Oh, dear. Looks like SirAdrian will be called upon once again to revamp the ODI team structure in the FC game as a result of the proposed substitution rule to be added to the one-day game.

__________________
Administrator

Well, not on my account! I hope this nonsense gets hoofed into the long grass. If not, I'll be even less interested in the pyjama game than I am at present and will just quit entering ODI fantasy games. If the change goes through, we might as well just roll some dice to see who wins (they might as well do the same on the field as well).

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

I don't know that bringing an element of unpredictability into the game is what is needed. I think the major element of predictability is that the side batting second has the advantage of knowing what target to chase down. This is a huge advantage because, quite often, the side batting first either overestimates or underestimates the number of runs in the wicket. The ony way around this problem I can see is to have two innings of 25 overs. That should ensure closer contests. The other problem is the game goes into a lull after the fielding restrictions are lifted which tends to coincide with the part-time bowlers operating. Usually defensive fields are set which forces the batsmen to work singles which is not very entertaining. The remedy to this problem is to allow more overs by the front-line bowlers or force attacking fields with field restrictions extended to 25 overs. That would reduce the lull period. The part-time bowlers would be forced to operate with the field up for a few overs. That should encourage more stroke-play.

__________________
Administrator

More thoughts on the ICC's ODI proposed changes in this thread.

And on the 2x25 over possibility in this thread.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

Well, many people believe still that the best and safest way to win a one-day (or any cricket game for that matter) is to putt the run on the boards - since batting second would mean pressure because you'd always have on the back of your mind that you have to get so and so many runs per over - this is especially true of when you lose early wickets - side's batting first in that case then look to rebuild with much less worry of "run rate" then a side batting second. Point being Milke, people could twist and turn the words and prove every "advantage theory" wrong. Cricket is played globally in such diverse conditions no generalisation will make any sense. For instance batting second in some countries in day and night matches becomes a serious disadvantage (like SA)- in other counties it becomes and overwhelming addvantage (subcontinent). Now that's unpredictibility for you! One-day cricket is not in as desperate a situation as every Tom, Dick and Harry goes around claiming. A few minor worries are there, but it does not mean we should jump up and take radical measures (like Sunny suggests), as I said earlier fine tuning is what is needed.