great moments and produce great cricket, and every time someone says the game is dead out comes a cracking match which goes down to the wire, and everybody is praising the game. The fact is, teams have to play attractive cricket. It is the same in every sport. People will pay to watch a soccer/football team that goes hell for leather, trying to score goals, whereas they will turn off when watching a team that does nothing. The same is true of cricket, people will pay to see the best players play good, attractive cricket and it is up to the selectors, and the coaches, and most important of all the players to make sure that innovative, exciting cricket is never off the menu.

  • Governor on June 20, 2010, 8:24 GMT

    I totally agree with you Ian. Cricket Australia has decided to think along the lines of 20-20 cricket without placing the pressure on the selectors to demand creative and attacking captaincy from the respective captains.

    The late Sir Donald Bradman back in 1960-61 demanded Richie Benaud and the late Sir Frank Worrell to play attacking and aggressive entertaining cricket that was played in the right spirit. Test cricket was very boring until the late Don demanded something from the captains to save the game!

    Cricket Australia has not been pro-active at all since James Sutherland has been CEO. We need a pro-active CEO. I am willing to start a Facebook campaign to promote Graeme Wood or Tony Dodemaide as the CEO of Cricekt Australia!!

  • addiemanav on June 20, 2010, 8:06 GMT

    i think that we should stop the limitation in the number of overs bowled by a bowler..a batsman can bat out the whole 50 overs,but bowler can only bowl 10.if someone is bowling well he should be allowed to continue.if we can set the quota of overs as 13 overs for 2,that would make 26 overs between them,and remaining 3 can bowl 8 overs thus the rest 24 overs.infact the quota of overs can be made flexible according to the fielding teams requirement.rather than going forward we can bring the run-rates down and making more closer games.the world cup scores in 90s,were terrific,220-250 were good scores.but this time they are going to be 320+scores chased,which would eventually become a bore.the contes between bat and bal will be fairer.

  • on June 20, 2010, 7:24 GMT

    A very sensible article on the issue by Mr. Chappell. Very good points indeed. Splitting the innings is not a good idea for me, it will be almost like two T20's back to back (if 20 wkts per side) or a single T20, only streched out (if 10 wkts per side). Let's not fiddle with format much. Let's try to innovate within it. The suggestion by 'Charitha Sasanka De Silva' for making the 2nd and 3rd powerplays mandatory in the middle overs is a good and feasible one. Things like this will improve the game really. We need more ideas like this, instead of killing the 50-over game altogether. As pointed out by others, it gives chance for teams to bounce back, unlike the T20, and here lies it' s beauty. Let'skeep it alive.

  • on June 20, 2010, 7:22 GMT

    the super sub was a good idea with flawed execution.. the team lists can be exchanged AFTER the toss, instead of before it as is the present rule.. that way captains losing toss are not at disadvantage..

    One bowler can be allowed to overshoot till 15/20 overs as a maximum limit.. (Stephen Fleming would ve wished for this rule at the 03 WC vs AUS!)

  • kemmisito on June 20, 2010, 7:11 GMT

    I guess I can see the merit in breaking up a team's overs into 2 blocks of 25 each and letting them continue at the same score they had at the end of the first 25 over block. I honestly don't think that we have to be so radical though. All that's needed is to make it manditory to take the batting & bowling powerplays between overs 20 & 40. If this is done then half of those sleepy middle overs will be brought to life & the monotony and predictability curtailed.

  • tough_cool on June 20, 2010, 7:11 GMT

    Hello I an, I think you hit right areas that there is no further need for changes in rules in ODI format and not least of which is as outrageous as making it into a two innings format, but let me point to something you missed and it is with a slight change in rules and nothing drastic, the game does become boring during the middle overs and reason for that as you put it is the lack of insightful captaincy, and I disagree with you for the latter part, actually the reason is not the lack of insightful captaincy but the arrival of part time bowlers, which all the captains have to live with as of now, and this factor could be negated with slightest of changes to rules i.e by allowing bowlers to bowl a maximum of 12 overs instead of 10 overs, what with this rule captains can freely choose 4 bowlers and 7 batsmen and it allows the flexibility for the captain to attack in the middle overs. Also I hate so many powerplays. Hope you read my comments and also the people who matter

  • on June 20, 2010, 6:49 GMT

    It will not become 2 T20 games if you don't give the batting team 10 wickets each time they come out to bat. If a batsmen got out in the 1st innings he should not play 2nd time. This will really make it interesting because teams will now look for 2 sets of opening batsmen...

  • CricFan24 on June 20, 2010, 6:33 GMT

    Well said Ian...we had the same crap about how Tests were "dying" a while back...no more. It's the same with ODIs. T20 is simply the "flavour of the season" - but it doesnt provide any drama. A great ODI is the closest we can come to the equivalent to a great Test compressed into a day....and has a place for all types of players, not just the mad bangers as in T20.

  • SRT_Jammy_Dada_VVS_and_Anil_legends on June 20, 2010, 6:19 GMT

    I think the main point has been missed- reduce the number of matches being played to increase the importance and context of ODIs. Get rid of money-making 7-game series, and for god's sake no more India-Sri Lanka ODIs in meaningless multi-nation tournaments!!

  • omer_admani on June 20, 2010, 6:08 GMT

    I agree with you. It changes nothing in terms of gameplan, tactics, outcome, and so on.

    I had an interesting idea. Two 25-over innings for each team. But in the second innings that each team plays, they can have 3 players-- not pre-determined-- who can come and bat a second time.

    This way a lot of strategy comes into play. When, what, and how to make the subsitutions. This would allow more power players and yet keep the solid player in the team (unlike 20/20). This would also keep interest in the game till the end and not allow contests to be too one-sided.

    Eliminate bowling quotas, reduce powerplays ( 3 3 over power plays at the fielding side's discretion and 2 3 over power plays at the batting side's discretion), 'option' for the fielding team to have a second new ball after 25 overs. In a truncated format the idea is to have more freedom, which makes for more attacking bowling and batting, and the above for strategy/contest so that the game is not one sided too soon.

  • on June 20, 2010, 6:03 GMT

    Sr.Ian Chapell is right.You cannot change the odi format.Batsmen and bowlers can lose their rhythm and the excitement can be reduced.In high scoring matches you would always like the runs to flow in.May be this could be done in twenty20 cricket.

  • Percy_Fender on June 20, 2010, 5:50 GMT

    I agree with Ian Chappell's view that the 50 over format should not be altered in any way. What is required perhaps is to make matches close and interesting as the one we had between India and Pakistan last night.While it may be argued that an India Pakistan match is more that just a game making for packed stands and excitement all the way, I think spectators also look for even contests not just batting extravaganzas. This means we must find ways of neutralising the impact of the toss and have good sporting tracks where the ball does something all the time. Where things like the dew or the inadequacies of the lights gets evened out. This business of batting spectacles with little for the bowlers might be good viewing for the vuvuzela weilding crowd. What the discerning spectator looks for is a contest of skills. So while the debate is on, if the match were to be made of two innings of 25 overs each it is fine. The other thing is that 20/20 should be kept rarer than it is at present.

  • Wisecrack on June 20, 2010, 5:19 GMT

    Ian, you and David Gower are my favorite commentators but here I would like to say that it's important to innovate. The utter non-sense that goes through the middle overs in 50 overs is absolutely unacceptable. The australian administrators should be applauded for the intiative but it has just 60% chance to succeed. I do not think other boards had the courage to do that. I believe if we recitify the anamolies in 50 over cricket or make it a two ininings game it will keep the tests alive. Else 10 years down the line we may have tests dying out because we must understand people who like tests are getting older and closer to deathbed like I am; and today's busy young people with 3D and HIGH DEFINATION TV will push it out of their TV screens once and for all. It is high time we choose 2 out of three formats and kill one format by stealth or otherwise. Unfortunately there are no alternatives.

  • upendradixit on June 20, 2010, 5:17 GMT

    Ian, Harsha et al - you view everything from the view point of the cricketer. Please understand that the game will survive on audiences, and audiences have no time to spend a whole day watching cricket on TV or stadiums. IN India, for a 8 hour game time, you spend at least 14 hours including travel and security. In a financially unstable world with everyone fighting for their jobs and professions, cricket will have to adjust to a 3 hours schedule. We just need to have 20/20 and 4 day tests from Thu-Sunday. One for the thrill and one for skill. For a 5 match one day series, you need 15 days schedule. In that many days, you can have a test and multiple 20/20 games. Just count the audience for Sri Lanka home game at Asia Cup against Pakistan for evidence.

  • ygkd on June 20, 2010, 5:15 GMT

    I still think the rules need to be changed too, so captains don't have the choice to be overly defensive. Strip the game of powerplays, most of the fielding restrictions except for mandated dual slip fielders (rather than merely 2 designated catchers which are usually just defensive fielders in disguise any way). That would eliminate most of the nicks through slips that get bad batsmen inflated ODI records and must be the bane of bowlers, especially those with serious pace. With 2 slip fielders at all time captains would have to attack because the gaps in the field would be way too inviting otherwise.

  • on June 20, 2010, 4:43 GMT

    Very strong points!I really would like to see ODI cricket prevail because of its unique nature.When T20 was introduced it was just 1 or 2 matches per tour and people had some fun.It's the best way to globalize cricket but not to ruin it.The powerplay overs which were meant to give the ODI format some life was not a success as it depended on the captains.The one with the negative mindset who doesn't like adventure opts for it in the last 5 overs while only 1% of the captains opt for it earlier when two batsmen are settled.I would like to make a suggestion.Why don't the ICC make the 2nd and 3rd powerplays mandatory?The 2nd PP must be taken between overs 15-25 and the 3rd between 30-40.Then you can always have some drama going around.You don't get to rebuild in T20 because all you do is attack from ball 1.But 50 over cricket makes teams rebuild and is the most unique characteristic in ODI format.The above suggestion makes the teams rebuild and also attack which makes it more unique.

  • on June 20, 2010, 4:14 GMT

    I think Mr. Chappel is talking about 20 wickets per side match. Let us split the inngs but make the innings connected. I honestly believe there are things we need to change in the 50 over game but making it 2-T20 games is not one of em. Why not have split innings but the team only has 10 wickets in hand. Make it 40 overs so one inning consumes only 20 overs. It will ensure consistent conditions for both teams and ensure the home team bats in the night which will attract more ratings.

    Since we need more specialists in the game why not allow sub per inning. Better yet lets have wicket cap per inning like 5.

    That will surely make captains "think" more.

  • on June 20, 2010, 3:54 GMT

    I believe you have a good point there Ian. Power Plays (PP) and the use of them have become very predictable. Normally batting Power Plays are either taken at the fag end of the innings i.e. 45 overs or if the batting side is in a solid position the batters call for it after the mandatory ball change i.e. after the 34th over. My suggestions are as follow:-

    1. finish off the t-20 format for good; 2. two innings break up of 25 overs each 3. One mandatory 5 over Power Play(bowling side), and one 5 over PP allotted for the batting team. 4. No ball change after the first innings, same ball used for the start of the second innings. 5. Use of 1 super sub allowable in each innings. Team of 13 to be picked. 6. Bouncer usage allowable. 2 For an over.

    Your two cents on the above.

    Regards

    Nasr Saeed Karachi, Pakistan

  • TMS8137 on June 20, 2010, 3:46 GMT

    Well Ian Picture this. A team is 90 for no loss after the first powerplay of ten overs. Most captains would not take the bowling powerplay immediately, they would bring in some spin to try an slow the run rate and stop the boundaries. Captains are averse to gambling on the chance of taking the power-play at this point of time and getting hammered by the opposing team and the media the next day. The initial idea of power-plays was sound enough as it was supposed to cut out the slow drag of the middle overs and that the poweplays could be taken whenever they wanted. But captains without imagination and scared to get crucified by the media have resulted in no difference between the game now and ten years ago. A good way to make ODI's and infact all cricket more interesting would be to skew the balance of the gane heavily infavour of the bowlers. Who wouldn't want to see a repeat of Ind-Aus in Mumbai 2004? or Eng-Wi in lords 2000?

  • on June 20, 2010, 3:26 GMT

    well said by Ian Chappell. if ICC is changing ODI format then this shows that he (ICC) will like to change test cricket format into fifty50 over per innings. then why they have introduced twenty20 cricket. I think so that ICC should restrict himself from dull thinking.

  • Dubby49 on June 20, 2010, 3:20 GMT

    What a cracker of a one day match we had last night. Two evenly matched team desperate to win. Now if only all ODIs went down to the wire. Sadly after yesterday's excitement we now have two meaningless matches - Pak v BD and India v SL. Both Pak & BD must be uearning to go home and Idia and SL will be saving themselves for the finals.

    Given the poor turnout at the Pak-India match, how many will come to the ground to watch tomorrows game between Pak and BD.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Dubby49 on June 20, 2010, 3:20 GMT

    What a cracker of a one day match we had last night. Two evenly matched team desperate to win. Now if only all ODIs went down to the wire. Sadly after yesterday's excitement we now have two meaningless matches - Pak v BD and India v SL. Both Pak & BD must be uearning to go home and Idia and SL will be saving themselves for the finals.

    Given the poor turnout at the Pak-India match, how many will come to the ground to watch tomorrows game between Pak and BD.

  • on June 20, 2010, 3:26 GMT

    well said by Ian Chappell. if ICC is changing ODI format then this shows that he (ICC) will like to change test cricket format into fifty50 over per innings. then why they have introduced twenty20 cricket. I think so that ICC should restrict himself from dull thinking.

  • TMS8137 on June 20, 2010, 3:46 GMT

    Well Ian Picture this. A team is 90 for no loss after the first powerplay of ten overs. Most captains would not take the bowling powerplay immediately, they would bring in some spin to try an slow the run rate and stop the boundaries. Captains are averse to gambling on the chance of taking the power-play at this point of time and getting hammered by the opposing team and the media the next day. The initial idea of power-plays was sound enough as it was supposed to cut out the slow drag of the middle overs and that the poweplays could be taken whenever they wanted. But captains without imagination and scared to get crucified by the media have resulted in no difference between the game now and ten years ago. A good way to make ODI's and infact all cricket more interesting would be to skew the balance of the gane heavily infavour of the bowlers. Who wouldn't want to see a repeat of Ind-Aus in Mumbai 2004? or Eng-Wi in lords 2000?

  • on June 20, 2010, 3:54 GMT

    I believe you have a good point there Ian. Power Plays (PP) and the use of them have become very predictable. Normally batting Power Plays are either taken at the fag end of the innings i.e. 45 overs or if the batting side is in a solid position the batters call for it after the mandatory ball change i.e. after the 34th over. My suggestions are as follow:-

    1. finish off the t-20 format for good; 2. two innings break up of 25 overs each 3. One mandatory 5 over Power Play(bowling side), and one 5 over PP allotted for the batting team. 4. No ball change after the first innings, same ball used for the start of the second innings. 5. Use of 1 super sub allowable in each innings. Team of 13 to be picked. 6. Bouncer usage allowable. 2 For an over.

    Your two cents on the above.

    Regards

    Nasr Saeed Karachi, Pakistan

  • on June 20, 2010, 4:14 GMT

    I think Mr. Chappel is talking about 20 wickets per side match. Let us split the inngs but make the innings connected. I honestly believe there are things we need to change in the 50 over game but making it 2-T20 games is not one of em. Why not have split innings but the team only has 10 wickets in hand. Make it 40 overs so one inning consumes only 20 overs. It will ensure consistent conditions for both teams and ensure the home team bats in the night which will attract more ratings.

    Since we need more specialists in the game why not allow sub per inning. Better yet lets have wicket cap per inning like 5.

    That will surely make captains "think" more.

  • on June 20, 2010, 4:43 GMT

    Very strong points!I really would like to see ODI cricket prevail because of its unique nature.When T20 was introduced it was just 1 or 2 matches per tour and people had some fun.It's the best way to globalize cricket but not to ruin it.The powerplay overs which were meant to give the ODI format some life was not a success as it depended on the captains.The one with the negative mindset who doesn't like adventure opts for it in the last 5 overs while only 1% of the captains opt for it earlier when two batsmen are settled.I would like to make a suggestion.Why don't the ICC make the 2nd and 3rd powerplays mandatory?The 2nd PP must be taken between overs 15-25 and the 3rd between 30-40.Then you can always have some drama going around.You don't get to rebuild in T20 because all you do is attack from ball 1.But 50 over cricket makes teams rebuild and is the most unique characteristic in ODI format.The above suggestion makes the teams rebuild and also attack which makes it more unique.

  • ygkd on June 20, 2010, 5:15 GMT

    I still think the rules need to be changed too, so captains don't have the choice to be overly defensive. Strip the game of powerplays, most of the fielding restrictions except for mandated dual slip fielders (rather than merely 2 designated catchers which are usually just defensive fielders in disguise any way). That would eliminate most of the nicks through slips that get bad batsmen inflated ODI records and must be the bane of bowlers, especially those with serious pace. With 2 slip fielders at all time captains would have to attack because the gaps in the field would be way too inviting otherwise.

  • upendradixit on June 20, 2010, 5:17 GMT

    Ian, Harsha et al - you view everything from the view point of the cricketer. Please understand that the game will survive on audiences, and audiences have no time to spend a whole day watching cricket on TV or stadiums. IN India, for a 8 hour game time, you spend at least 14 hours including travel and security. In a financially unstable world with everyone fighting for their jobs and professions, cricket will have to adjust to a 3 hours schedule. We just need to have 20/20 and 4 day tests from Thu-Sunday. One for the thrill and one for skill. For a 5 match one day series, you need 15 days schedule. In that many days, you can have a test and multiple 20/20 games. Just count the audience for Sri Lanka home game at Asia Cup against Pakistan for evidence.

  • Wisecrack on June 20, 2010, 5:19 GMT

    Ian, you and David Gower are my favorite commentators but here I would like to say that it's important to innovate. The utter non-sense that goes through the middle overs in 50 overs is absolutely unacceptable. The australian administrators should be applauded for the intiative but it has just 60% chance to succeed. I do not think other boards had the courage to do that. I believe if we recitify the anamolies in 50 over cricket or make it a two ininings game it will keep the tests alive. Else 10 years down the line we may have tests dying out because we must understand people who like tests are getting older and closer to deathbed like I am; and today's busy young people with 3D and HIGH DEFINATION TV will push it out of their TV screens once and for all. It is high time we choose 2 out of three formats and kill one format by stealth or otherwise. Unfortunately there are no alternatives.

  • Percy_Fender on June 20, 2010, 5:50 GMT

    I agree with Ian Chappell's view that the 50 over format should not be altered in any way. What is required perhaps is to make matches close and interesting as the one we had between India and Pakistan last night.While it may be argued that an India Pakistan match is more that just a game making for packed stands and excitement all the way, I think spectators also look for even contests not just batting extravaganzas. This means we must find ways of neutralising the impact of the toss and have good sporting tracks where the ball does something all the time. Where things like the dew or the inadequacies of the lights gets evened out. This business of batting spectacles with little for the bowlers might be good viewing for the vuvuzela weilding crowd. What the discerning spectator looks for is a contest of skills. So while the debate is on, if the match were to be made of two innings of 25 overs each it is fine. The other thing is that 20/20 should be kept rarer than it is at present.