April 28, 2013

Remove fielding restrictions in ODIs

It will prompt captains and bowlers to actively seek wickets rather than wait for pressure points to build
34

Tucked away at the bottom of part two of Shane Warne's soi-disant manifesto for Australian cricket, published back in February, was a suggestion beguiling in its simplicity. Moving away from advocating management positions for his former muckers to create a utopian Cricket Australia, Warne briefly turned his attention to a subject he does know something about: keeping the public entertained.

"It is time to de-regulate one-day cricket," he wrote. "No restrictions with the field, none, place the fielders anywhere you want, this will create so many options and the attacking captains and teams will win. The only law should be that no bowler can bowl more than ten overs."

Warne's point was that persistent tinkering with the one-day game - artifice posing as innovation - has left everyone confused. This is surely valid. While Warne is among those rare savants able to call cricket a simple game, in truth it is more complex than solving a Rubik's Cube in the dark. Between explaining the lbw law, pondering the capricious nature of swing (regular or reverse), and remembering the ten different methods of dismissal, need we ask supporters to contemplate the number of fielders on the leg side, or be aware of the latest point the batting Powerplay has to be taken?

Captains, however, should be asked to bend their minds around complexity. In a game without fielding restrictions, there would be fewer crutches to lean upon; no default deep point, or removal of slip. All-out defence would be an option in limited-overs cricket but, in reality, would it ever be contemplated? If there were eight or nine men on the boundary, ones and twos would be plucked at will, allowing batsmen to build confidence and momentum. Sixes - which are little more than a top-edge away these days - ignore all field placements, of course.

Fifty-over cricket, at its best, should be the equivalent of a Test in a day. Rather than settle for a formulaic Dosey Doe of attack and defence based around Powerplays, a captain and his bowlers should have to come up with their own strategies; wickets need not be merely a by-product of designated pressure points but something actively sought, as Warne suggests in his contention that attacking captains would benefit.

With the ability to set appropriate cover in the deep, more attacking catching options could be considered. One imagines that Michael Clarke, for instance, would thrive on the freedom. Spinners, too, would be offered the protection that they need, encouraged to flight the ball and risk being hit rather than becoming "one-dimensional": dartists rather than artists.

With ramp shots, upper cuts and helicopters, all complemented by modern anti-aircraft bats, scoring is a round-the-clock affair. In the interests of balance, and a genuine risk-reward contest between bat and ball, shouldn't the fielding team be able to tailor their plans accordingly?

One-day cricket has been subject to fielding restrictions since the 1992 World Cup (the last great 50-over tournament?) and this absolutist initiative is largely proposed with ODIs in mind. But the Laws of the game, which underpin all cricket, still contain the anachronistic stipulation on leg-side fielders behind square, brought in after Bodyline. In Twenty20, meanwhile, six-hitting is the basic imperative - and the team that hits the most usually wins - so why not increase the incentives to clear the boundaries by letting captains defend them as they wish?

It may be that minor tweaks would still be needed, such as a maximum limit on deep fielders at the death. But, if we were designing the game from scratch, gimmickry such as having two different Powerplay blocks (with different rules) would surely be dismissed on the ground of absurdity. The margins are full of scribbling; it is time for a clean piece of paper. And anyone wanting to argue against must list all current international fielding restrictions without needing to check.

Alan Gardner is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • m0se on April 30, 2013, 18:13 GMT

    ODI cricket was so boring a few years ago and that was the reason T20 was invented. The first 10 powerplay overs were interesting and then the field spread out and it was 4-5 runs per over of taking singles after singles until overs 45. Then, there was some attempted big hitting that would be pulled off once in a while but the bulk of the runs were accumulated between overs 10 and 45. T20 was created to specifically remove the boring overs 10-40. If fielding restrictions are removed, it would go back to the accumulating singles mode of play. Quality bowlers would be replaced with trundlers who could keep things simple. There would be no need to high risk big hitting as most runs could be made accumulating with singles.

  • Insult_2_Injury on April 28, 2013, 4:51 GMT

    Nice to see someones picked up on Warnes observation. He's always had the ability to see the game from an attacking point of view and his idea is excellent. Of course it doesn't fit with the games bureaucrats idea of change, whereby they have all the say in tinkering with the rule book and then patting themselves on the back for 'innovation'. The irony with the tinkerers is they have made the one day game the formulaic boring game that they lament is on the way out, all in the crazy hope of more sixes and fours bringing more spectators. The problem is with bureaucrats is that they never believe they're wrong and never opt for change which means they have less control. They'll strangle the 50 over game into non existence rather than allow on field open slather.

  • on April 30, 2013, 10:22 GMT

    First of all you need to know why the limitations are put in place. When you have all fielders placed at boundary, batting team will be happy in just taking 2s.

  • Captainman on April 29, 2013, 13:24 GMT

    ODI Cricket is the best! this form has just as much as fans as the other forms. In fact there are far more Cricket fans that love 20 and over Cricket than Test Cricket.

  • KK47 on April 29, 2013, 12:58 GMT

    I think ODI's time is up. It's neither there not here. ODIs should be stopped completely and emphasis given to tests and T20's, It's no secret that except very few exceptionally fit cricketers like Dhoni or AB De Villiers, the best players would keep missing one format or the other which is exactly what spectators do not need. To equate the contest, let fielding restrictions be removed from T20's except five four arrangement(off and leg side depending on left of right handed batsmen) and increase the over limit to 5 to get rid of 'bits & pieces' cricketers. Instead of a single new ball, lets have one new and one 20-over old ball. This would give better purchase to spinners and an opener need to be good against spin as well as pace to do well. Leg-byes should be abolished completely.

  • Romanticstud on April 29, 2013, 6:45 GMT

    I reckon ODI cricket should be made in such a way that every team plays the same number of games i.e. a league. starting at the end of the next world cup where the top 8 teams from the world cup play in league A and the next in league B. i.e. the world cup would have 16 teams. Each team would play against each team in league A home and away and also against league B away only. Each mini series would consist of 5 games; so 120 games will constitute the league. Any other series will be excluded from this. These games must be completed by the end of the 3rd year after the world cup. The teams in league B will be released for pre-qualifying against the associate members for the next world cup. The top side in league B will also be able to play promotion/relegation games against the 8th position in league A. The world cup will have the reintroduction of a super 6 where the top of each group and the best 2 second place finishers will all play a round robin from scratch. Final between top 2.

  • on April 29, 2013, 6:39 GMT

    I think if this rule is lifted , Captains like Dhoni will kill the game completely, Only time his bowlers get an attacking field is when the powerplays are on , remember the game where India played England in the World Cup 2011.

  • Naseer on April 29, 2013, 5:04 GMT

    I think the simple thing is that no matter how many tweaks do you make to ODIs, its era has gone, we have to admit this, because it is very slow game and one will have to wait for almost 95 overs in order to be thrilled, in case there is close encounter, otherwise, it is very boring cricket, I thin only two forms will prevail in future, Test matches, and T20s and future of ODIs does not seem very bright.

  • Cricket_theBestGame on April 29, 2013, 1:49 GMT

    interesting idea. though some fielding restrictions will have to be made. for example a team can't have all players on the boundary like someone else commented earlier. but it does have merit. remove those silly restrictions. and also remove the 10 over limit. imagine warne bowling non stop from one end and batsmen either get on top of him or get out. that would be the real battle.

  • on April 28, 2013, 23:46 GMT

    Great idea! 50 overs is the best format to test the toughness and the skills of the players, and there should not be any field restrictions imposed if the fielding captains desire to do so. This will make the batsmen play more conventional, good cricket, and, will bring a whole new meaning to strategy, as well.

    50 is the next best format to tests, and will give players to get their eye-in, without the expectations to make a big score during field restrictions.

    If there are no field restrictions at all, 50 over cricket would resemble a mini-format of Test cricket.

  • m0se on April 30, 2013, 18:13 GMT

    ODI cricket was so boring a few years ago and that was the reason T20 was invented. The first 10 powerplay overs were interesting and then the field spread out and it was 4-5 runs per over of taking singles after singles until overs 45. Then, there was some attempted big hitting that would be pulled off once in a while but the bulk of the runs were accumulated between overs 10 and 45. T20 was created to specifically remove the boring overs 10-40. If fielding restrictions are removed, it would go back to the accumulating singles mode of play. Quality bowlers would be replaced with trundlers who could keep things simple. There would be no need to high risk big hitting as most runs could be made accumulating with singles.

  • Insult_2_Injury on April 28, 2013, 4:51 GMT

    Nice to see someones picked up on Warnes observation. He's always had the ability to see the game from an attacking point of view and his idea is excellent. Of course it doesn't fit with the games bureaucrats idea of change, whereby they have all the say in tinkering with the rule book and then patting themselves on the back for 'innovation'. The irony with the tinkerers is they have made the one day game the formulaic boring game that they lament is on the way out, all in the crazy hope of more sixes and fours bringing more spectators. The problem is with bureaucrats is that they never believe they're wrong and never opt for change which means they have less control. They'll strangle the 50 over game into non existence rather than allow on field open slather.

  • on April 30, 2013, 10:22 GMT

    First of all you need to know why the limitations are put in place. When you have all fielders placed at boundary, batting team will be happy in just taking 2s.

  • Captainman on April 29, 2013, 13:24 GMT

    ODI Cricket is the best! this form has just as much as fans as the other forms. In fact there are far more Cricket fans that love 20 and over Cricket than Test Cricket.

  • KK47 on April 29, 2013, 12:58 GMT

    I think ODI's time is up. It's neither there not here. ODIs should be stopped completely and emphasis given to tests and T20's, It's no secret that except very few exceptionally fit cricketers like Dhoni or AB De Villiers, the best players would keep missing one format or the other which is exactly what spectators do not need. To equate the contest, let fielding restrictions be removed from T20's except five four arrangement(off and leg side depending on left of right handed batsmen) and increase the over limit to 5 to get rid of 'bits & pieces' cricketers. Instead of a single new ball, lets have one new and one 20-over old ball. This would give better purchase to spinners and an opener need to be good against spin as well as pace to do well. Leg-byes should be abolished completely.

  • Romanticstud on April 29, 2013, 6:45 GMT

    I reckon ODI cricket should be made in such a way that every team plays the same number of games i.e. a league. starting at the end of the next world cup where the top 8 teams from the world cup play in league A and the next in league B. i.e. the world cup would have 16 teams. Each team would play against each team in league A home and away and also against league B away only. Each mini series would consist of 5 games; so 120 games will constitute the league. Any other series will be excluded from this. These games must be completed by the end of the 3rd year after the world cup. The teams in league B will be released for pre-qualifying against the associate members for the next world cup. The top side in league B will also be able to play promotion/relegation games against the 8th position in league A. The world cup will have the reintroduction of a super 6 where the top of each group and the best 2 second place finishers will all play a round robin from scratch. Final between top 2.

  • on April 29, 2013, 6:39 GMT

    I think if this rule is lifted , Captains like Dhoni will kill the game completely, Only time his bowlers get an attacking field is when the powerplays are on , remember the game where India played England in the World Cup 2011.

  • Naseer on April 29, 2013, 5:04 GMT

    I think the simple thing is that no matter how many tweaks do you make to ODIs, its era has gone, we have to admit this, because it is very slow game and one will have to wait for almost 95 overs in order to be thrilled, in case there is close encounter, otherwise, it is very boring cricket, I thin only two forms will prevail in future, Test matches, and T20s and future of ODIs does not seem very bright.

  • Cricket_theBestGame on April 29, 2013, 1:49 GMT

    interesting idea. though some fielding restrictions will have to be made. for example a team can't have all players on the boundary like someone else commented earlier. but it does have merit. remove those silly restrictions. and also remove the 10 over limit. imagine warne bowling non stop from one end and batsmen either get on top of him or get out. that would be the real battle.

  • on April 28, 2013, 23:46 GMT

    Great idea! 50 overs is the best format to test the toughness and the skills of the players, and there should not be any field restrictions imposed if the fielding captains desire to do so. This will make the batsmen play more conventional, good cricket, and, will bring a whole new meaning to strategy, as well.

    50 is the next best format to tests, and will give players to get their eye-in, without the expectations to make a big score during field restrictions.

    If there are no field restrictions at all, 50 over cricket would resemble a mini-format of Test cricket.

  • Ravendark on April 28, 2013, 22:54 GMT

    "All-out defence would be an option in limited-overs cricket but, in reality, would it ever be contemplated?"

    Yes, it would. 4 required off the last ball. If the laws allow it, why not put all 9 on the boundary? Which happened and was the cause of this rule change in the first place.

    I think suggesting the removal of field restrictions in order to force captains to have more aggressive fields really misses the point.

  • on April 28, 2013, 21:47 GMT

    To be honest let captains put their fielders where they want, why restrict them when say someone like gayle is taking advantage of the powerplay and fielding restrictions. Totally unfair because after the powerplayers they just go into hitting ones and twos when more fielders are allowed on the boundary line.

    ODI is totally batsman friendly. Bowlers nowadays in ODI get slogged.

    With no field restriction captains and bowlers can have a chance of not leaking runs.

  • on April 28, 2013, 21:36 GMT

    I would go one step further. Why place a restriction on the number of overs per bowler. Is there a corresponding restriction on the length of a batsman innings? Talk about balance? The batsman can score his centuries, but the bowler is taken off on the verge of his 5-for.....I say remove all restrictions in the game.

  • on April 28, 2013, 14:51 GMT

    I agree with Warne, except why a maximum of 10 overs per bowler? This only encourages "bits and pieces" players who can bat and bowl a bit. 50 overs is no problem for 4 bowlers, also if a bowler is doing well why be forced to take them out of the attack?

  • eggyroe on April 28, 2013, 14:32 GMT

    As usual,Shane Warne is well ahead of the game,the sole purpose is a game that is more or less equal between the bat and the ball.Surely nobody wants a game that leans in favour of the bat all the time. By removing restrictions in the field and powerplays it will test the tactical acumen of individual captains.The only innovation I would like to retain is the One individual ball for each end.As PrasPunter stated the 1992 World Cup Forum was the best by far,everybody played each other,the top 4 then played in 2 Semi Finals.Perhaps the forum used now has more to do with revenue raised.

  • tfjones1978 on April 28, 2013, 13:57 GMT

    I think most of the rules of the game have gone over board. ODI should go back to the basics being bat vs ball. ODI field restrictions should be scraped for the first 40 overs. If a side wants nine fields on the boundary when someone is pounding fours away then they should be allowed to do that. The restrictions came in because of the youngest chappell boys with Greg deciding that his brother would bowl underarm. This trick and putting nine players on the boundary ruined that game and went against the spirit of the game. However thats not to say that every delivery should now be regulated. Its gone overboard! Restrictions should be limited to the last 10 overs where at least four players must be in the circle. The current system is just unworkable.

  • 07sanjeewakaru on April 28, 2013, 11:25 GMT

    Seems like very good idea.This should be the definition of ODI cricket.As cricket now has its outrageous child called T20.ODI should not be for sloggers anymore.It should convey dying aspects of this wonderful game.Surely this format should not be overlooked. I think its the only way to have a wold tournament and don't think Test WC is a thing that here to stay.

  • TheRisingTeam on April 28, 2013, 10:12 GMT

    I love ODI Cricket! I call it the middle of the other 2 other forms neither too long nor too short. Don't forget 50 over Cricket is what makes Cricket the most revenue. People say how you can sustain all 3 formats? the answer is simple, cut back on meaningless series/matches and all 3 forms can live together. We can make it interesting like allowing i.e. the best bowler of each team bowling upto 12 overs instead of 10 and have 5 fielders outside the circle instead of the new regulation of 4 so its evenly balanced. This is a form where associate teams the top ones should be playing a lot of Cricket annually off so that they are developing and world tournaments will become that bit competitive at least. Also do not forget ODI matches brings in the most crowds to the game and makes it more appealing to watch especially on fridays and weekends. But certainly I agree we should change the rules a bit so it balances out for both the fielding and batting team but keep as 50 overs.

  • sardarharoon on April 28, 2013, 10:01 GMT

    Agreed with Shane Warne!In Modern day Odi's, you tie the hands of bowlers and put them under the mercy of batsman. This practice totally shift the game one dimensional where batsman mostly dominating. You cannot produce good bowlers in Asia at least, because bowlers always on the defensive mode. You cannot see the great sight of fast bowler's fist, jubilation, enthusiasm, aggressiveness and zeal. If ICC want to produce aggressive, enthusiastic and furious bowlers they must listen to living legend.

  • on April 28, 2013, 9:55 GMT

    @naman, thats the whole point, in ODIs at the moment 7 rpo is easy. This rule change is exctly what you need to get things evened out!

  • mikecrik on April 28, 2013, 9:55 GMT

    Good idea, should do it soon, format is losing it's appeal with T20

  • PrasPunter on April 28, 2013, 9:40 GMT

    "...1992 World Cup (the last great 50-over tournament?)" - think so - the best and toughest format a WC has ever been played with. No easy wins - no direct entry into subsequent rounds as it was with WC 96 and 2011 and lesser teams can't get away with anything and win trophies. Even the Super 6s were fine and added to the competitiveness. Thus, Pak and Aus prevailed in the toughest of the formats. Great teams raise to big occasions. Cricinfo, please publish.

  • Chris_Howard on April 28, 2013, 9:10 GMT

    Like this idea. ODI's have become too complex and "just not cricket".

  • Clyde on April 28, 2013, 8:29 GMT

    Warne's suggestion would restore the one-day game, as it would be authentic cricket, à la backyard, alley, shearing shed, wherever. The 'power play' is a foolish stunt. Cricket, wherever it is played, is a serious game, as long as it follows the dictates of the space it is played in. Such tweaks as 'power play', in the face of nature, are actually feeble play, effete compensations that reduce the grit we spectators want in the game.

  • on April 28, 2013, 8:18 GMT

    The basis with which writer tries to make his point is actually an outcome of power plays in one day cricket. Because of the power play scores normally reach 280+ mark. while chasing, the batsman are required to innovate thus, dil scoop, helicopter shot and multiple number of new innovations come up. Had there been one day games without power plays i don't think these modern age cricketing shots would have materialized. Instead One day cricket should get away with free hit. There should not be a concept of free hit. The collective limit of power plays must never go beyond 15 overs and try to reduce bilateral one day series. Instead focus on ICC events such Champions Trophy and World Cup.

  • FAB_ALI on April 28, 2013, 8:11 GMT

    The one-day game should be of 40 overs only with only one field restriction that no more than five fielders will be allowed outside the 30-yard circle at any point of time during the match. This would be really testing for the batsmen/bowlers and obviously for the captains.

  • on April 28, 2013, 7:36 GMT

    Why not give the team batting second 2/3 overs of extra power play. that way captains would be confused to choose between batting 1st or second.and the number of overs given extra would depend entirely on the conditions. So we would have neutral officials who would judge the nature of the conditions and decide if the team batting second would get extra overs of power play or not. If yes then how many? at most 4 overs of extra power play would allow the team batting second to have an equal chance of winning! just a thought that came by. It might work.

  • CricketAkshay on April 28, 2013, 7:32 GMT

    I completely disagree here. If u remove fielding restrictions, then don't use new shiny ball. C, if the team batting second has to chase in less than 4.00 runs per over or in contrast in excess of 7.00 runs per over in a 50-over game, it gives the captains an attacking choice rather than being defensive. Use the new-ball, strike early by having two slips and attacking field placement, then the opposition would certainly be on the backfoot.

  • volmitius on April 28, 2013, 6:44 GMT

    ofcourse ! oneday need 2 be test played in a day...bt with modern day rules favouring the batsman, it has virtually becum 20-20 played for 100 overs, with only 4 fielders on the fence, how can u expect the bowlers to go 4 wickets, when they know that there are grater chances of dropping the ball in the vacant spaces even off miss hit. warne is dead right that attacking captains will be benefited and that the bowlers will be more than jst feeding system of balls for the batsman to be hit for sixes and fours

  • ygkd on April 28, 2013, 6:09 GMT

    All limited overs games restrict bowlers too much. However, fielding restrictions can be simplified without complete removal. Two close catchers all the time - slip, leg-slip or bat-pad. That's the only fielding restriction that you need, the one that would leave decent gaps in the field somewhere, while encouraging bowlers to pich it up. All those runs that are nicked through a vacant slip area, often costing the bowler four when he's beaten the batsman, would suddenly carry risk. Reward for bowlers must be wickets and, once they start pitching it up more, there might be a need for better keeping skills too, potentially leading to even more wickets. All that needs to be done then, is relaxing the restriction on an individual bowler's over count so when a bowler is on top he can stay there. Gaps in the field, a catching cordon, hefty modern bats and the roped-in boundary would work. It's time to match the aggressive short-form batting with equally aggressive bowling.

  • borhans on April 28, 2013, 5:55 GMT

    Reduce Odi to 35 over .its too boring on the middle over when batsman just go with the motion don't take too much risk .Considering People enjoy fours/sixes more than batsman taking one or two then withdrawing fielding restriction will reduce those opportunity .Test has its own glory of building innings ,staying on wicket but odi shouldn't be mix with test .People don't want to go to watch odi to see players playing more relaxed game .Its better to give Odi more competitiveness & more energy by reducing the amount of over which will force player to always go for risky shots or boundaries

  • Travian.Cricket on April 28, 2013, 5:34 GMT

    Completely removing them may be over kill. Best way it so tweak with the restrictions. Allow 6 fielders outside the 30 yard circle and remove the power-plays .

  • kiwicricketnut on April 28, 2013, 3:08 GMT

    That is probably the smartest thing warne has ever said, mind you that wouldn't be hard now would it. No feilding restrictions is exactly what odi cricket needs, i was only 11 years old when the 92 world cup was on but i remember how brilliant it was and how close we came, a pretty special player in inzaman broke our hearts that day. Since then though the game has become unrecognisable with all the gimmicks they have introduced, all with good intentions im sure but it really has had an adverse affect, making the game confusing and predictable, lets go back to the good old days...

  • on April 28, 2013, 3:06 GMT

    I disagree here. It gives teams batting first an advantage. As soon as captain realises that opposing team needs over 6-6.5, he could just place 6-7 fielders outside the ring, making chasing almost impossible as boundaries will be difficult to come by. The game becomes predictable. If you are talking about bringing spin and swing back, well lets just have bigger boundaries and bigger rings. Plus there is no worse sight than batsman taking easy singles because all the fielders are at the deep.

  • on April 28, 2013, 3:06 GMT

    I disagree here. It gives teams batting first an advantage. As soon as captain realises that opposing team needs over 6-6.5, he could just place 6-7 fielders outside the ring, making chasing almost impossible as boundaries will be difficult to come by. The game becomes predictable. If you are talking about bringing spin and swing back, well lets just have bigger boundaries and bigger rings. Plus there is no worse sight than batsman taking easy singles because all the fielders are at the deep.

  • kiwicricketnut on April 28, 2013, 3:08 GMT

    That is probably the smartest thing warne has ever said, mind you that wouldn't be hard now would it. No feilding restrictions is exactly what odi cricket needs, i was only 11 years old when the 92 world cup was on but i remember how brilliant it was and how close we came, a pretty special player in inzaman broke our hearts that day. Since then though the game has become unrecognisable with all the gimmicks they have introduced, all with good intentions im sure but it really has had an adverse affect, making the game confusing and predictable, lets go back to the good old days...

  • Travian.Cricket on April 28, 2013, 5:34 GMT

    Completely removing them may be over kill. Best way it so tweak with the restrictions. Allow 6 fielders outside the 30 yard circle and remove the power-plays .

  • borhans on April 28, 2013, 5:55 GMT

    Reduce Odi to 35 over .its too boring on the middle over when batsman just go with the motion don't take too much risk .Considering People enjoy fours/sixes more than batsman taking one or two then withdrawing fielding restriction will reduce those opportunity .Test has its own glory of building innings ,staying on wicket but odi shouldn't be mix with test .People don't want to go to watch odi to see players playing more relaxed game .Its better to give Odi more competitiveness & more energy by reducing the amount of over which will force player to always go for risky shots or boundaries

  • ygkd on April 28, 2013, 6:09 GMT

    All limited overs games restrict bowlers too much. However, fielding restrictions can be simplified without complete removal. Two close catchers all the time - slip, leg-slip or bat-pad. That's the only fielding restriction that you need, the one that would leave decent gaps in the field somewhere, while encouraging bowlers to pich it up. All those runs that are nicked through a vacant slip area, often costing the bowler four when he's beaten the batsman, would suddenly carry risk. Reward for bowlers must be wickets and, once they start pitching it up more, there might be a need for better keeping skills too, potentially leading to even more wickets. All that needs to be done then, is relaxing the restriction on an individual bowler's over count so when a bowler is on top he can stay there. Gaps in the field, a catching cordon, hefty modern bats and the roped-in boundary would work. It's time to match the aggressive short-form batting with equally aggressive bowling.

  • volmitius on April 28, 2013, 6:44 GMT

    ofcourse ! oneday need 2 be test played in a day...bt with modern day rules favouring the batsman, it has virtually becum 20-20 played for 100 overs, with only 4 fielders on the fence, how can u expect the bowlers to go 4 wickets, when they know that there are grater chances of dropping the ball in the vacant spaces even off miss hit. warne is dead right that attacking captains will be benefited and that the bowlers will be more than jst feeding system of balls for the batsman to be hit for sixes and fours

  • CricketAkshay on April 28, 2013, 7:32 GMT

    I completely disagree here. If u remove fielding restrictions, then don't use new shiny ball. C, if the team batting second has to chase in less than 4.00 runs per over or in contrast in excess of 7.00 runs per over in a 50-over game, it gives the captains an attacking choice rather than being defensive. Use the new-ball, strike early by having two slips and attacking field placement, then the opposition would certainly be on the backfoot.

  • on April 28, 2013, 7:36 GMT

    Why not give the team batting second 2/3 overs of extra power play. that way captains would be confused to choose between batting 1st or second.and the number of overs given extra would depend entirely on the conditions. So we would have neutral officials who would judge the nature of the conditions and decide if the team batting second would get extra overs of power play or not. If yes then how many? at most 4 overs of extra power play would allow the team batting second to have an equal chance of winning! just a thought that came by. It might work.

  • FAB_ALI on April 28, 2013, 8:11 GMT

    The one-day game should be of 40 overs only with only one field restriction that no more than five fielders will be allowed outside the 30-yard circle at any point of time during the match. This would be really testing for the batsmen/bowlers and obviously for the captains.

  • on April 28, 2013, 8:18 GMT

    The basis with which writer tries to make his point is actually an outcome of power plays in one day cricket. Because of the power play scores normally reach 280+ mark. while chasing, the batsman are required to innovate thus, dil scoop, helicopter shot and multiple number of new innovations come up. Had there been one day games without power plays i don't think these modern age cricketing shots would have materialized. Instead One day cricket should get away with free hit. There should not be a concept of free hit. The collective limit of power plays must never go beyond 15 overs and try to reduce bilateral one day series. Instead focus on ICC events such Champions Trophy and World Cup.