CricDigs Blogs

There was Test Cricket only in the past and was very popular. Stadiums used to be full and there used to be mad rush for tickets. People used to buy tickets with on money. Then came ODI, people comented adversely for this type cricket but it got popular with time because of the excitement involved and certain result. The game lost its technicality with ODI and scoring runs was the only aim, no matter how you score. The test cricket lost its charm. Then came the world cup of ODI and other tournaments of limited overs. The charm of 5 day cricket gone completely and stadiums started to be deserted. There was more money in ODI and Test cricket was thought waste of time by crickerers as well as spectators. It was natural phenamenon. Then came T20 Cricket and got popularity very soon and soon came T20 World Cup. Now everybody is worried about ODI and Test. In short there is confusion all over. Every player wants to play for money, it is natural, when whole world is after Money and ready to do anything for it.

What is the remedy to this problem????? The remedy should satisfy all sections of people, players and sposors.

My suggestion: The match/Contest should have a combination of all these forms of the game in one match. Like one game of 100 overs each, one game of 50 overs each and one game of 20 overs each. these to replace Test, ODI and T20. these games should be played one after other with proper breaks. the rules for 100 overs match should be designed and rules for 50 and 20 overs should be same as today. there are going to be in all 340 overs in a match which is less than 450 overs meant for 5 days test cricket. means this match can get completed definitely in 5 days. this will test the team and players in all forms of the game and the winner will be a genuine winner or allrounder winner.

The main question is how winner is to be decided???

Option1: on points: 5, 4,2 points respectively for 100,50,20 overs match winner. winner will be decided on max points scored.
Option2: on runs scored: match will be decided on total number of runs scored in all three matches together, the maximum the winner, the minimum the looser.

We can decide the Man of Match, man of each game etc as well as winner of each game and finally the winner of the match.

I hope everybody in cricket will like this idea and expect lots of comments. who knows ICC, one day will design the same thing.

One thing is certain, this is the time for change and change is the only stable thing in the universe.

BYE, enjoy cricket!

Schedule: Jul 31 to Aug 3 (10:00 GMT)

Teams & Venues:

Durham v Sussex
Chester-le-Street

Gloucestershire v Glamorgan
Bristol

Kent v Derby
Canterbury

Worcestershire v Warwicks
Worcester

Somerset v Notts
Taunton

Surrey v Leicestershire
The Oval

Lancashire v Yorkshire
Manchester

Middlesex v Northants
Lord’s

It took Graeme Swann’s bowling to provide England with the breakthrough after Australia chose to bat first in the 3rd Ashes Test Match at Edgbaston. It has to be said that the English bowling was mediocre during the initial 17 – 18 overs. For starters, nearly all the bowlers bowled too short, hardly ever enticing Katich or Watson to be invited on the frontfoot. This was surprising given the fact that it had rained so heavily during the hours just before the test match and everyone expected the ball to swing a lot. But then, to make the ball swing you would have to pitch it up and this clearly wasn’t the agenda of the England bowlers. Swann’s wicket too came more from a change of pace rather than having fooled the batsman or having spun the ball in any way. Even Shane Warne, as a commentator, stated that England were simply wasting the new ball, forgetting the fact that they won the second Ashes test match by making the Aussies batsmen play a lot more shots when they were new at the crease.

Australia were seriously worried about the form of their new-find Hughes and they did what everyone expected them to do — drop the young left-hander for the crucial third encounter against England in the ongoing Ashes 2009. This meant that Watson who has limited experience opening the innings and that too only in the ODIs was promoted at the top of the order. To the surprise of many folks, he didn’t look as out of place as it was imagined. He drove with a lot of confidence and barring a few rash attempted slashes outside the off-stump, Watson was like your regular test opener. He pounced upon the lose deliveries and looked equally good against the short ball, something that was bothering Hughes with Flintoff & Co. continuously digging the ball and making it rise under his helmet.

Well, it does seem so. Just take any commentary team around the globe that consists of cricket players from the earlier years and you would come across a common argument. Nearly each of them is repeating the same thing that T20 is offering just too much cash incentive to players to turn it down. Players like Flintoff and Gayle have been accused of priortizing T20 and tournaments like IPL over their national test match careers simply because a player can earn twice as much with half the effort. Even if this is true, then should only the players be blamed for it? Many cricket players realize that their career isn’t sure to be as long as some of the game’s legends and soon they would be relegated to playing for domestic sides. This is most true for those who have been fighting body injuries over an extended period. Rather than just blaming the players for falling to the greed of T20 shouldn’t the ICC be conducting some in-depth search into why so much, and I mean literally excessive, cash prizes and tournament bounties are being given away only at T20 tournaments. Why not raise the cash stakes for test match cricket too??

Nearly every cricket fan in England, even those who consider soccer their religion has his eyes fixed on the third test match of the historic Australia-England rivalry and it seems that all roads in are leading to Edgbaston. For starters, this is not a traditional venue for hosting Ashes test matches and this trend started only recently. Secondly, the pitch conditions could severely affect the chances of the side batting first. In fact, some local cricket experts here are so sure about the ball swinging during the first morning that they have bought tickets only for half the day for the opening morning’s session. The reason — they believe that if England are put into bat first, they will not survive for more than 40 overs or so, notwithstanding the fact that there is McGrath or even Brett Lee or for that matter, even Mitchell Johnson is hopelessly out-of-form. This combined with the ongoing debate over Flintoff’s decision to hiatus from test cricket and Andrew Strauss’s request that he should be consulted before English players are leased for the IPL are making things only more interesting.

Some bizarre opinions have been expressed over the last few days, in the world of international cricket. It would seem that all of a sudden, ODIs are being ridiculed by many former greats. Warnie has opined that only test match cricket and T20 should be counted as the principal forms of the game. Similarly, Wasim Akram has expressed his disgust with the manner in which the ODI game has failed to re-invest itself and therefore, is liable to perish soon. It seems that the common notion among many coaches too is that the ODIs are now being looked upon as the in-between format, combining elements of test and T20 cricket and therefore, have become too taxing for the players! To a certain extent, their opinions seem justified, considering the amazing popularity that T20 has received so far. However, shunning ODIs so suddenly seems like a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that scheduling all the three formats in a packed cricketing year is becoming increasingly difficult.

Justin Langer, the former Australian opener who recently went past The Don’s record for most first-class runs is planning to come back in the ongoing Ashes. Given the poor form of Hughes and the fact that the Aussies don’t have too many options in terms of opening batters, it may actually happen. However, Langer has categorically made it clear that he would have to be officially appointed as the opening bat for the rest of the test matches if the CAB wants him back. At the age of 38 this does seem like a bit too stretched to believe but then the Aussie selectors have been known to make some bizarre and brave choices and this one too might just happen. Langer is still pretty active in the Australian first class and the county scene and is among the top three run-getters until now, in 2008, in the domestic circuit. Given his excellent record against the Englishmen, Langer could well get a chance to play in another Ashes, albeit without his former partner, Matty Hayden.

The third, and in a large way the deciding, test match of the series is upon England and Australia. Both the teams are struggling to find the right combination for this crucial encounter. Australia realizes that a draw or a loss here would put them beyond the realm of having a reasonable chance to retain the coveted Ashes. For England, the problem has been compounded by the health of KP. I don’t say injury because it is more of a mental thing affecting his physical conditioning, right now. In all probability, Ian Bell would have to replace him and though Bell does look, like a good test match batsman, he doesn’t have half the flair that KP does. However, more than flair, what England wants right now is someone at Pietersen’s place to score runs, to strengthen the middle order. Australia on the other hand is facing problems with its openers. An interesting proposition has come up in the form of Watson who has opened the batting in the one-dayers and is a very useful bowler. Given Hughes susceptibility to the bouncing ball, Watson may walk into his boots.

Most of the cricket world wouldn’t even know that Chaminda Vaas, one of Sri Lanka’s most prolific cricketers, has retired from the game. In a way, this retirement too justifies the way he played the game. He never hogged the limelight like some of his contemporaries like Jayasuriya or Muralitharan. In a way, that makes sense too, since he never got to do what makes players grab all the attention these days — staged emotions on the field, unmatched talent like that of Murali or playing outrageous cricket shots. He is perhaps a rare kind of a cricketer who never courted any controversy in such a long career. And considering the fact that he carried the burden of Lanka’s bowling with Muralitharan for more than a decade, this seems a bit unbelievable now. Vaas kept on bowling until his right shoulder started wearing-away. He did try to re-invent himself as a slower, off-breakish bowler but I guess that type of bowling just isn’t suited to test match cricket.