What changes would YOU make to the ODI game?

The ICC has been criticized heavily ( rightly so) for the SuperSub rule. But there is a school of thought that says atleast its a change, and that the ODI game badly needed some sort of a facelift.

What amendments would YOU like to be made in the ODI game?

Personally, I would advocate the following:

1.)Make the games 48 overs per side, and the max quota per bowler should be 12 overs.

Under the current rules, because teams need atleast 5 bowling options , and often for added security 6, we see too many selections of batsmen who can "turn their arm over" - and this brings the quality of bowling down. Under the proposed rule change, teams could field stronger bowling attacks, and genuine all-rounders would still hold their place.

2.)Fielding restrictions could apply for either 16 or 18 overs.

These could be in either 4 blocks of 4 overs, or 3 blocks of 6 overs. The opening 4/6 overs restriction would be mandatory, and after that it would be at the fielding captain's discretion when to apply the restrictions.

3.) 2 bouncers per over should be allowed

Lets get fast bowlers involved in ODI cricket again!

4.) Double-play

Make it possible for the fielding side to run both batsmen out. Could also take it a step further and allow the fielding side to run-out the non-striker after a successful appeal/dismissal against the striker eg. the batsman facing is out to a catch, and the fielder then runs out the non-striker who is in the middle of a run trying to cross over .

5) Free Hit

Borrowing this idea from the Twenty20 : allowing the batting team the chance to hit the ball anywhere without fear of dismissal(except run out) on the delivery following a no-ball.


I think these laws if introduced would even up the contest between bat and ball, which has been heavily biased towards batsmen in recent years and also make the game more interesting overall. Your ideas?

I think I'd rather have the game as it is than have those changes you mentioned, sorry.

What I would like changed is the following:

1. In a series, the toss of the first match determines who gets first choice of batting/fielding. For the next match, the other captain has first choice and it alternates from then on, so that the significance of winning the toss on the outcome of a match (and therefore series) is reduced significantly.

2. Get rid of sub rule

3. For the first 10 overs there are fielding restrictions. None for the second ten. Then again restrictions for the 3rd ten. Then one block of 5 overs to be chosen by the fielding captain between overs 30-50. This way we get the exciting initial 10 overs. Then between 10-20 we settle down again. Then between 20-30, when the game usually starts to get boring, we have another set of fielding restrictions. Then between 30-50 we have one more set of 5 overs of fielding restrictions to get thru. Given that most teams slog between 45 and 50, I would imagine a captain would prefer to slot in the 5 overs between overs 30 and 45. This would keep it interesting and would mean that half the game is played with restrictions. Perhaps the entire 25 overs could be chosen in blocks of 5 if that is preferred, but I think it would be better for the pacing of the batting innings if it was the way I outlined it above.

Totally agree with this. ICC must realise cricket isnt like other sports where u can just decide who does what over the toss of coin. The coin toss is every captains nightmare. On some instances it can win u the match on its own.

well i would like to inject a change called 'Last player chance.' people, who lived in Pakistan & played tape ball cricket here, must be aware of this. the rule is like, "when all the players get out & just one player left to be out, we allow him to play as long as he get out or inning ended (whichever comes first). but we implement one restriction on him i.e. the one remaining batsman will have to take a double run tobe counted as one run. i mean batsman must run to the bowling end & then come back to the batting end to complete 1 run."

i believe this is an interesting rule & should be implemented. this rule gives all the players a fair chance to bat. then a batsman will not have to worry alot if he is batting with the tail because even if all the other batsmen will get out even then he will have a chance to win the match for his team. this will also increase the number of wickets to be taken in an inning. i mean then the inning will end after 11 wickets fall instead of 10.

howzzat!!!!!!!!

Aneel

Why not go all the way and introduce the wearing of a pad on front leg only, tip and run, six and out, and compulsory retirement when you've scored 25!

agree 100%

I'd like the ICC to analyse those grounds where the result of day/night matches are basically decided upon who wins the toss. Day night matches should not happen at these grounds.

The problem with this idea, is that there is potential for collusion between the home captain and home groundsman. If the home captain knows he has the choice of whether to bat or bowl first, you might end up with some dodgy pitches.

At any rate, LOIs is meant to be a game of greater chance than Tests. In Tests it is very difficult for a lesser team to pull off an upset. As Gideon Haigh noted,

"When two apparently mismatched football teams meet, for example, there are many ways whereby, with close marking and defensive formations, the weaker can chip the stronger's advantages away. One-day cricket, too, tends to narrow differences between teams and even generates upsets, like Bangladesh beating Australia.

Test matches are not like that. They cannot be won by a freak goal against the run of play."