We all remember the elongated World Cup - which seemed to have gone on forever, and ever.

When 100 overs are played in a day, you can bet your boots that a good proportion will be decided on a reduced overs match, or by Duckworth-Lewis click here .

You all know my views of International One Day cricket, but putting them at one side for the time being - I can suggest an improvment that will help the players, the paying supporters - and lessen the need for Duckworth Lewis - and games will finish in good light.

Reduce all ODI's to 40 overs, and that includes the World Cup, this will at a stroke benefit the bowlers who would only have to bowl 8 overs each, but most of all will ensure that in a number of matches - the game will end ON TIME, and won't need a reserve day - or the use of the wretched Duckworth Lewis calculations, which are not always fair.

This worked in the John Jlayer League, does anyone agree that this would be a good strart to the reform of International One Day Cricket? - and we will never again see a World Cup like the one we watched earlier this year.

To me bowling 80 overs in a day instead of 100, makes a lot of sence, also even at 80 - that is more overs than is bowled in a Test Match.

__________________
Ern

Interesting points made there Ern, and I do (partially) agree with your call for a reduction in overs. I have found that even I get bored around the 35-40 over mark in ODI's, something that does not happen in Test matches. It should also help reduce some of the scores being hit, some of which are just silly nowadays, which should help re-create some proper contests.

I don't, however, feel that the D/L calculations are unfair - the theory and judgement behind it is pretty sound. If the side batting second knows they've lost some overs, then it stands to reason that their target should be adjusted.

Edit: I thought Test matches had a minimum of 90 overs per day, not 80 or less?

__________________
"Being second is to be the first of the ones who lose."
- Ayrton Senna

That's true adam - but at times Test matches don't get their 90 over in, and if a game designed to be longer struggles to get in 90 overs, then it seems strange that 100 overs is expected from the game supposed to be a shorter format.

There is nothing worse IMO than a one day game that does not get concluded, with a Test match - there is always tomorrow.

__________________
Ern

ODIs are fine as they are.

Seriously, the number of bowlers keeling over because they had to bowl 10 overs in one day is bearable.

And it's not as if cricket has never been and will continue to be a game where time is lost due to the weather.

The biggest problem ODIs have to deal with is the amount of needless criticism and attempts to make it "better" that always pop up

ODI cricket is ok, all they need to do is get rid of the powerplays and have the original 10 over fielding restrictions. Its funny really everyone seems to blame the high scores on the bats that players are using or the pitches being to flat. Since the powerplays have come into the game 275 to 300 is average because there is double the amount of fielding restrictions.

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

I'm with you guys: the ODI scene holds limited appeal for me... but I see no problem with the status quo.

The downside is not workload, impact on playing styles and so on... it's the impact on selection policy (hence Prior being preferred, otherwise inexplicably, to Foster - who actually knows what to do with the gloves). Furthermore, I very much doubt that ANYTHING will convince the current management to stop aiming at a common squad for both th Test and ODI sides.

I like the innings structure of "baseball"
They don't send one team in and give them 27 outs to get their score, then send the next team out their and give them 27 outs to catch them.
Not saying Cricket needs 9 innings; But if a One Dayer was 45 overs long and consisted of 3 innings each, 50 overs long and 2 innings each or 48 overs long with 4 innings each. Is that a path that could be looked at.
To save time during the team innings changeover the 2 batsmen could remain padded up, 12 men could be played with 11 outs per side and 10 fielding players at any given time rather than 11. We could even make it more exciting and introduce 3 strikes and your out (the umpire raises his fist to every legal ball bowled that the batsmen fail to score a run off) that should even up things for the fielding side dropping a man.
Advantages :
Batting will be more equalized because teams are batting in the same real time conditions.
Need for a Duckworth Lewis system will be lessened.
Disadvantages :
Cricket will be a lot like baseball. *but is that such a bad thing
I have often admired baseball clutch hitters who at the bottom of the 9th with their side behind in runs, who with runners on bases hit home runs. That takes a lot of skill and is also mark of their character, is it that dissimilar to a cricketer scoring a century ?
Sure in time of concentration it is, but in actual intensity all though brief is it ?

I still think the only way to improve ODI's is by countries playing a 3-match series instead of the nonsensical 5 to 7 matches.

That will give the bowlers that "recovery" time they always seem to moan about. What's great about India beating England 7-1 in a stretched out series? (eg) ...Just about no one is interested after match 3 or 4.

The one thing I would most certainly not agree with is changing the 50-over format of the standard ODIs. It is just about right; the 60-over format used in the first few World Cups would have worked only in England and were a tad too long. Anything under 50 becomes too short and getting uncomfortably like the dreaded 20-20 format.

But I think they should try to start ODIs earlier in the day - say 9am where possible and be prepared to carry on as late as daylight would allow. If the weather still interferes, then it has to be the D-L decision.

IMO, Day-Night matches do not yield fair results and should be confined to the dustbin of cricketing history.

I have never liked the artificial Power-Play system. I believe that the fielding restrictions, whatever they are, should be uniform throughout the 50 overs. As I have said before, a maximum of four fielders (rather than two or five) outside the 'ring' would give both sides some flexibility while still allowing attacking play. There should be no special rules regarding close catchers.

Rules regarding wide balls should be better regulated. As it stands, the umpires vary in their readiness to call 'wide' and most of the so-called wide balls down the leg side are plain ridiculous. I think they should make better use of those markers that they are supposed to use for calling wides.

True. In some cases the result of the match is already determined at the toss...

As far as starting at about 9-ish is concerned...That's a good idea, but just about impossible in SA. Dew on the grass and all. That starting time will only suit one venue here: Kingsmead in Durbs.