During the last Eng/Aus match, Michael Holding made what struck me
as a valid point, which expands on one of the reservations
expressed in that article.

If it's standard 4-over rules, with the top order re-starting in
the second innings, the bottom 6 or 7 of the order may as well go
watch a film during the first innings:  if the side is remotely
competent, they're not going to bat.

(His suggestion was 2 innings each, but starting the 2nd innings
where you left off in the 1st -- addresses the day/night issues and
changes the dynamic, but retains a central part of a one-day
match.)

--
Cheers,
Harvey

On 11 Sep 2009, Chan wrote

Finally, one of our long-standing ideas here on rsc is about to be
trialled by the ICC, after none other than TAV himself has taken up the
mantle:

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/424523.html

I predict this will be a huge success (compared to the current ODO).
It's basically like playing two T20s back to back and taking the
aggregate. I wonder if there will be a follow-on option!

I expect aggregates of 700 runs per match to become quite common in
this format. What is the average aggregate for ODOs? Can't be more than
550. That's a hell of a lot more runs in the same time frame; also
you're going to get twice as many wickets on average. Surprised there
isn't more buzz on this.

During the last Eng/Aus match, Michael Holding made what struck me as a
valid point, which expands on one of the reservations expressed in that
article.

If it's standard 4-over rules, with the top order re-starting in the
second innings, the bottom 6 or 7 of the order may as well go watch a
film during the first innings: if the side is remotely competent,
they're not going to bat.

(His suggestion was 2 innings each, but starting the 2nd innings where
you left off in the 1st -- addresses the day/night issues and changes
the dynamic, but retains a central part of a one-day match.)

On 11 Sep 2009, Chan wrote



Finally, one of our long-standing ideas here on rsc is about to
be trialled by the ICC, after none other than TAV himself has
taken up the mantle:

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/424523.html

I predict this will be a huge success (compared to the current
ODO). It's basically like playing two T20s back to back and
taking the aggregate. I wonder if there will be a follow-on
option!

I expect aggregates of 700 runs per match to become quite common
in this format. What is the average aggregate for ODOs? Can't be
more than 550. That's a hell of a lot more runs in the same time
frame; also you're going to get twice as many wickets on
average. Surprised there isn't more buzz on this.

During the last Eng/Aus match, Michael Holding made what struck me
as a valid point, which expands on one of the reservations
expressed in that article.

If it's standard 4-over rules, with the top order re-starting in
the second innings, the bottom 6 or 7 of the order may as well go
watch a film during the first innings:  if the side is remotely
competent, they're not going to bat.

Finally, one of our long-standing ideas here on rsc is about to
be trialled by the ICC, after none other than TAV himself has
taken up the mantle:

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/424523.html

I predict this will be a huge success (compared to the current
ODO). It's basically like playing two T20s back to back and
taking the aggregate. I wonder if there will be a follow-on
option!

I expect aggregates of 700 runs per match to become quite common
in this format. What is the average aggregate for ODOs? Can't be
more than 550. That's a hell of a lot more runs in the same time
frame; also you're going to get twice as many wickets on
average. Surprised there isn't more buzz on this.

On Sep 11, 4:17 pm, HVS <use... at (no spam) REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
During the last Eng/Aus match, Michael Holding made what struck
me as a valid point, which expands on one of the reservations
expressed in that article.

If it's standard 4-over rules, with the top order re-starting
in the second innings, the bottom 6 or 7 of the order may as
well go watch a film during the first innings:  if the side is
remotely competent, they're not going to bat.

(His suggestion was 2 innings each, but starting the 2nd
innings where you left off in the 1st -- addresses the
day/night issues and changes the dynamic, but retains a central
part of a one-day match.)

--
Cheers,
Harvey

Been watching a lot of baseball, has he?

Finally, one of our long-standing ideas here on rsc is about to be
trialled by the ICC, after none other than TAV himself has taken up
the mantle:

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/424523.html

I predict this will be a huge success (compared to the current ODO).
It's basically like playing two T20s back to back and taking the
aggregate. I wonder if there will be a follow-on option!

(His suggestion was 2 innings each, but starting the 2nd innings
where you left off in the 1st -- addresses the day/night issues and
changes the dynamic, but retains a central part of a one-day
match.)

--
Cheers,
Harvey

But then it's not really a 4 innings match but rather a 2 innings 40-over
match with the innings split up. The beauty of 4 innings matches is that
you get another chance. If your first innings was bad you can have
another go. The split format doesn't address that. If you finish the
first 20 at 95-8 you are still screwed and will have little chance of
coming back. It will just postpone the inevitable and make for a boring
match. In a 4 innings match you are probably still going to lose but you
have a better chance to come back.

Chan wrote

Finally, one of our long-standing ideas here on rsc is about to
be trialled by the ICC, after none other than TAV himself has
taken up the mantle:

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/424523.html

I predict this will be a huge success (compared to the current
ODO). It's basically like playing two T20s back to back and
taking the aggregate. I wonder if there will be a follow-on
option!

I expect aggregates of 700 runs per match to become quite common
in this format. What is the average aggregate for ODOs? Can't be
more than 550. That's a hell of a lot more runs in the same time
frame; also you're going to get twice as many wickets on
average. Surprised there isn't more buzz on this.

During the last Eng/Aus match, Michael Holding made what struck me
as a valid point, which expands on one of the reservations
expressed in that article.

If it's standard 4-over rules, with the top order re-starting in
the second innings, the bottom 6 or 7 of the order may as well go
watch a film during the first innings: if the side is remotely
competent, they're not going to bat.

(His suggestion was 2 innings each, but starting the 2nd innings
where you left off in the 1st -- addresses the day/night issues and
changes the dynamic, but retains a central part of a one-day
match.)

On Sep 11, 10:04 pm, Chan <chan.fons... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

Finally, one of our long-standing ideas here on rsc is about to be
trialled by the ICC, after none other than TAV himself has taken up
the mantle:

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/424523.html

I predict this will be a huge success (compared to the current ODO).
It's basically like playing two T20s back to back and taking the
aggregate. I wonder if there will be a follow-on option!

How does this work?

Two innings, both starting with the opening bowlers, opening bats and
a new ball?

Or just I2 carrying on where I1 left off? Same ball, same batsmen at
the crease?

It looks like an attempt to make the ODO less predicatble. Just like
the power plays were supposed to do.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:29:00 +0000 (UTC), Michael Seth
michaelseth at (no spam) hotmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:


But then it's not really a 4 innings match but rather a 2 innings 40-over
match with the innings split up. The beauty of 4 innings matches is that
you get another chance. If your first innings was bad you can have
another go. The split format doesn't address that. If you finish the
first 20 at 95-8 you are still screwed and will have little chance of
coming back. It will just postpone the inevitable and make for a boring
match. In a 4 innings match you are probably still going to lose but you
have a better chance to come back.

Only just, though. I can see it being a recipe for people leaving at
half time.

Cheers,

Mike
--

Finally, one of our long-standing ideas here on rsc is about to be
trialled by the ICC, after none other than TAV himself has taken up
the mantle:

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/424523.html

I predict this will be a huge success (compared to the current ODO).
It's basically like playing two T20s back to back and taking the
aggregate. I wonder if there will be a follow-on option!

I expect aggregates of 700 runs per match to become quite common in
this format. What is the average aggregate for ODOs? Can't be more
than 550. That's a hell of a lot more runs in the same time frame;
also you're going to get twice as many wickets on average. Surprised
there isn't more buzz on this.

- Chan

On Sep 14, 6:25=A0am, Bob Dubery <megap... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

IMO one of the problems with the 50 over game is too many innovations.
They should try making it simpler. Ian Chappell has come up with some
interesting ideas.

And I do think something needs to be done. The games are getting
predictable and boring, and the amount of comment on RSC about the Eng/
Oz ODIs suggests that there is not a lot of interest - even amongst
those who know, love and support the game.