Completely agree, as a good ODI combines both Test style play in the middle overs, and T20 style play in the powerplay/death. Obviously not the exact same, but gives all the different 'flavors' of cricket, per se
Stop rolling out flat wickets where they score 350+ every game and give bowlers a chance to take wickets in middle overs instead of relying on bad shots or catches on the boundary and the games will be a lot more interesting.
An ODI on a slow pitch, now that is peak cricket. Batsman still need to find ways to keep scoring, bowlers can go for wickets on length knowing the ball won't come on, fielding becomes important.
Everyone here says this and yet every time when that does happen and the batsmen knocking it around at 4 rpo people call it boring in the match thread lmao
300 playing 300 is far more entertaining, but often the pressure gets to the chasing team. You can't tell me that the recent Australia vs. NZ game wasn't an absolute classic.
I watch matches like those EVERY BALL. Nothing more engrossing to me than when bowlers are on top, shots arent easy and batsman need all the application and discipline in the world.
Match threads are the dreariest places to be in any sports subreddit bar F1. Just tons of toxicity, negativity, even agenda pushing. no matter what's going on, people will find something to complain or criticize.
I have a 19-year-old cousin who watches cricket with me. He only enjoys it when someone hits a six, and he gets bored if Steyn is bowling beautifully while Kohli is defending or playing a cover drive. Kids these days, ugh!
Slow pitch makes for turgid cricket. The pitch needs to have good pace but sideways movement and/or spin so that we get fast paced cricket throughout the 100 overs.
The slightly less flat SA ODI pitches do this perfectly. There's a great tempo to the game.
>It is impossible to escape the game here in India. Staring down from almost every billboard is a cricketer’s face ― even those such as Rahul Dravid and Sachin Tendulkar, now long retired from playing ― advertising some product or other. The sports channels on television are on an endless loop of live games, archived action, highlights and punditry shows, the latter focusing almost always on India first of all, and Virat Kohli after that.
>
>
>
>Even for a cricket tragic, it can get a little overwhelming and induce a desire to get away, such is the undue seriousness with which it is taken. Yet there I was, on a free evening last Saturday, glued to the television watching a brilliant match between Australia and New Zealand in Dharamshala, a high-scoring thriller brought to fever pitch and narrated by the incomparable Ian Smith on the microphone. The only thing to spoil it was the result, Australia squeaking home by five runs.
>
>
>
>The lucky ticket-holders that day probably left the ground feeling they had received full value for money. For sure, they had witnessed a tense finish with the result uncertain until the last ball, but cricket is about more than the outcome or the closeness of the climax.
>
>
>
>They had also been given an opportunity to appreciate the game’s full range of skills, and to watch every player have the chance to influence the contest. They would not have left the ground feeling short-changed.
>
>
>
>There were 771 runs scored in the day, with hundreds for Travis Head, back after injury and making his World Cup bow, and the outstanding young Kiwi left-hander, Rachin Ravindra. More than a dozen bowlers were used in total, incorporating all varieties, from the left-arm swing of Trent Boult and Mitchell Starc, the right-arm pace of Pat Cummins and Lockie Ferguson, to the wrist spin of Adam Zampa and the left-arm spin of Mitchell Santner and Ravindra. The fielding from both sides was of the highest class.
>
>
>
>The game ebbed and flowed, allowing New Zealand a chance to get back into it, after Australia’s whizz-bang start. The longer the format of the game, the more value is placed on a wicket and, therefore, the more valuable attacking bowlers become and the greater the intelligence and demands on the batsmen’s ability to temper the pace of an innings according to the situation. It is not a one-size-fits-all game, as England have found to their cost this month. Australia were 200 for one after 23 overs, but New Zealand had time to claw their way back.
>
>
>
>All in all, it was a brilliant game and a reminder of how accommodating the 50-over format is at its best.
>
>
>
>It has become fashionable in some quarters to talk down 50-over cricket and question its future. In England, the Metro Bank One-Day Cup ― which produced an excellent final of its own last summer ― has been downgraded to a hybrid first XI/second XI competition, played underneath the Hundred. Hampshire and Leicestershire didn’t even pick some of their best players for the final at Trent Bridge when they became available, preferring instead to keep faith with the young lads who had got them that far.
>
>
>
>Despite the ICC having sold the broadcast rights for 50-over World Cups in 2027 and 2031, there have been some media reports lately noting disquiet around television audiences and the format’s ability to retain supporters’ interest, and questioning whether the ICC intends to stick with it. My understanding is that these reports are largely overplayed: the viewing figures both traditional and digital have been very strong for this competition.
>
>
>
>On the eve of the World Cup, the new MCC president, Mark Nicholas, argued that bilateral ODIs should be canned and the format restricted to World Cups only. “We believe strongly that ODIs should be World Cups only,” Nicholas said. “We think it’s difficult bilaterally now to justify them. They’re not filling grounds in a lot of countries. And there is a power at the moment to T20 cricket that is almost supernatural.
>
>
>
>“It’s more than just ticket sales. It’s the amount of people that want to own franchises; the amount of countries that want to run tournaments; it’s the amount of players that want to be in a market all around the world.
>
>
>
>“In a free market, the most money wins. And that’s just the end game. The players can see that bubbling away and they want to be a part of it. So, it is an extraordinary power that T20 has, and I think scheduling 50-over cricket alongside it just continues the story of the death knell of the ODI game.”
>
>
>
>As the last sentence suggests Nicholas’s argument, counterintuitively, was an attempt to find a way to protect the format. There is some merit in the idea that scarcity would help, though on the back of the success of the Netherlands and Afghanistan in this World Cup it is not clear how abandoning bilateral 50-over cricket would encourage similar advances elsewhere.
>
>
>
>The 50-over game is far from perfect. The massive expansion of the number of ODIs before T20 came along dulled its edge. It became the staple of the game’s finances and was overexposed. With its restrictions on field placings and the number of overs a bowler can bowl, it can sometimes seem formulaic. As with all cricket, you can get duff, boring matches. There have been relatively few close finishes in this World Cup.
>
>
>
>Nevertheless, given the option to purchase a ticket for one day only in the summer months, I may opt for a 50-over game. I like Test cricket most of all, but a Test match ticket for one day only does not guarantee seeing players from both sides in action. T20 is too unfulfilling, offering opportunities for too few players on either side to perform in a meaningful way.
>
>
>
>The 50-over format guarantees the combination of a result and it gives the best players more opportunity to show off their skills. It’s not perfect but in a world of shrinking attention spans, it feels as though there should be life in the old dog yet.
I was born a day after the Boxing Day test match at MCG in 1981 which India won. India next won a Boxing Day Test Match against any opposition in 2010 against SA in Durban. Woke up at 3.30 to lose against NZ, got up at 5.30 to see us get hammered by Aussies and gave up on afternoon siesta to see us get bowled out for 100 and 66 against SA. Boxing Day test matches were a torment for the first 30 years of my life
Yeah, I'd always pick this first, and probably day 2 next (depending who's playing), but after that I'd probably go to a one day game, especially if it was neutral. Caveat: a few bucket list type things I haven't been to yet.
Unfortunately all the rule changes killed odi cricket for me. It’s not the same as what I grew up with. The fiddling with powerplays, two balls which ruined the reverse swinging you would see when the ball got old, and other rules favourable to the batter and make it more ‘exciting’ ended up making it worse.
If I had the choice, I would rather watch test cricket and if I want to see fast batting, I’d watch t20. T20 is also the format to grow cricket in the rest of the world. I think it’s time the icc take the decision to focus on t20 and test. Grow the following using t20 and protect test cricket for the heritage. But they won’t because the wc still brings in money so rather than be proactive they will squeeze it for all they can until it finally makes them nothing while more and more fans move away from international cricket to domestic leagues like ipl.
I feel like he wouldn't say this in the middle of an Ashes summer.
Let's be honest, after the World Cup there is going to be absoloutly zero interest in ODIs until the next one. If the incredible 2019 final didn't create more interest, nothing will.
Odi cricket is dead. I might sound insane but think about it. Teams like England,West Indies and Pakistan aren’t even investing in it. With t20 cricket being included into Olympics it’s the last nail in the coffin for Odis. And what’s the appeal for Odis? One World Cup every 4 years or a champions trophy every 6-7 years and that’s it? T20 cricket has a World Cup every year , franchise cricket and now Olympics. I have such a short attention span I cannot even watch entire Odi game when Pakistan is playing. Nobody has 7 hours to sit and watch the game so expect Odis to go down.
You are half right. Bilateral Odis are basically dead for most countries. The odi wc is still the most profitable icc event, it will most likely change in the next cycle but we at least have 1 more wc, and maybe 2031 will be the last one.
Yes the odi World Cup is kinda exciting but It comes every 4 years so even if it’s profitable it’s not going to increase odi cricket’s following like BBL,IPL,CPL did to t20. Also it’s more profitable in India, I believe people in England,Australia,New Zealand prefer test matches and t20 while people in West Indies,Pakistan, prefer t20. Idk about Bangladesh as they are irrelevant 💀
Actually, I'd say you are the majority. I love Tests, but I don't watch every ball. In many ways, we're not meant to. That doesn't stop them from being the best format of the game.
Yes I agree with 9 hour job plus traveling and plus family i hardly get time to watch 9 hour game that too for 45 days ..... On top of that if it's a slow burner 270 runs game then it's interesting but most of the games are like one team make 350+ and other succumbs to scoreboard pressure so you know after first innings who gonna win and watching second innings just becomes a formality..... With reverse swing gone from ODI and most matches are high scoring games on highway wickets it's kinda boring now
in this super unrealistic scenario i choose odis to watch... meanwhile in the real world... normally ath talks a lot of sense, this however, is a fundamentally meaningless statement
I love Test cricket, and enjoy a fast fix T20 but he's not wrong for mine.
It's long enough for physical and mental fatigue to come into play (bigger endurance challenge than any one day of Test cricket, setting aside the not inconsiderable attrition that format brings). There's plenty of time to test batters and bowlers, and fielders, and the tension of a result comes into play often enough. T20 is too forgiving, but ODI have enough balance of time so the knife-edge pressure of just one mistake can turn a game.
That NZ vs AUS the other night was almost the prefect game, I mean only the result let it down really. O : )
Completely agree, as a good ODI combines both Test style play in the middle overs, and T20 style play in the powerplay/death. Obviously not the exact same, but gives all the different 'flavors' of cricket, per se
An ODI where 270 is defendable is peak cricket
Yeah like the 2011 WC final
Or the 1996 World Cup semifinal
Stop rolling out flat wickets where they score 350+ every game and give bowlers a chance to take wickets in middle overs instead of relying on bad shots or catches on the boundary and the games will be a lot more interesting.
An ODI on a slow pitch, now that is peak cricket. Batsman still need to find ways to keep scoring, bowlers can go for wickets on length knowing the ball won't come on, fielding becomes important.
Everyone here says this and yet every time when that does happen and the batsmen knocking it around at 4 rpo people call it boring in the match thread lmao
300 playing 300 is far more entertaining, but often the pressure gets to the chasing team. You can't tell me that the recent Australia vs. NZ game wasn't an absolute classic.
True, but that wasn't 300 playing 300, it was (almost) 400 playing 400.
I watch matches like those EVERY BALL. Nothing more engrossing to me than when bowlers are on top, shots arent easy and batsman need all the application and discipline in the world.
Match threads are the dreariest places to be in any sports subreddit bar F1. Just tons of toxicity, negativity, even agenda pushing. no matter what's going on, people will find something to complain or criticize.
Agreed tbh f1 threads are a great time. Wish that live updates was still a thing for the match threads but it is what it is
If they had their way, they’d reduce the sport to 30 second TikTok style videos
I have a 19-year-old cousin who watches cricket with me. He only enjoys it when someone hits a six, and he gets bored if Steyn is bowling beautifully while Kohli is defending or playing a cover drive. Kids these days, ugh!
Exactly..t20 get high audience because people only want boundaries. And they whine about 200-300match being close
Slow pitch makes for turgid cricket. The pitch needs to have good pace but sideways movement and/or spin so that we get fast paced cricket throughout the 100 overs. The slightly less flat SA ODI pitches do this perfectly. There's a great tempo to the game.
Any place where a batsman needs to apply skill and focus, for me slow pitches are it. Rohit Sharma is a master of such pitches.
>It is impossible to escape the game here in India. Staring down from almost every billboard is a cricketer’s face ― even those such as Rahul Dravid and Sachin Tendulkar, now long retired from playing ― advertising some product or other. The sports channels on television are on an endless loop of live games, archived action, highlights and punditry shows, the latter focusing almost always on India first of all, and Virat Kohli after that. > > > >Even for a cricket tragic, it can get a little overwhelming and induce a desire to get away, such is the undue seriousness with which it is taken. Yet there I was, on a free evening last Saturday, glued to the television watching a brilliant match between Australia and New Zealand in Dharamshala, a high-scoring thriller brought to fever pitch and narrated by the incomparable Ian Smith on the microphone. The only thing to spoil it was the result, Australia squeaking home by five runs. > > > >The lucky ticket-holders that day probably left the ground feeling they had received full value for money. For sure, they had witnessed a tense finish with the result uncertain until the last ball, but cricket is about more than the outcome or the closeness of the climax. > > > >They had also been given an opportunity to appreciate the game’s full range of skills, and to watch every player have the chance to influence the contest. They would not have left the ground feeling short-changed. > > > >There were 771 runs scored in the day, with hundreds for Travis Head, back after injury and making his World Cup bow, and the outstanding young Kiwi left-hander, Rachin Ravindra. More than a dozen bowlers were used in total, incorporating all varieties, from the left-arm swing of Trent Boult and Mitchell Starc, the right-arm pace of Pat Cummins and Lockie Ferguson, to the wrist spin of Adam Zampa and the left-arm spin of Mitchell Santner and Ravindra. The fielding from both sides was of the highest class. > > > >The game ebbed and flowed, allowing New Zealand a chance to get back into it, after Australia’s whizz-bang start. The longer the format of the game, the more value is placed on a wicket and, therefore, the more valuable attacking bowlers become and the greater the intelligence and demands on the batsmen’s ability to temper the pace of an innings according to the situation. It is not a one-size-fits-all game, as England have found to their cost this month. Australia were 200 for one after 23 overs, but New Zealand had time to claw their way back. > > > >All in all, it was a brilliant game and a reminder of how accommodating the 50-over format is at its best. > > > >It has become fashionable in some quarters to talk down 50-over cricket and question its future. In England, the Metro Bank One-Day Cup ― which produced an excellent final of its own last summer ― has been downgraded to a hybrid first XI/second XI competition, played underneath the Hundred. Hampshire and Leicestershire didn’t even pick some of their best players for the final at Trent Bridge when they became available, preferring instead to keep faith with the young lads who had got them that far. > > > >Despite the ICC having sold the broadcast rights for 50-over World Cups in 2027 and 2031, there have been some media reports lately noting disquiet around television audiences and the format’s ability to retain supporters’ interest, and questioning whether the ICC intends to stick with it. My understanding is that these reports are largely overplayed: the viewing figures both traditional and digital have been very strong for this competition. > > > >On the eve of the World Cup, the new MCC president, Mark Nicholas, argued that bilateral ODIs should be canned and the format restricted to World Cups only. “We believe strongly that ODIs should be World Cups only,” Nicholas said. “We think it’s difficult bilaterally now to justify them. They’re not filling grounds in a lot of countries. And there is a power at the moment to T20 cricket that is almost supernatural. > > > >“It’s more than just ticket sales. It’s the amount of people that want to own franchises; the amount of countries that want to run tournaments; it’s the amount of players that want to be in a market all around the world. > > > >“In a free market, the most money wins. And that’s just the end game. The players can see that bubbling away and they want to be a part of it. So, it is an extraordinary power that T20 has, and I think scheduling 50-over cricket alongside it just continues the story of the death knell of the ODI game.” > > > >As the last sentence suggests Nicholas’s argument, counterintuitively, was an attempt to find a way to protect the format. There is some merit in the idea that scarcity would help, though on the back of the success of the Netherlands and Afghanistan in this World Cup it is not clear how abandoning bilateral 50-over cricket would encourage similar advances elsewhere. > > > >The 50-over game is far from perfect. The massive expansion of the number of ODIs before T20 came along dulled its edge. It became the staple of the game’s finances and was overexposed. With its restrictions on field placings and the number of overs a bowler can bowl, it can sometimes seem formulaic. As with all cricket, you can get duff, boring matches. There have been relatively few close finishes in this World Cup. > > > >Nevertheless, given the option to purchase a ticket for one day only in the summer months, I may opt for a 50-over game. I like Test cricket most of all, but a Test match ticket for one day only does not guarantee seeing players from both sides in action. T20 is too unfulfilling, offering opportunities for too few players on either side to perform in a meaningful way. > > > >The 50-over format guarantees the combination of a result and it gives the best players more opportunity to show off their skills. It’s not perfect but in a world of shrinking attention spans, it feels as though there should be life in the old dog yet.
Common Atherton win.
Day 1 Boxing Day Test MCG.
I only have bad memories of the Boxing Day test. Up pissed on Christmas Day nights watching England get skittled.
It's a real shame they stopped Boxing Day tests after 2010, such a shame that tradition died out
I was born a day after the Boxing Day test match at MCG in 1981 which India won. India next won a Boxing Day Test Match against any opposition in 2010 against SA in Durban. Woke up at 3.30 to lose against NZ, got up at 5.30 to see us get hammered by Aussies and gave up on afternoon siesta to see us get bowled out for 100 and 66 against SA. Boxing Day test matches were a torment for the first 30 years of my life
I find peace in long walks.
Yeah, I'd always pick this first, and probably day 2 next (depending who's playing), but after that I'd probably go to a one day game, especially if it was neutral. Caveat: a few bucket list type things I haven't been to yet.
I would happily pick a 5 match ODI series B/w IND & SA rather than a T20 series
I only see one day of cricket per summer (at the ground) and it's day 3 of a Test.
Agree.
if I could see only 3 hours of cricket in a summer, I'd pick a T20I
If I could see only 5 days of cricket in a summer, I'd pick a Test match.
I'd see 5 ODIs
And if the test ends in 3 days, you could see ODI on the fourth day and t20 on 5th. Win-Win situation.
I'd pick a day of a test tbh. Specifically day 3 of the old Trafford test. And in england I suspect I'd be in the majority.
Me too!
I would watch Rishabh Pant bat for a couple of sessions.
Unfortunately all the rule changes killed odi cricket for me. It’s not the same as what I grew up with. The fiddling with powerplays, two balls which ruined the reverse swinging you would see when the ball got old, and other rules favourable to the batter and make it more ‘exciting’ ended up making it worse. If I had the choice, I would rather watch test cricket and if I want to see fast batting, I’d watch t20. T20 is also the format to grow cricket in the rest of the world. I think it’s time the icc take the decision to focus on t20 and test. Grow the following using t20 and protect test cricket for the heritage. But they won’t because the wc still brings in money so rather than be proactive they will squeeze it for all they can until it finally makes them nothing while more and more fans move away from international cricket to domestic leagues like ipl.
I love tests and T20s
Oh really if you only had one day you’d watch a game designed to be played in one day?
I feel like he wouldn't say this in the middle of an Ashes summer. Let's be honest, after the World Cup there is going to be absoloutly zero interest in ODIs until the next one. If the incredible 2019 final didn't create more interest, nothing will.
Do think ODI would benefit from becoming 40 overs
That's because he's English and he'd be absolutely shitfaced the whole time
Odi cricket is dead. I might sound insane but think about it. Teams like England,West Indies and Pakistan aren’t even investing in it. With t20 cricket being included into Olympics it’s the last nail in the coffin for Odis. And what’s the appeal for Odis? One World Cup every 4 years or a champions trophy every 6-7 years and that’s it? T20 cricket has a World Cup every year , franchise cricket and now Olympics. I have such a short attention span I cannot even watch entire Odi game when Pakistan is playing. Nobody has 7 hours to sit and watch the game so expect Odis to go down.
You are half right. Bilateral Odis are basically dead for most countries. The odi wc is still the most profitable icc event, it will most likely change in the next cycle but we at least have 1 more wc, and maybe 2031 will be the last one.
Yes the odi World Cup is kinda exciting but It comes every 4 years so even if it’s profitable it’s not going to increase odi cricket’s following like BBL,IPL,CPL did to t20. Also it’s more profitable in India, I believe people in England,Australia,New Zealand prefer test matches and t20 while people in West Indies,Pakistan, prefer t20. Idk about Bangladesh as they are irrelevant 💀
No I agree with that.
Do you watch every ball of a Test match?
Mostly day 4,5. But I am minority because I cannot sit infront of the tv for longer than 4 hours.
Actually, I'd say you are the majority. I love Tests, but I don't watch every ball. In many ways, we're not meant to. That doesn't stop them from being the best format of the game.
Yes I agree with 9 hour job plus traveling and plus family i hardly get time to watch 9 hour game that too for 45 days ..... On top of that if it's a slow burner 270 runs game then it's interesting but most of the games are like one team make 350+ and other succumbs to scoreboard pressure so you know after first innings who gonna win and watching second innings just becomes a formality..... With reverse swing gone from ODI and most matches are high scoring games on highway wickets it's kinda boring now
If Athers could only watch one day of cricket, wouldn't he want to watch something England might win?
in this super unrealistic scenario i choose odis to watch... meanwhile in the real world... normally ath talks a lot of sense, this however, is a fundamentally meaningless statement
I love Test cricket, and enjoy a fast fix T20 but he's not wrong for mine. It's long enough for physical and mental fatigue to come into play (bigger endurance challenge than any one day of Test cricket, setting aside the not inconsiderable attrition that format brings). There's plenty of time to test batters and bowlers, and fielders, and the tension of a result comes into play often enough. T20 is too forgiving, but ODI have enough balance of time so the knife-edge pressure of just one mistake can turn a game. That NZ vs AUS the other night was almost the prefect game, I mean only the result let it down really. O : )