March 25, 2011

No curtain calls for the ODI yet

The Powerplays have kept teams on their toes, the DRS has reduced mistakes, and the World Cup has been a success so far
36

It's been a pretty good World Cup, you have to admit. Yes, we took a long time to arrive at the eight teams that most thought would make the quarter-finals; yes, we had a lot of one-sided games, but that was factored into our expectations. But favourites have occasionally stumbled and underdogs have had their moments in the sun as well.

Dhaka wept and cheered and wept. The Irish marched, maybe short of weapons but not of spirit, Pallekele gave us a picturesque venue. Indian stadiums are, apparently, looking quite nice, England practised standing on a knife's edge, the Aussies haven't evoked awe, and South Africa have a legspinner. Clearly much has happened. Even the DRS has started winning some people over!

The decision reviews added a great deal to the World Cup. While there has been debate on the accuracy, teams and players have much less to complain about, and it seems a logical extension to the progress that was made when third-country umpires began standing. Not everyone is convinced that the projected trajectory of the ball is accurate, but it needs to be looked at in competition with the accuracy of the naked eye. And since machines have neither emotions nor loyalties, the merits or drawbacks will be uniform.

Has it eliminated howlers? I'm not sure we can be completely convinced of that but it has certainly minimised them, though it would help if someone told us the real reason behind its lesser admissibility when the ball pitches less than 40 centimetres from the pad or hits pad more than 2.5 metres from the stumps. I can understand Hawk-Eye being less reliable, and that the limits set therefore actually enhance its effectiveness, but it makes the game more complicated for the spectator. And it didn't help that the ICC kept making the odd alteration. It must work well, and it increasingly seems to, but in a sport that so depends on the public for its sustenance, it must work easily too.

I do hope, though, that we do away with the replay for the low catch. Nothing has failed as spectacularly as this has over the last 10 years. Or more. It doesn't work, it will always look not out, and you cannot deny a bowler a wicket or a fielder a catch on that count. Sadly it has to remain with the umpire because the other method, asking the fielder and trusting him, is too ridiculously naïve. If players stand when they know they are out, if players appeal when they know a batsman isn't out, they lose the right to be trusted. How can you trust a fielder if he says he caught it clean when a few minutes earlier he was probably appealing for one that went straight off pad?

If it is largely thumbs up for the DRS, it is a resounding yes for the Powerplays. When the batting Powerplay was first introduced it was felt, and with some justification, that it was another nail in the coffin for bowlers, particularly spinners. But these bowlers are wonderfully innovative fellows; maybe years of being suppressed by the laws have taught them to survive, and the batting Powerplay is actually being looked at suspiciously by some teams. It is a wonderful development.

In course of time, I think, it will remain a batting weapon, but it is asking more questions than many thought it would. With the fielders being forced in, the gaps within the circle have reduced, and batsmen have felt the need to go over. It begs the question: if the batting Powerplay can produce wickets, why not bring the fielders in more often to cut the singles and force the batsmen to play riskier shots? We see five fielders in the circle far too infrequently, and maybe that will change now.

It is interesting too, and maybe a touch predictable, that the side batting first tends to lose more wickets in the Powerplay (15 balls per wicket as opposed to 19 balls per wicket by sides batting second). Teams that know what their target is seem to approach it with greater care, whereas those that are setting a target seem to throw caution to the winds.

So the 50-over game seems in pretty good health, and maybe the packaging and promotion that a World Cup provides has helped. Good, organised batsmen are still topping the batting charts, and wicket-taking bowlers are still in fashion. And people are watching. There is much life left in this old dog.

Harsha Bhogle is a commentator, television presenter and writer. His Twitter feed is here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Cricscribe on March 28, 2011, 15:31 GMT

    Are we on the cusp of one such great moment…? ……A tender moment that will touch, inspire and elevate a billion people! We can only wonder how and why God chooses these moments and HIS instruments to display limitless courage, potential and strength of character in many a triumphant human endeavor. If ever there was an athlete that graduated to earn this moment, to be that cherished instrument, it has to be Sachin Tendulkar in his 23rd year of impassioned and dedicated service to an ever grateful nation. I can just shut my eyes and imagine that smile and tears of joy on Sachin's face as he is held aloft by his weeping, dancing teammates, thus culminating his international career triumphant on the ultimate stage. A role model of humility and character will remind a great nation of its heritage. A gentleman's game repaying its greatest ambassador with this great gift, with a global audience as its witness. Nobody and I mean nobody will begrudge him that moment. - PArt 2

  • Cricscribe on March 28, 2011, 15:27 GMT

    Not often, but once in a very long while, there comes a transcendental moment in sports; a moment that is frozen in time, etched in our collective consciousness, a moment of glory that unites and inspires millions, a moment that cuts across religion, creed and country, a moment that will be recounted across generations, retold to grandchildren. History is replete with athletes that have adorned such a moment. Who can forget the black and white vignettes of Jesse Owens' gliding into everyone's consciousness in the heart of Nazi land?, Nadia Comenici's perfect 10 on the world's greatest stage or Diego's dramatic performance on the planet's greatest spectacle elevating him into a demigod in the world's most popular sport or Michael Jordan, a global sporting hero, delivering on the greatest basketball stage while floored by a gut wrenching flu. The moments few and far apart….. but the memories vivid. - Part 1

  • DaisonGarvasis on March 28, 2011, 10:44 GMT

    One thing I cant understand is - why the DRS reviews are limited to 2! If the howlers are to be eleminated, a system should be put in place that NO HOWLERS GO WITHOUT REVIEW. The umpires in the field are 100% on the job during the course of the match and so should be the Third umpire. During the play and between the deliveries all "iffy" incidents shall be reviwed and for that the Third Umpire shall let the on field umpire know through the radios. There can be cries of it slowing down the process but believe me there are not more than 10 such incidents where the play has to stop for reviwes on a average. And if there is something worth stopping the play for clarity of decision its to be stopped. Restricting the reviwes to 2 wrong ones wont help stop howlers. And if the team doesnt review one blunder even after appealing that is another howler for me. The third umpire should come in to play more if DRS is to be any meaningful and that Radio must be used more to coorinate.

  • madhusudhantv on March 28, 2011, 6:58 GMT

    Dear Bhogle, I have a doubt regarding UDRS. After watching the world cup matches so far, i observed that, UDRS is not 100% clean. Umpires taking the decision depending upon the team status. Small teams got more wrong decisions even through UDRS. One more thing is after losing their chances of reviews, the umpires may take advantage above those teams i.e., even if they take wrong decisions, the teams can not claim, which happened when India played against Australia in the quarterfinals, after India unsuccessful of their reviews one of the Australian batsmen got plumb in front of the stumps, umpire turned down the appeal, in the replays we saw he was plumb in front. I don't say that all the umpires do this, but in past also we experienced that Indian batsmen suffered the wrong decisions taken by the umpires. May be while batting we may get the advantage of the UDRS but not while bowling. Plz think about it.

  • mjrvasu on March 27, 2011, 10:03 GMT

    Unless the tourney is formatted into a full league of sorts, it is not possible for top teams to be tested against everybody else; but this may not meet the approval of all. Having said that, the fact is teams like England or West Indies did not deserve to finish in the top 8. England were given a lifeline by West Indies and India, when the matches could have been easily won by their opponents. It is a good thing that finally England's luck ran out against Sri Lanka. West Indies is a hopeless team, and they should be now ranked lowest, even below Kenya. Teams that have been knocked out in QF cannot complain, because they deserved to be knocked out. One cannot assume the places of 'top' teams. That is the rule of the game to win every knockout to become the champion. NZ have come up with some sensational performance when it mattered, so I would say all 4 semifinalists are there due to their performance. From here on, it is anybody's guess who will be the next World Cup Champion

  • Tabish_Asif on March 27, 2011, 8:47 GMT

    crocker is rit.... just like innovations like Batting powerplay, One bouncer over shoulder an over , UDRS etc have been implemented.... why not give remove the restriction of just 10 overs a match on a match... or rather put a cap of max 15 overs/bowler/match..... this wud give the bowlers some enthusiasm and a lot of choice to captain especially in cunch overs....

  • shaikh66 on March 27, 2011, 4:22 GMT

    EVERY sport "depends on the public for its sustenance" Einstein!!!!!

  • vinuthan on March 26, 2011, 17:39 GMT

    @chris: Wining World cup does not mean they are best in the world. It is that they are the world cup champions or winners of the world cup. Best in the world cannot be determined by a team winning one tournament. To do that, you need to consider a teams performance for atleast a period of time. May be ranking would help you tell that a team is best....Now let us not comment on the ranking system...may be that needs to be corrected if one feels it does not do justice...but for sure wining a world cup tournament should not be used to Tag as best in world. Messi is class act or one of the bets players in world, but he was super flop in WC. So it does not mean he is worst player

  • indicricket on March 26, 2011, 16:08 GMT

    As I write England are as good as gone. So now the Aussies and the Poms are gone. The journos from there will diss this Worldcup as one of the worst. Not only they have been kicked out, it has been a Worldcup organized in the Subcontinent and it has been an very interesting one. Above all they hate 'I' word.

  • SpaMaster on March 26, 2011, 9:26 GMT

    Just a few comments about this World Cup. Didn't know where to post, thought this might be a good place as Harsha is a good journalist.

    Quarterfinals are simply not correct for cricket world cup. This has nothing to do with N Zl - S Af game yesterday. Cricket is not like football. One ODI is too fickle for the nature of this game, and the better team has a much higher chance of being knocked out. I would even like 'best out of 3' for semis and finals. But I can take the one match format for those stages since I am inclined to believe top 4 teams are much closer in performance. But 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7 are dangerous matches. Again, I am not defending S Af, quite the opposite for the way they played. But in future there should be no quarterfinals. As an Indian fan, I was a bit wary of q-finals. Even Sri Lanka's Jayawerdena said q-finals was the match he feared the most during their 1996 cup winning campaign.

  • Cricscribe on March 28, 2011, 15:31 GMT

    Are we on the cusp of one such great moment…? ……A tender moment that will touch, inspire and elevate a billion people! We can only wonder how and why God chooses these moments and HIS instruments to display limitless courage, potential and strength of character in many a triumphant human endeavor. If ever there was an athlete that graduated to earn this moment, to be that cherished instrument, it has to be Sachin Tendulkar in his 23rd year of impassioned and dedicated service to an ever grateful nation. I can just shut my eyes and imagine that smile and tears of joy on Sachin's face as he is held aloft by his weeping, dancing teammates, thus culminating his international career triumphant on the ultimate stage. A role model of humility and character will remind a great nation of its heritage. A gentleman's game repaying its greatest ambassador with this great gift, with a global audience as its witness. Nobody and I mean nobody will begrudge him that moment. - PArt 2

  • Cricscribe on March 28, 2011, 15:27 GMT

    Not often, but once in a very long while, there comes a transcendental moment in sports; a moment that is frozen in time, etched in our collective consciousness, a moment of glory that unites and inspires millions, a moment that cuts across religion, creed and country, a moment that will be recounted across generations, retold to grandchildren. History is replete with athletes that have adorned such a moment. Who can forget the black and white vignettes of Jesse Owens' gliding into everyone's consciousness in the heart of Nazi land?, Nadia Comenici's perfect 10 on the world's greatest stage or Diego's dramatic performance on the planet's greatest spectacle elevating him into a demigod in the world's most popular sport or Michael Jordan, a global sporting hero, delivering on the greatest basketball stage while floored by a gut wrenching flu. The moments few and far apart….. but the memories vivid. - Part 1

  • DaisonGarvasis on March 28, 2011, 10:44 GMT

    One thing I cant understand is - why the DRS reviews are limited to 2! If the howlers are to be eleminated, a system should be put in place that NO HOWLERS GO WITHOUT REVIEW. The umpires in the field are 100% on the job during the course of the match and so should be the Third umpire. During the play and between the deliveries all "iffy" incidents shall be reviwed and for that the Third Umpire shall let the on field umpire know through the radios. There can be cries of it slowing down the process but believe me there are not more than 10 such incidents where the play has to stop for reviwes on a average. And if there is something worth stopping the play for clarity of decision its to be stopped. Restricting the reviwes to 2 wrong ones wont help stop howlers. And if the team doesnt review one blunder even after appealing that is another howler for me. The third umpire should come in to play more if DRS is to be any meaningful and that Radio must be used more to coorinate.

  • madhusudhantv on March 28, 2011, 6:58 GMT

    Dear Bhogle, I have a doubt regarding UDRS. After watching the world cup matches so far, i observed that, UDRS is not 100% clean. Umpires taking the decision depending upon the team status. Small teams got more wrong decisions even through UDRS. One more thing is after losing their chances of reviews, the umpires may take advantage above those teams i.e., even if they take wrong decisions, the teams can not claim, which happened when India played against Australia in the quarterfinals, after India unsuccessful of their reviews one of the Australian batsmen got plumb in front of the stumps, umpire turned down the appeal, in the replays we saw he was plumb in front. I don't say that all the umpires do this, but in past also we experienced that Indian batsmen suffered the wrong decisions taken by the umpires. May be while batting we may get the advantage of the UDRS but not while bowling. Plz think about it.

  • mjrvasu on March 27, 2011, 10:03 GMT

    Unless the tourney is formatted into a full league of sorts, it is not possible for top teams to be tested against everybody else; but this may not meet the approval of all. Having said that, the fact is teams like England or West Indies did not deserve to finish in the top 8. England were given a lifeline by West Indies and India, when the matches could have been easily won by their opponents. It is a good thing that finally England's luck ran out against Sri Lanka. West Indies is a hopeless team, and they should be now ranked lowest, even below Kenya. Teams that have been knocked out in QF cannot complain, because they deserved to be knocked out. One cannot assume the places of 'top' teams. That is the rule of the game to win every knockout to become the champion. NZ have come up with some sensational performance when it mattered, so I would say all 4 semifinalists are there due to their performance. From here on, it is anybody's guess who will be the next World Cup Champion

  • Tabish_Asif on March 27, 2011, 8:47 GMT

    crocker is rit.... just like innovations like Batting powerplay, One bouncer over shoulder an over , UDRS etc have been implemented.... why not give remove the restriction of just 10 overs a match on a match... or rather put a cap of max 15 overs/bowler/match..... this wud give the bowlers some enthusiasm and a lot of choice to captain especially in cunch overs....

  • shaikh66 on March 27, 2011, 4:22 GMT

    EVERY sport "depends on the public for its sustenance" Einstein!!!!!

  • vinuthan on March 26, 2011, 17:39 GMT

    @chris: Wining World cup does not mean they are best in the world. It is that they are the world cup champions or winners of the world cup. Best in the world cannot be determined by a team winning one tournament. To do that, you need to consider a teams performance for atleast a period of time. May be ranking would help you tell that a team is best....Now let us not comment on the ranking system...may be that needs to be corrected if one feels it does not do justice...but for sure wining a world cup tournament should not be used to Tag as best in world. Messi is class act or one of the bets players in world, but he was super flop in WC. So it does not mean he is worst player

  • indicricket on March 26, 2011, 16:08 GMT

    As I write England are as good as gone. So now the Aussies and the Poms are gone. The journos from there will diss this Worldcup as one of the worst. Not only they have been kicked out, it has been a Worldcup organized in the Subcontinent and it has been an very interesting one. Above all they hate 'I' word.

  • SpaMaster on March 26, 2011, 9:26 GMT

    Just a few comments about this World Cup. Didn't know where to post, thought this might be a good place as Harsha is a good journalist.

    Quarterfinals are simply not correct for cricket world cup. This has nothing to do with N Zl - S Af game yesterday. Cricket is not like football. One ODI is too fickle for the nature of this game, and the better team has a much higher chance of being knocked out. I would even like 'best out of 3' for semis and finals. But I can take the one match format for those stages since I am inclined to believe top 4 teams are much closer in performance. But 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7 are dangerous matches. Again, I am not defending S Af, quite the opposite for the way they played. But in future there should be no quarterfinals. As an Indian fan, I was a bit wary of q-finals. Even Sri Lanka's Jayawerdena said q-finals was the match he feared the most during their 1996 cup winning campaign.

  • ilovcricket on March 26, 2011, 3:15 GMT

    Talking about the format of the world cup - Why not use the McIntyre Final Eight System - Simple !! The last four teams will play in a knock out round and the winners play the RUNNERS UP of the two games involving top four teams(TOP4)..The winners of these games will play the WINNERS of TOP4 in semifinals... ODI is on the wane in Australia with crowd numbers at new lows, its alive in the subcontinent and South Africa to some extent.. I can see newspapers here in Melbourne cover just a page related to World Cup whilst Aussie Rules/Rugby get the most coverage..

  • Time_waster on March 25, 2011, 21:24 GMT

    @Chris_Howard: Was Spain tested against Brazil or Argentina or England or France or.... I guess you've got my point.

  • on March 25, 2011, 21:11 GMT

    We need more multi-team tournaments.. like it used to be when cricket was still played at Sharjah.. we need more matches where something is at stake.. The increasing number of bilateral tournaments are killing the game.. who will be interested if Sri Lanka and West Indies play out a tame 5 match series?The same teams playing over and over, again and again is another aspect that kills the game..Remember the number of times INdia and SL played each other in the last 2 years?? Reminds me of something a friend once said.. "My mom knows Sangakkara better that me.. I go home once in two months.. while he is on TV everyday, playing India.... "

  • ranga_s on March 25, 2011, 20:09 GMT

    @Chris_Howard: no need to test them.....they are out....and this is by far the best world cup since 1992.....Teams match each other mate....Any finalists deserve to be there......but I think Pakistan and Sri Lanka are the high potential finalists....

  • on March 25, 2011, 19:52 GMT

    One day cricket world cup is the best, then comes champions trophy, then test matches and then twenty20. You can never replace 50 over cricket without taking away quality from the game.

  • GameofEmpire on March 25, 2011, 19:06 GMT

    Nice article. But I feel that fans, news reporters..etc need to stop giving the game some negative press because they think the world cup is too long. For God's sake its only a little over a month and it only comes ever 4 years!

    I also hear crap about cricket from American who say..OMG its so long..lasts 5 days. Yea it is..but a team may only play about 10 tests per year on avg.

    You think the cricket world cup is long, just look at American sports that can last the span of seasons, literally: BASEBALL: starts in the Spring-all Summer-ends in the Fall: it has 162 games for the regular season for each team..thats 4,860 games every year..and on avg each game lasts 3hrs. Not to mention the best of 7 series playoffs.

    Basketball: seasons lasts 8-9 months!!!! 82 regular season games for each team, every year. Basketball playoffs alone last more than 40 days!!! HOCKEY: also 82 games A team.. The point: stop giving cricket bad press. One thing I agree is NO MORE MEANINGLESS MATCHES PLS

  • Chetzoo on March 25, 2011, 18:53 GMT

    Undoubtedly T20 rocks but the amount of adrenaline that's flown thru the WC games esp involving England, the excitement round the world and expectations from the fans asking for more has justified One dayers rule World Cricket...

    T20 is of pure commercial value and will kill the players' hunger and their longevity in the TESTs and One Dayers... Hope the serious cricketers realise this and refuse to play the shorter versions in near future. Cricket enthusiasts like me wanna see what India can do in the upcoming English and Carribean tours rather than who will win the upcoming IPL.

    Hope better sense prevails - chetzchatter

  • theilluminated11 on March 25, 2011, 18:12 GMT

    People will eventually get bored of the t20 format just because of the long and boring IPL and hence ODIS will remain the king of cricket

  • RajanG on March 25, 2011, 18:12 GMT

    The current format for WC can be improved. The group stage is too predictable and thus somewhat boring. Then, in the knockout phase, if the team has one bad day, it is out of the tournament (like SA today). So, here is my suggestion. Instead, of quarter-finals, we should be having a super-six stage. Here, group A top three qualifiers play with group B top three qualifiers. To come up with the final four, we should also have a NRR carry-over from the group stage to supersix. This should also make group stage matches with minnows interesting as the NRR would be important. One downside is that instead of four quartherfinal games, we'll have now nine supersix games, but that can be resolved by having 12 teams for the cup instead of 14 - thus eliminating 12 not-so-exciting games. BTW, more, challenging matches will only bring excitement and revenues for the sponsors and stakeholders. Same can be done for T20 WC.

  • on March 25, 2011, 17:30 GMT

    ODI cricket would be alright if only they could get rid of meaningless matches such as the endless India-SL matches and the recent 7-match series between Aus and Eng.

  • howizzat on March 25, 2011, 16:39 GMT

    Harsha, 1. there is nothing really great about promotion and marketing of ODI Cricket. It looked popular because it was played in the sub-continent. Popularity was evident from the fact that half the stands were empty when the sub-continental teams were not playing!! 2.Umpiring in this WC is one of the best seen ever(sans Asoka Desilva) as indicated by low success of DRS challenges. If umpiring is like this, then why DRS? 3.Agreed fully that powerplays have resulted in bowling innovations, its the age old 'survival for the fittest theory'. This kind of level play between the bat and the bowl will keep interest in ODI live. 4.League round was really dragging. ICC coming with 10 nation world cup is welcome. In present format then there will be 20+4+2+1=26 matches but all will be competative matches. Its short and sweet and the sweetness should keep lingering in the mouth for months after the WC is over. People should not start thinking when this Tamasha will get over.

  • on March 25, 2011, 16:34 GMT

    @ Crocke, the Test match and One Days showcase different aspects of the game despite using the almost the same ingredients.and people watch them for different aspects, viz skill and endurance in tests versus, fast thinking and attacking in one days.( Of course they can overlap). I think cricket is in threat of only one thing, increasing capitalisation of the economic potential in shorter terms (IPl, CL,T20) ,trading of the long term interests.

  • on March 25, 2011, 15:54 GMT

    I think that commentators and so called critics have made and planted the idea of 50 over game is dying. WE as fans (Me and each and every one of my friends) feel that only the test cricket is what should be axed. It is simply not suitable for the fast pased world. 50 over game will be the real cricket. Even team from USA can win against a major team in T20 if they are having a good day. But on 50 over game you have to plan, handle the pressure and build your innings. That's what real cricket is all about. So please harsha, stop making such remarks that 50 overs game is threatened in any way. Simply people who do understand cricket want the best of both worlds. Entertainment AND classic cricket which neither Tests or T20s can provide.

  • Caveman. on March 25, 2011, 14:18 GMT

    @ crocker: runrate is not the deciding factor for a large number of spectators. What matters is the competition, the skills rather than mindless bludgeoning of sixes in a one-sided bat vs ball contest.

  • mrgupta on March 25, 2011, 13:33 GMT

    @Chris_Howard: That's the way all Sports go. I remember in 2006 when Italy won the FIFA WC, the only significant victory they had was in the finals over France and that too in the Penalty Shootouts. Other than that they had a very lucky route to the finals. I am sorry if i hurt the feelings of any Italy fans but that's the way i felt that time. The main reason why that had to happen is because there is only a certain time limit till which the matches can be played. If you start to ensure that all teams play each other then it has to be a 10 nation WC (Similar to the one in 1992) otherwise it will be too lengthy. I agree with your point though.

  • Lancer1990 on March 25, 2011, 12:48 GMT

    @Chris_Howard: Just like Spain can be called Soccer World Champion without facing Brazil, France, Argentina and England in FIFA WC 2010 ! You want a shorter WC and also want Matches between Big Teams. Not Possible ! Nicely written Harsha.

  • bonaku on March 25, 2011, 12:46 GMT

    If we want to keep ODIs alive we might have to do following few things right.

    1. Have triangular and quadrangual tournments instead of senseless odi bi-lateral series.

    2. Better TV covertage : Means less advertisment I am afride

  • shiraz883 on March 25, 2011, 10:09 GMT

    @crocker: dale steyn cant bowl 25 overs of the alloted 50.

  • bite_vs_me on March 25, 2011, 7:59 GMT

    Harsha, the WC is once in a four year thing. What happens between the two WCs is actually killing the one day game.

  • tisatito on March 25, 2011, 7:48 GMT

    only thing missing is the commentory which is borring as there a lot of ex- players who r doing their practice on the microphones which sounds realy like watching test cricket..as ODI's need fast track and exciting,energetic commentators or else people will stop watching Odis once Sachin retires..(an indian cricket fan)

  • on March 25, 2011, 7:35 GMT

    It will make for a fascinating contest, how the power plays are used in the Semi Final between Pakistan and India next week at Mohali. Best bowling attack in the tournament up against the best batting line up.

  • Chris_Howard on March 25, 2011, 7:12 GMT

    Sorry, Harsha, worst World Cup ever. For one simple reason: The top six teams don't all play each other at least once. For example, quite feasibly, SA could win the WC without having been tested against Australia, Pakistan or Sri Lanka. How does that make them the best in the world?

  • alexczarn on March 25, 2011, 7:04 GMT

    Wonderful Article Harsha! Much enjoyed :)

  • crocker on March 25, 2011, 5:37 GMT

    Dear Bhogle, refer yr comment, "...another nail in the coffin for bowlers...", above. U r in a position to create mass opinion about cricket. With advent of technology why not remove all restrictions on bowlers? Like, why can't a Brett Lee or Dale Stein bowl 25 overs in an ODI? Spectators want to see the best talent on display. There will be "No curtain calls for the ODI " as long as run rate is more than in test cricket. Presently run rates in Test, ODI & T20 are below 4, 6 & 8 runs per over resp. So, it will be curtains for Test cricket soon and not other formats. Why not carry out a study of change in run rates over the years in diff. forms of cricket? Then only the administrators will know what ails cricket.

  • on March 25, 2011, 5:32 GMT

    oDi cricket still rocks,,, harsha's right

  • dinosaurus on March 25, 2011, 5:01 GMT

    Interesting as all this is, I get the feeling that what you are really thinking is given away by your words "the Aussies haven't evoked awe". So now that those pesky Australians were eliminated in the quarter finals it is OK to take an interest in 50-over cricket again! I'm interested that you have come around to Ricky Ponting's viewpoint on low catches (that replays have taken low catches out of the game). And maybe people should think less in legal style and adopt a bit of mathematical thinking about the DRS. In the two cases mentioned, the predictions aren't "right" or "wrong". In the real world things are cast in shades of grey. The DRS can not be regarded as definitive if there is too much path after the impact (2.5 metres) or too short a path before impact (40 centimetres). In the same way, replays of low catches don't provide definitive information. So it comes back to the umpires (whose decisions have been shown by the DRS to be more reliable than the players').

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • dinosaurus on March 25, 2011, 5:01 GMT

    Interesting as all this is, I get the feeling that what you are really thinking is given away by your words "the Aussies haven't evoked awe". So now that those pesky Australians were eliminated in the quarter finals it is OK to take an interest in 50-over cricket again! I'm interested that you have come around to Ricky Ponting's viewpoint on low catches (that replays have taken low catches out of the game). And maybe people should think less in legal style and adopt a bit of mathematical thinking about the DRS. In the two cases mentioned, the predictions aren't "right" or "wrong". In the real world things are cast in shades of grey. The DRS can not be regarded as definitive if there is too much path after the impact (2.5 metres) or too short a path before impact (40 centimetres). In the same way, replays of low catches don't provide definitive information. So it comes back to the umpires (whose decisions have been shown by the DRS to be more reliable than the players').

  • on March 25, 2011, 5:32 GMT

    oDi cricket still rocks,,, harsha's right

  • crocker on March 25, 2011, 5:37 GMT

    Dear Bhogle, refer yr comment, "...another nail in the coffin for bowlers...", above. U r in a position to create mass opinion about cricket. With advent of technology why not remove all restrictions on bowlers? Like, why can't a Brett Lee or Dale Stein bowl 25 overs in an ODI? Spectators want to see the best talent on display. There will be "No curtain calls for the ODI " as long as run rate is more than in test cricket. Presently run rates in Test, ODI & T20 are below 4, 6 & 8 runs per over resp. So, it will be curtains for Test cricket soon and not other formats. Why not carry out a study of change in run rates over the years in diff. forms of cricket? Then only the administrators will know what ails cricket.

  • alexczarn on March 25, 2011, 7:04 GMT

    Wonderful Article Harsha! Much enjoyed :)

  • Chris_Howard on March 25, 2011, 7:12 GMT

    Sorry, Harsha, worst World Cup ever. For one simple reason: The top six teams don't all play each other at least once. For example, quite feasibly, SA could win the WC without having been tested against Australia, Pakistan or Sri Lanka. How does that make them the best in the world?

  • on March 25, 2011, 7:35 GMT

    It will make for a fascinating contest, how the power plays are used in the Semi Final between Pakistan and India next week at Mohali. Best bowling attack in the tournament up against the best batting line up.

  • tisatito on March 25, 2011, 7:48 GMT

    only thing missing is the commentory which is borring as there a lot of ex- players who r doing their practice on the microphones which sounds realy like watching test cricket..as ODI's need fast track and exciting,energetic commentators or else people will stop watching Odis once Sachin retires..(an indian cricket fan)

  • bite_vs_me on March 25, 2011, 7:59 GMT

    Harsha, the WC is once in a four year thing. What happens between the two WCs is actually killing the one day game.

  • shiraz883 on March 25, 2011, 10:09 GMT

    @crocker: dale steyn cant bowl 25 overs of the alloted 50.

  • bonaku on March 25, 2011, 12:46 GMT

    If we want to keep ODIs alive we might have to do following few things right.

    1. Have triangular and quadrangual tournments instead of senseless odi bi-lateral series.

    2. Better TV covertage : Means less advertisment I am afride