April 14, 2013

Make the shortest format two-innings a side

Bring Test cricket's great strength to cricket's money-making format
  shares 55

The doomsday scenario is all too visible. Within a decade or two, should those entrusted with running our precious game carry on careering down their current treacherous slope, T20 will be the only game in town, rippling with cheap thrills and uniform skills: McDonald's without even the pretence of nutritional value. We might as well call it bashball. To go forward we need to go back to basics.

Cricket hasn't always been a two-innings game, but at the risk of being branded a fascist, I would say the best of it is. Even if we set aside the dramatic possibilities, the very fact that everyone, in theory, gets a second chance is justification enough. Without wishing to get too philosophical on your bottoms, I can't think of a worthier message for any cultural activity to send.

Trouble is, attention spans are not what they were, so seducing new disciples is a big ask and a vast task. If Test cricket is to have any prospect of long-term survival, therefore, the shorter incarnations should, ideally, serve two functions: 1) Make pots of money, thereby funding the less punter-friendly format, and 2) Replicate as much of the latter as possible. As things stand, only the first of these is being fulfilled.

On one blindingly obvious level this should mean dispensing with all restrictions on the number of overs per bowler, always a distortion too far for this observer. Even more telling would be two innings per team.

It is hard not to suspect that, sooner or later, three formats will become two, so why not do what all struggling businesses do and opt for a merger?

A 30- or 40-over affair, with each team entitled to two separate 15- or 20-over innings, would placate those for whom the ten-over slog is a cartoon too far, while giving newcomers a feel for the intricacies, variations, tactics and strategies that make the five-day play the planet's finest anachronism, not to mention a potent antidote to all this fast-food, instant-gratification codswallop.

Granted, such contests might consume more time than a T20 match, but the enhanced number of gaps to sneak in adverts should in no way dismay the broadcasters, the tails that so efficiently wag the dog. Nor would it preclude single-innings fixtures.

Ultimately the number of overs is less relevant than the principle. Doubling the number of innings might not necessarily double the fun, but it could certainly go a long way towards convincing the coming generations that, as with life itself, playing and watching cricket is not about quick fixes and emotional extremes. It is about treating those twin impostors with equanimity, savouring the subtlety and variety, defying time's stormtroopers - and grabbing those second chances.

Rob Steen is a sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at the University of Brighton

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • KK47 on April 14, 2013, 19:18 GMT

    Great idea but this should be introduced instead of ODIs. I remember Sachin had proposed this idea long time back during an Asia cup final between Ind and SL. Tampering with T20 is plain stupid. T20's are easily the most popular form of cricket nowadays and the only rules which should be modified are the ones to decrease the complexity of the game. People who shout 'test cricket test cricket' all the time should ask themselves after more than 100 years to how many countries has cricket spread? Imagine if T20's were not in existence, instead of getting newer audiences, ppl would have moved towards other sports such as football and hockey which thrive on the fast paced nature. In today's life, its impossible to sit for 5 days to watch a cricket match! It's true that test cricket tests the true character but it also tests the patience (more so with DRS) of the spectator! Its time we see the bigger picture: CRICKETERS CANNOT KEEP THE GAME ALIVE, SPECTATORS CAN! If they want T20, so be it.

  • on April 14, 2013, 18:23 GMT

    This is a great idea. Cricket should not only be entertainment for idle spectators, but players should be given a chance to make up to their mistakes. Two innings would be great for this, and, would also create new interesting strategies of playing the game, as well.

  • on April 14, 2013, 8:48 GMT

    A major problem of four innings ODIs is what would happen in one-sided matches. If after the first two innings one side has a significant lead then in all likelihood the last two innings are going to be a procession, and the 4th innings could become a joke in many cases. This is not the case in the longer form of the game, which swings far more in any case always has the prospect of the side batting last hanging on for a draw. This does not and cannot happen in ODI.

  • Foddy on April 17, 2013, 6:06 GMT

    Forzaps: "Scrap ODIs. Create a world test league thats played over 1-2 years" And a lot of people say 5 days is too long . . . . . (sorry, couldn't resist that)

  • on April 16, 2013, 4:29 GMT

    I humbly disagree. There are people who want to watch a match in 3-4 hours, like most other major sports. A single t20 innings does that. No need to change this format. 50 over match is going to die out, IMO, since it has no obvious advantages over either tests or t20

  • Insult_2_Injury on April 16, 2013, 3:19 GMT

    So prevalent now in the instant world is the knee jerk change because 'powers that be' have to be seen to be doing something in the face of 'overwhelming argument'. Apparently the quality of the 'argument' is no longer relevant. Are we seeing an irreversible move away from Test patronage to instant T20 gratification requiring massive structural changes, or are we seeing a short term (5 of 150 years of cricket history) fascination with a new toy? Will the improvement in quality of players from all nations improve the Test product and have spectators return? We may never know if we keep knee jerking .

  • Foddy on April 16, 2013, 3:06 GMT

    Dark Harlequin and Romanticstud have good ideas, but perhaps they are over-complicating the situation. Instead of 2 x 15 over innings, how about 15 x 2 over innings, on the basis that if 2 is better than 1, 15 is very considerably better than 2? This would also maximise the potential of the whole exercise from a sponsor's point of view, since there will be 14 opportunities for extended advertising breaks, and it will be possible for more frequent re-assessment of strategies. And, to add an additional element, there will be an option to trade players (other than those actually batting at the time) between the 2 sides during any of the innings breaks.

  • Yuji9 on April 16, 2013, 0:00 GMT

    @Spandan Biswal - so T20 displays the 'most diverse skill set' does it? Strange observations there but cricinfo seem to agree and as for #KK47 it may be impossible for YOU to absorb complexity over a period of time but do not assume to speak on behalf of others. You ask how many countries has Test cricket spread to? Since when is cricket's central philosophy supposed to be expansion and change? Why not play baseball? Seriously. You seem to think the aim of cricket should be to sell itself to the mainstream and become like the fast paced world. Cricket has always been an island in the mad storm of the world and something timeless and different. As for Rob Steen, can't you see that 3 need not become 2 and T20 need not clash with Tests if you would simply advocate for a split full-time. T20 is similar to a fat child demanding that an ancient yoga master needs to adapt, expand and meditate to music and cheer girls as he is not exciting for TV!!! Go away from the temple and build your own.

  • coachieballgames on April 15, 2013, 19:33 GMT

    Totally agree. This is how I'd do it for T20; 20 overs a side BUT an innings break after the batting side loses 5 wickets or if 10 overs have been bowled--whichever comes first. However it's done, both ODIs and T20s need two innings for entertaining ebb and flow rather than the boring accumulate-and-chase model.

  • on April 15, 2013, 18:55 GMT

    Why change something that is not broken? I am a fan of test cricket for alost forty years and will always love it; but there is a place for T20. This is the first year I am watching the IPL and I love it. Yes, we can call it T20 Bashball if we want; but it has it place. Sadly, it might cause the demise of test cricket. But you have to give the consumer waht they want, and they want T20.

  • KK47 on April 14, 2013, 19:18 GMT

    Great idea but this should be introduced instead of ODIs. I remember Sachin had proposed this idea long time back during an Asia cup final between Ind and SL. Tampering with T20 is plain stupid. T20's are easily the most popular form of cricket nowadays and the only rules which should be modified are the ones to decrease the complexity of the game. People who shout 'test cricket test cricket' all the time should ask themselves after more than 100 years to how many countries has cricket spread? Imagine if T20's were not in existence, instead of getting newer audiences, ppl would have moved towards other sports such as football and hockey which thrive on the fast paced nature. In today's life, its impossible to sit for 5 days to watch a cricket match! It's true that test cricket tests the true character but it also tests the patience (more so with DRS) of the spectator! Its time we see the bigger picture: CRICKETERS CANNOT KEEP THE GAME ALIVE, SPECTATORS CAN! If they want T20, so be it.

  • on April 14, 2013, 18:23 GMT

    This is a great idea. Cricket should not only be entertainment for idle spectators, but players should be given a chance to make up to their mistakes. Two innings would be great for this, and, would also create new interesting strategies of playing the game, as well.

  • on April 14, 2013, 8:48 GMT

    A major problem of four innings ODIs is what would happen in one-sided matches. If after the first two innings one side has a significant lead then in all likelihood the last two innings are going to be a procession, and the 4th innings could become a joke in many cases. This is not the case in the longer form of the game, which swings far more in any case always has the prospect of the side batting last hanging on for a draw. This does not and cannot happen in ODI.

  • Foddy on April 17, 2013, 6:06 GMT

    Forzaps: "Scrap ODIs. Create a world test league thats played over 1-2 years" And a lot of people say 5 days is too long . . . . . (sorry, couldn't resist that)

  • on April 16, 2013, 4:29 GMT

    I humbly disagree. There are people who want to watch a match in 3-4 hours, like most other major sports. A single t20 innings does that. No need to change this format. 50 over match is going to die out, IMO, since it has no obvious advantages over either tests or t20

  • Insult_2_Injury on April 16, 2013, 3:19 GMT

    So prevalent now in the instant world is the knee jerk change because 'powers that be' have to be seen to be doing something in the face of 'overwhelming argument'. Apparently the quality of the 'argument' is no longer relevant. Are we seeing an irreversible move away from Test patronage to instant T20 gratification requiring massive structural changes, or are we seeing a short term (5 of 150 years of cricket history) fascination with a new toy? Will the improvement in quality of players from all nations improve the Test product and have spectators return? We may never know if we keep knee jerking .

  • Foddy on April 16, 2013, 3:06 GMT

    Dark Harlequin and Romanticstud have good ideas, but perhaps they are over-complicating the situation. Instead of 2 x 15 over innings, how about 15 x 2 over innings, on the basis that if 2 is better than 1, 15 is very considerably better than 2? This would also maximise the potential of the whole exercise from a sponsor's point of view, since there will be 14 opportunities for extended advertising breaks, and it will be possible for more frequent re-assessment of strategies. And, to add an additional element, there will be an option to trade players (other than those actually batting at the time) between the 2 sides during any of the innings breaks.

  • Yuji9 on April 16, 2013, 0:00 GMT

    @Spandan Biswal - so T20 displays the 'most diverse skill set' does it? Strange observations there but cricinfo seem to agree and as for #KK47 it may be impossible for YOU to absorb complexity over a period of time but do not assume to speak on behalf of others. You ask how many countries has Test cricket spread to? Since when is cricket's central philosophy supposed to be expansion and change? Why not play baseball? Seriously. You seem to think the aim of cricket should be to sell itself to the mainstream and become like the fast paced world. Cricket has always been an island in the mad storm of the world and something timeless and different. As for Rob Steen, can't you see that 3 need not become 2 and T20 need not clash with Tests if you would simply advocate for a split full-time. T20 is similar to a fat child demanding that an ancient yoga master needs to adapt, expand and meditate to music and cheer girls as he is not exciting for TV!!! Go away from the temple and build your own.

  • coachieballgames on April 15, 2013, 19:33 GMT

    Totally agree. This is how I'd do it for T20; 20 overs a side BUT an innings break after the batting side loses 5 wickets or if 10 overs have been bowled--whichever comes first. However it's done, both ODIs and T20s need two innings for entertaining ebb and flow rather than the boring accumulate-and-chase model.

  • on April 15, 2013, 18:55 GMT

    Why change something that is not broken? I am a fan of test cricket for alost forty years and will always love it; but there is a place for T20. This is the first year I am watching the IPL and I love it. Yes, we can call it T20 Bashball if we want; but it has it place. Sadly, it might cause the demise of test cricket. But you have to give the consumer waht they want, and they want T20.

  • on April 15, 2013, 18:02 GMT

    "Attention Spans are not what they were" - that wil change soon when people realize we are getting no where. Then test cricket will also make a huge comeback.

  • gracegift on April 15, 2013, 13:18 GMT

    15 overs per team. 2 innings per team. 10 min. break between innings. A perfect evening game. With little more tactics on the plate than a T20 slogging show.

  • Harlequin. on April 15, 2013, 12:12 GMT

    How about another idea; the first team batting gets 5 overs, with bowlers allowed 1 over each. Then the next batting team gets 10 overs, with bowlers allowed 3 overs each, and 1 over can be split between 2 different bowlers. Then the first batting team gets 8 overs, the second batting team gets another 10 overs, then a third batting team comprised of the best batsmen from both teams gets 14 overs with bowlers allowed an unlimited number of 5-ball overs. The first team would then get their remaining 7 overs and would be allowed to bat for a draw, depending on the duckworth-lewis score set by the third batting team.

  • Romanticstud on April 15, 2013, 11:28 GMT

    How about another scenario ... you make the team bat under the pretense of a T20 innings except you allow them the option to play until they are all out or 40 overs ... you let the second team bat ... and then you make the rules as for tests that a side needs a lead of 150 to enforce the follow on ... if the first side is bowled out within 40 overs they will have a second chance until 40 overs to bat ... so they may have few or more overs in their second knock ... likewise the second team has a maximum of 40 overs over their two innings ... A bowler may bowl a maximum of 8 overs in the entire match ... but no restrictions of overs per innings ... a maximum of 12 powerplay overs will be allowed in the game ... During the 1st 6 overs of the 1st innings and overs 21 to 26 irrespective of in which innings they fall ...

  • on April 15, 2013, 10:53 GMT

    Sorry, Rob. You lost me at the first para when you said "uniform skills". If anything its the polar opposite with a display of the most diverse skill sets possessed by cricketers.

  • Batmanian on April 15, 2013, 7:46 GMT

    @SamRoy, do you know how many people turn up to a Boxing Day Test in Melbourne? I find it hard to believe Indian state associations aren't pitted against each other for hosting Tests - if they can't formulate full stands with canny marketing and pricing, some other city should get a shot. If they knew there were fifteen, twenty-five cities vying for five or six Tests, I'm sure they'd think of something.

  • Batmanian on April 15, 2013, 7:30 GMT

    The reason for having two innings is of course not just to have two innings, but to miniaturise some of the tactics that make first class so great.

    So, bring in 1) the declaration, 2) the follow on, and 3) scrapping for a draw.

    By two innings, it should mean a team's ten wickets spread over both - if you're out, you're out for the game.

    1) Make it a seventy over match - all up - with a maximum twenty overs for each first innings, but only limited by the seventy for second innings. Say, two IPL or series or Super 8s points for first innings lead. The batsmen still in (if any) start the team's second innings.

    2) A follow on can be enforced for a thirty run deficit.

    3) A team struggling in their second innings, or happy with first innings points, can try to bat for a draw. Six points for outright - which would mean bowling the other team out or overrunning their fourth innings target. A team batting third is timing a target.

    Hard to explain to kids, but satisfying for adults.

  • SamRoy on April 15, 2013, 6:57 GMT

    I don't understand how people overestimate popularity of test cricket in SA. Cape Town, yes very good crowds, 10,000-15,000 people everyday. Every other venue less than 1000 people on working days and may be at the maximum 4,000-5,000 on holidays. Truth is test cricket is about as much popular in India as it is in SA. Even in India you have Chennai where it averages 20,000 everyday, Eden Gardens which averages 20,000 everyday, Mumbai which averages 10,000 everyday, Hyderabad which averages 10,000 everyday, Delhi which averages 5,000 everyday, Bangalore which averages 10,000 everyday. Stadiums are way too big (40,000+ seating capacity) and that's why you see a lot of empty stands apart from lack of facilities for spectators. It is BCCI's stupid policy of alloting test cricket to useless grounds like Mohali (which averages less than 500 spectators per day) and Ahmedabad which causes all the problems apart from improving spectator facilities.

  • on April 15, 2013, 3:27 GMT

    I don't really think that a split innings is necessary. Of the three cricket formats, the one most under threat is the 50-over game as the T20s offer more action and provide revenue while the first-class matches give more to the purist. For me, T20 is too short (it's slog or get out from the first ball faced) and the 50 over game is too long (one could easily take out overs 30 - 40 in most games and you won't miss much). My proposal: merge the 50 over and 20 over games into a 30 or 35 over format and keep the current unlimited overs games. We're back to two formats now. The purists are happy, the advertisers are happy with little boring play, the casual followers get games that conclude within a reasonable time and teams have the choice to consolidate and build slowly or go in all guns blazing.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on April 15, 2013, 3:24 GMT

    I wouldn't bother with two innings. There are bowlers there who barely make it through 4 overs, never mind potentially 8! The stupidest thing I'd change in T20's is scrapping of the D/L method for shortened games. For the short amount of time a T20 game takes, would it not be just as easy to reschedule? D/L for a T20... unbelievable.

  • Anti_ZCFOutkast on April 15, 2013, 2:18 GMT

    Scrap T20's, they are a waste of time. Test cricket and a moderate amount of ODIs are they way to go. Cricket is a team sport and T20 allows one player to decide the otucome of the match.

  • Street_Hawk on April 15, 2013, 1:56 GMT

    40 overs of Gayle's massacre? No way!!!...even if he fails in one inning he has the other to make up for it.

  • abhilash.medhi on April 15, 2013, 1:36 GMT

    The idea is well-received in principle. But two innings of 15 or 20 overs will prolong the game and make winning more difficult for the weaker teams. These two have arguably been the biggest draws of T20 cricket, that games last three hours at the most and that a Zimbabwe can entertain hopes of turning the tables on an Australia, or a KXIP on a CSK.

  • zoot on April 15, 2013, 0:17 GMT

    As others have pointed out two innings T20s are likely to become too one-sided. It only works in test matches because so many matches are drawn. The only way of making cricket continuously exciting is to devise a scoring system with lots of close situations. I suggest a best of five day T20 series with each day consisting of a best of three T20s. This is similar to tennis scoring and a side can get thrashed for two and a half days and still come back to 1-2 after three days.

  • Wefinishthis on April 14, 2013, 22:22 GMT

    I suggested 2-innings some time ago, but now I think it's just pointless and for once I agree with Shane Warne. I think we just need to let go of ODI's. T20 is everything ODI's should have been in the first place. Test cricket must remain sacrosanct, it's real cricket and it's not for everybody, but that's why ODI's were introduced, however ODI's are a tedious all-day affair and T20's improve on that in every way. You can go to a game after work and be home before bed time, there's no boring useless middle 30 overs where batsmen just go for singles and it's more of a lottery (at least for now) so that non-test nations can adapt to the game more easily. Test matches are popular in Eng/Aus/SA and prove who is the best cricket team, T20's are popular in the subcontinent and prove who is the best short form/slogger teams, but ODI's just do not fit in. They do not really prove anything and take too long (more overs in a day of ODI's than a test). Test matches and T20 must be the future.

  • on April 14, 2013, 21:53 GMT

    @RodStarka; I think you're on to something here. The key to a two innings venture is that there would have to be the potential for variation in terms of innings lengths, which would then allow for strategy. That's what makes good test matches exciting - how long to bat/defend/set a target/survive etc. So perhaps, we could have 40-over matches (maybe too long) in which each team can choose how long they go for in the first innings, up to 75% of the total overs. If you did well in your first innings of, say, 30 overs you could put the opposing team under pressure to chase the game; but a good bowling effort would be rewarded as the batting team would have less opportunity to recover in the second innings. Alternatively, it would give captains the option of declaring in the first innings if things turned pear-shaped. I'd pay to watch that!

  • sneakybastard on April 14, 2013, 21:00 GMT

    @Alex Pickard -You made a point the writer missed. But if you think through the real possibilities and the caliber of T20 cricketers. I don't think there will be any one sided games in t20, its a rare possibility. Its not test cricket where Sanga or Cook comes and bat for 100 overs.

  • Rubic on April 14, 2013, 20:07 GMT

    Instead of splitting ODI, play two T20...and do not mix the circus with MENs game..The TEST CRICKET...

  • forzaps on April 14, 2013, 19:36 GMT

    Scrap ODIs. Create a world test league thats played over 1-2 years, where every country plays every other country the same number of times. Let the domestic T20 competitions run 6-8 months like the soccer leagues do. That is the best of both worlds for me.

  • on April 14, 2013, 18:27 GMT

    I agree with the change in the name of the game, may be "Creckett" (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_old_name_of_cricket) could be fine. The game could administered by another governing body ( managed like Hockey or Football in India is also fine!!!) and we could watch the game that we saw, competed and played which needed a high degree of character.

  • on April 14, 2013, 18:19 GMT

    that will surely kill ODI cricket then.. and if there had to be only two formats kept, then as an spectator, I would keep Test and ODIs..

  • RodStark on April 14, 2013, 18:06 GMT

    My problem with any one-innings game is that it can all too easily be over before it's over. As the writer said, teams need the opportunity to "come back" in a game. It's always hard to figure out how these proposed variations would actually work out if put into practice, but with that said, what would you think of a variation to the 20-20 format where one side bats for ten overs, the other team bats for twenty, and then the first team resumes where they left off and bats the last ten overs? Could also be done in ODIs, I suppose. Might lead to some interesting strategy. The team batting second would have the advantage of batting continuously, but the team with the split innings would perhaps be more in control of the flow of the game... Just an idea.

  • on April 14, 2013, 14:27 GMT

    Come on people...like the Dinos ...test cricket is dead.... T20 is the future, both commercially and the level of excitement. A single innings approach over two or three days using a modified Test/ODI format may survive until that too become unsustainable. Many fans just don't have the luxury to spend five days watching a single game.

  • aussieperthindian on April 14, 2013, 13:47 GMT

    Rather than change T20 I would look at reducing test cricket to 90 overs per side over 4 days with a fith day to complete the game if needed. Also tighten up on wides in tests. Also a huge amount of time is spent on seeing if a 4 is saved rather than giving correct wicket decisions which is the whole point of the game. Umpires need to use DRS if some teams are against. Too many poor decions have changed the result of many a match and spoilt the series as a result. ICC needs to sit down and plan for the future or test cricket will die. What a travesty that would be.

  • shayxin on April 14, 2013, 13:31 GMT

    To shake it up just a little... How about your batting order has to be REVERSED in the second innings? So your number 6 or 7 won't get two balls to swing wildly at.. you'll need to gamble with your openers (long time at crease, but little chance in second innings), and your bowlers would either need to go out swinging at the top of the order, or get put in the middle and hopefully hidden. The tactical implications are mind-boggling. Also, bowlers get 8 overs in the match, but you can use them at any time over the two innings - all 8 in one innings if you like.

  • on April 14, 2013, 12:51 GMT

    Poor idea. Writer is trying to invent a format that will please both t20 and test lovers but thats not going to happen, a test cricket fan will never be satisfied watching a "split innings odi", like t20 and odi it lacks so many things that test match provide. Test cricket may die but there will never be an alternate for it.

  • on April 14, 2013, 12:36 GMT

    The biggest thrill of the T20 is that no one can predict the end result. 4 innings in T20 or in ODI will ruin the taste of the match. "Just because tomato is a fruit you can't add it in a fruit salad"

  • on April 14, 2013, 11:47 GMT

    "As things stand, only the first of these is being fulfilled" Rob ...very good analytical sentence which needs to be unpacked. Were you referring to the empty stands at tests? or is the statement simply what it seems to be saying.

  • Gizza on April 14, 2013, 11:21 GMT

    @sabeeh89, people are NOT busier now than they used to be. This is a pretty big myth. People around the whole world have more free time than ever. This is why Facebook and Twitter are among the most popular websites. When kids can play on their tablets and smartphones for more than 6 hours a day and for 5 days in a row, they have enough time to watch a Test match. Whether they simply don't like the game is another matter.

  • on April 14, 2013, 9:48 GMT

    I think 40 overs is inveitable. 50 overs give too much of all lull period and that the part people dont like. If something like this came through, i would still like to see the t20 demstic competitins stay the way they are. That is where the game of cricket can grow globaly. The brillance of short form cricket is there is more tactical nous vbecause of restriction and limitation. These have changed the way test cricket is played know. I like 40 ocers, two innings though, not feasible.

  • Pierre_Oxford on April 14, 2013, 9:01 GMT

    There is a good reason why the bowlers' overs are limited. Where I play club cricket, they aren't, and there is a tendency for some bowlers to bowl a ludicrous amount of overs. Often, one will shore up an end and bowl 25 overs straight, and in theory, one just needs two good bowlers to get through an innings (particularly in T20s, where they can just bowl 10 over spells each). This is fairly unlikely, but I can easily imagine a situation where a team plays three good bowlers and eight specialist batsmen. This would diminish the variation of the bowling, eliminate the need for weaker links to bowl, and indeed the need for all-rounders, and diminish the opportunity for young bowlers to make a name for themselves. In essence, it would make the game worse. Perhaps a better solution is to oblige the team to bowl five bowlers, but allow two to bowl six each.

  • bingoe67 on April 14, 2013, 7:58 GMT

    Um, yeah. 20 years too late, it's already been invented. Cricket Max was created by Martin Crowe back in the 90's, it consisted of 2 innings of 10 overs each, it was played in NZ domestic cricket and 3 international sets of matches were played as well. ICC torched it for some reason.

  • on April 14, 2013, 7:40 GMT

    Deja vu or not but i told my brother about T20 being 2 innings a side a month ago. He laughed at me. I said it was a brilliant idea. I guess great minds think alike.

  • ygkd on April 14, 2013, 7:05 GMT

    This isn't split innings as has been suggested in the comments. This suggestion would have two innings per team, not two half-innings. It's not a bad idea and not one that isn't blindingly obvious as answers go. Three forms of the game are unacceptable as a long-term strategy. Kill off ODIs. Empower the best bowlers with the chance of a greater chunk of the overs. Reduce the dependance on all-rounders. Change the fielding restrictions while you're at it and mandate a slip or leg-slip. Permanently. Encourage the selection of a quality keeper. Then T20 can become a proper game (T20x2 or T15x2) and we can have some sense in the scheduling at last. Something has to happen, so why not this?

  • almirazh on April 14, 2013, 6:43 GMT

    I think it might bring more excitement and fans can have some more time to enjoy the game. Maybe do 15 over innings and use 14 players per side. 11 on the filed and in second innings give opportunities to substitute players which lacked performance in the first innings. It could make one sided matches more competitive and can change the course of the game for the other team in second innings to win or loose. It might be a good chance for the underdog teams to come out as victors. Give youngsters more opportunities to develop for bigger clutch game experience to 50 overs or test matches. Limit only 2 to 3 international players per team only and develop more local talent for future. Just a thought.

  • roversgate on April 14, 2013, 6:21 GMT

    So far, I have nodded or only slightly disagreed with rules I'd change articles but this one is a big NO. I am a bigger fan of test cricket than T20 (though I admittedly like ODIs the best). The biggest reason for T20 cricket was not the fireworks/slam-bang hitting/cheerleaders/fiasco it has become but the duration of a match. For people trying to get into cricket after watching other sports, it seems like too much of a time investment and T20 corrects that. 6 hours will just be stupid and we might as well cancel the entire format then.

  • Harkirat912 on April 14, 2013, 6:19 GMT

    It is a great idea. You can enjoy T20 cricket with Test cricket

  • sabeeh89 on April 14, 2013, 5:48 GMT

    The greatest thing about T20 is the game is over within 3 hours. Having 2 T20 innigs per side makes the match 6 hours again.

    Every major sporting event (with the exception of GOLF) is over with in 3 hours. A televised soccer match is over in 2 to 2.5 hours. Same with basketball. Tennis matches are even shorter. Name any popular sport an the length of the game is shorter than traditional cricket.

    When I tell my friends about how I watch a cricket match for 7 hours, they look at it me as if I am mad.

    There is a reason. Not everyone has time to watch 6 hours of cricket. Not everyone can spend 6 hours at a stadium, people are busier now than they used to bel/

  • I-Like-Cricket on April 14, 2013, 5:20 GMT

    IMO the best way to keep people interested in test cricket is to use the same marketing gimmicks that T20 uses. For example a 5 day game between India (I'm not personally phased which country) vs the rest of the world? Play the match on their biggest ground and use all the sort of theatrics T20 untilises. Play during the day/night with cheaper tickets available for the night session if there's any room, play obviously then in coloured clothes and with a white ball, have fireworks all around and advertise it like crazy. Have certain rules in place that would not normally be in place for a regular 5 day game such as new balls after the 60th-70th over and limits on how long one team can bat for. Plus other sort of regulations to make sure the match actually goes the distance so the fans aren't disappointed with a 3 day thrashing. Last but certainly not least, DO NOT class the match as a test or even first class match, just pay the players a bucketload of money and encourage them to play.

  • Abbas_G on April 14, 2013, 4:27 GMT

    Not a good idea. now a days too much cricket is being played around and people's interest has already a down fall. Plus due to very busy schedule, players are also unable to keep themselves fit for their national duty.

  • Dr_Zeus on April 14, 2013, 4:22 GMT

    I think its a good idea....could be tried...nothing beats a trial but a failure....the split innings ODI'S failed because 50 overs of cricket was just too much....but I think the 20 over a side with 2 innings could work....

  • gmoturu on April 14, 2013, 4:19 GMT

    Enough with the changes.......enjoy cricket.

  • on April 14, 2013, 4:17 GMT

    The three hour duration is a major factor in the attractiveness of T20. Lengthening it to 6 hours will introduce diminishing returns. A second match may be more attractive than a second innings. Leave T20 a is and let it grow; let it spread to non-cricketing nations and become a truly world-wide game like soccer.

  • on April 14, 2013, 3:25 GMT

    Stupidest idea ever for a Rule change.

    //It is hard not to suspect that, sooner or later, three formats will become two, so why not do what all struggling businesses do and opt for a merger?//

    So Mr.Rob Steen is suspecting one format will die & he is suggesting how it should die, huh?

  • on April 14, 2013, 2:52 GMT

    So in other words you want split innings ODIs back? Which have already been tried and found to be lacking....

  • on April 14, 2013, 2:52 GMT

    So in other words you want split innings ODIs back? Which have already been tried and found to be lacking....

  • on April 14, 2013, 3:25 GMT

    Stupidest idea ever for a Rule change.

    //It is hard not to suspect that, sooner or later, three formats will become two, so why not do what all struggling businesses do and opt for a merger?//

    So Mr.Rob Steen is suspecting one format will die & he is suggesting how it should die, huh?

  • on April 14, 2013, 4:17 GMT

    The three hour duration is a major factor in the attractiveness of T20. Lengthening it to 6 hours will introduce diminishing returns. A second match may be more attractive than a second innings. Leave T20 a is and let it grow; let it spread to non-cricketing nations and become a truly world-wide game like soccer.

  • gmoturu on April 14, 2013, 4:19 GMT

    Enough with the changes.......enjoy cricket.

  • Dr_Zeus on April 14, 2013, 4:22 GMT

    I think its a good idea....could be tried...nothing beats a trial but a failure....the split innings ODI'S failed because 50 overs of cricket was just too much....but I think the 20 over a side with 2 innings could work....

  • Abbas_G on April 14, 2013, 4:27 GMT

    Not a good idea. now a days too much cricket is being played around and people's interest has already a down fall. Plus due to very busy schedule, players are also unable to keep themselves fit for their national duty.

  • I-Like-Cricket on April 14, 2013, 5:20 GMT

    IMO the best way to keep people interested in test cricket is to use the same marketing gimmicks that T20 uses. For example a 5 day game between India (I'm not personally phased which country) vs the rest of the world? Play the match on their biggest ground and use all the sort of theatrics T20 untilises. Play during the day/night with cheaper tickets available for the night session if there's any room, play obviously then in coloured clothes and with a white ball, have fireworks all around and advertise it like crazy. Have certain rules in place that would not normally be in place for a regular 5 day game such as new balls after the 60th-70th over and limits on how long one team can bat for. Plus other sort of regulations to make sure the match actually goes the distance so the fans aren't disappointed with a 3 day thrashing. Last but certainly not least, DO NOT class the match as a test or even first class match, just pay the players a bucketload of money and encourage them to play.

  • sabeeh89 on April 14, 2013, 5:48 GMT

    The greatest thing about T20 is the game is over within 3 hours. Having 2 T20 innigs per side makes the match 6 hours again.

    Every major sporting event (with the exception of GOLF) is over with in 3 hours. A televised soccer match is over in 2 to 2.5 hours. Same with basketball. Tennis matches are even shorter. Name any popular sport an the length of the game is shorter than traditional cricket.

    When I tell my friends about how I watch a cricket match for 7 hours, they look at it me as if I am mad.

    There is a reason. Not everyone has time to watch 6 hours of cricket. Not everyone can spend 6 hours at a stadium, people are busier now than they used to bel/

  • Harkirat912 on April 14, 2013, 6:19 GMT

    It is a great idea. You can enjoy T20 cricket with Test cricket

  • roversgate on April 14, 2013, 6:21 GMT

    So far, I have nodded or only slightly disagreed with rules I'd change articles but this one is a big NO. I am a bigger fan of test cricket than T20 (though I admittedly like ODIs the best). The biggest reason for T20 cricket was not the fireworks/slam-bang hitting/cheerleaders/fiasco it has become but the duration of a match. For people trying to get into cricket after watching other sports, it seems like too much of a time investment and T20 corrects that. 6 hours will just be stupid and we might as well cancel the entire format then.