Once again, I'm at a loss

[enigma]

@Liquifier,

Completely agree with your assessment of the OD format, this day was going to come, in fact, I'm surprised it has taken as long as it has with, as you've observed, its "patterned" & predictable nature. I also think its days are numbered but more than the 2-inns-split that's being tried in Aus, I believe "5ives" will be a better format; it'll allow ICC to retain 50-overs a side as well as be more exciting for the spectators from start-to-finish due to the "head-to-head contest" it'll generate. It also significantly lessens the impact of the toss & thereby playing-conditions on the game's result as both sides swap batting/bowling every 10 overs; it'd pretty much neutralise the dew-factor, early seam-movement, etc & thereby gives both sides a fair chance & hence, lessen the number of one-sided games. Further, field-restrictions won't be needed anymore, the primary reason they were introduced in early 90s to bring excitement to the game but if people can see a "head-to-head contest" offered by "5ives" then "more runs = more excitement" attitude will be a thing of the past in limited-overs cricket & then we'll get to see some REAL cricket ie a contest between bat & ball. I believe MCC, CA & SuperSport have shown interest in it & some trials were going to be scheduled at lower levels, I hope the ICC are keeping an eye on it.

[Phylos Fett]

5ives? I've not heard of that? Linky?

[enigma]

What happened to your Google, mate? Anyway, here's the link to its website.

Another thing that I forgot to mention is that this format would allow us to get rid of the stupid D/L-system, since both teams bat alternately, in case the match is cut short, then the team which was ahead at the completion of the last split would win the match; further, there'd be bonus points for winning each split which'd come in handy when there're 3 or more teams playing in a tournament & 2 or more teams have the same number wins.

The best thing about it is that even though it is "radical" in a lot of ways but as it retains all the "traditional" aspects of the sport, it'd not only entertain most casual cricket-fans & newbies but even most of the hardcore "traditional" cricket-fans without alarming them in the way T20s do. ICC should definitely look into it as this could be a better tool for spreading cricket around the globe than T20s (I suppose T20s would be ideal if ICC were intending to popularise Baseball & not Cricket).

[Phylos Fett]

Interesting format. I'd have to watch a few games before I made a decision on it, I suppose, but it seems like they've put some thought into it. I wonder if Shaun Tait was part of the design process

[enigma]

I haven't seen it either but I think the actual "play" of such a format would be pretty much like the current 50-over games in the sense that good batting & good bowling would be generally rewarding & it won't be a slog-fest like the T20s & YET it'd be very exciting for the crowds to watch. What bothers me though is the fact that the idea hasn't picked up among the cricket-fans, in fact, a lot them don't even seem to know about it but I think it has a huge potential.

And you've made a very valid point, it'd definitely be a lot easier on the fast-bowlers as after every 10 overs of being in the field, they'll get to rest for the next 10; definitely a plus in this day & age, when so many fast-bowlers are struggling with injuries due to excessive cricket.

[Phylos Fett]

I think the points awarded per split win could make things interesting, as the batsmen will have to score runs constantly, and consistently to stay on top - might help eliminate the "dead overs" in the current 50-over game.