I am interested if anyone else sees merit in this idea hence I am running a poll with it, my idea is

Teams bat alternatively for 25 overs or 5 wickets which ever comes first

example

Team A bats for either 25 overs or until it loses its 5th wicket
Team B bats for either 25 overs or until it loses its 5th wicket
Team A bats again for either 25 overs or is bowled out
Team B bats again for either 25 overs or is bowled out or wins the game

The advantage's with this system I believe are
Less disadvantage to the team batting second if moisture sets in like heavy dew's

Even if one team's batting totally colapses (eg all out 111) you still get to see the other team bat at least 25 overs.

Less need to call in the Duckworth Lewis system to determine results.

The disadvantages are
The loss of 30 minutes (3 x 10 minutes) through changing from batting to feilding. which I suggest could be partially compensated by removing 3 drinks breaks.

Please comment or vote

No way

Sigh why is this game constantly trying to be changed - it was perfect before all this super-sub / power play bull****

NO- it only makes it more interesting and fresh-and quite alright ideas

__________________
Theres a light at the end of every tunnel...
Lets hope its not a train......

No no no no and no.

I agree, it's a no for me. It would be a nice idea for club sides to play a mini longer game but I don't think anyone would dream of actually bringing it in.

__________________
Watch this for a perfect about.
James May

This is not the first time this subject has come up. Have a look also at this thread.

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

I'm not at all a massive fan or follower of the shortened version of the game, that's before any further snazzy, jazzing-up is done!

No thanks, give me some hard fought test cricket please!

__________________
Whatever your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you mine are far greater!
Albert Einstein, 1879-1955

When you consider that sides batting first have a 2:1 winning ratio I agree that something has to be done to nullify the importance of the toss. Having two 25 over innings should be given a trial. I've always believed that only one toss should be done - for the first match of the series. Then the other side has first choice in the next game to bat or field first. The first choice is rotated like this for the remainder of the series. In a 5 match series one side will have first choice in at least two games. Too many series have been won due to a lucky streak of coin-toss wins.

__________________
Administrator

The trouble with having a rotational toss is that it allows the home side to completely doctor the pitch and their team composition rather than having to hope for the best but plan for the worst.

On the subject of the thread though, I think ODI's are boring rubbish. They're not a proper test of cricketing skills like test cricket and they're not exciting like 20-20, they always follow the same format of excitement for the first 15 overs, then nothing happens until the 40th over, then it accelerates again. I've always liked the idea of two innings per side, although i wouldn't limit it to 5 wickets, i'd just say 2 innings of 20 overs.

It's not 'proper' cricket, but odi's are meant to be about entertainment and bringing in the crowds.

In our friendly matches we often play such a format, with four innings in total - often two of twenty and then another two which sometimes have to be shortened because of the light. Unfortunately "Twenty20Sixteen16" isn't so slick to say.