Mindless suggestion...I love the current ODI format..and I request ICC to leave it as it is...

Its time something is done to ODIs. Champions trophy final looks like eating salad and not steak or biryani. Two innings ODIs may be a way to go. Try something welll before ODIs are dead and gone.

I think its a brilliant idea and very fascinating to imagine the likes of dravid, jacques or yousaf to come in at 21st over and have to face the compulsory powerplay. Moreover it definitely would to a certain extent neutralise the effect of winning the toss.
I think it will open up a new phase in ODIs and would be much more entertaining looking how teams plan to cope with each set of its innings.

It is a nice innovative idea. To off-set the toss advantage, the team losing the toss should be given the chance to choose batting or fielding first in the second innings.

Completely agree with the points laid out. Especially the keeping to a 20-30 over scheme as opposed to a 20-20.

T he key right now with this proposed format is to ensure it is not interpreted as two games of 20/20 cricket which is what some interpreted Tendulkars comments as meaning. At the moment a lot of people think that may be the future, with each team therefore having 20 wickets each, but hopefully that is not what will happen.

There is a lot of talk about changing the 50 over ODI game to perhaps 40 overs a side , which is definitely one option. However, your suggestion is not 4 innings but 4 segments. I definitely would not support 4 innings and nor would you so I suggest you change the blog to 2 innings per side of 4 “SEGMENTS” or quarters. I like your idea of 20 overs per side for first half in order to take care of D/L. This format means that conditions in the light and wicket are similar for both sides. One benefit would be that it would shorten one-sided games and if the game is rain affected one has more of a chance of getting a result fairly with less need to refer to D/L. Also, whilst considering this concept why not have the two teams bowl their first segments of 20 overs from one end (batsmen change around at end of every over) and then the teams bowl from the other end for the last two segments of 30 overs per side? This would speed up the game I think as the fielders would get into position quicker. We might not even need lots of gimmicky powerplays with this format. One last change - allow two bowlers per side bowl maximum of 15 overs each throughout the game in order to balance bat and ball a tad more.

I was in favour of the 25/25 format, but i agree that a 20/30 format would be even better. Especially when one considers that the odds of a result would be higher in the case of inclement weather.

i totally agree with this innovative thought,it will definitely regenerate intrest in one day games.currently if u ask me i hav just intrest in 20-20 games or test match series like ashes or test match series b/w sa nd aus.test cricket is ultimate test of crickters,it should be left as such for ever but we can try innovative ideas in one day format to regenerate intrest of one day games in cricket fans

I came up with this idea about six months ago, before Sachin made it public. I proposed it to Shane Warne at one of the Rajasthan Royal dinners and he didnt think it was a great idea! I think it really is...

It would be fun to have a 4 * 25 format as good batters would get two chances on a single day.

I dont know why do we need to change the ODI format? Out of 100 only 5 or 6 matches get disrupted due to rain. For that we dont have to change the whole format of the game.

and by the way, ODI is boring or said to boring because each and every rule favors batsman. When ball is reversing, you change the ball. You prepare batting paradises with no supports for bowlers after knowing that there is shortage of quality bowlers in contemporary cricket.

why 90s were great for ODI cricket? because we had world class bowlers in most of the teams and lesser batting heavens were prepared. Its not ODI format's fault that bowlers in todays are no good.

This will make ODI in to another bludgeonfest as 20-20s. If 4 innigs are used then number of batmen should be restricted for 6-7 (6 out = all out), while playing 11. Otherwise bowlers will be useless, and test cricket will further suffer.

Thanks to David Harvey for clarifying my intent - I'm definitely suggesting 4 "segments" instead of 4 innings. In other words, each team resumes on their score from the first session. I definitely do not favour 4 different innings where everything just starts again - that's just another version of a longer T20 game that goes all day. I can't see much point in that if we're trying to find new ways to regenerate the 50 over concept.
Another point to consider: when do we take the second new ball? What about in the 25th over? That will teach middle order batsman to cope with a new set of skills and will also bring spinners into the game a bit earlier and later.

The only addition I would make to the proposal, Michael, would be to award first innings points to the team leading in the first innings. That will add a further layer of strategy to the game because teams have to decide whether to chase down a first innings total and claim first innings points, risking wickets in the process, or play conservatively, concede first innings points, keep wickets in hand, and go for the outright in the second innings.

Two points for a first innings win, four points for an outright, and six if you win both first innings and outright.

I am a native born American who just recently found the game of cricket. It is the ODI game that I have fallen in love with. The first cricket I ever saw was the last Asia cup. Test matches are to long for me. I lose the plot after the first day or two. T20 is a game of offense over defense and has no strategy that is apparent other than bash as fast as you can. I love the middle over than everybody else seems to hate. It is a true contest where a small thing like when to take singles makes all the difference. The middle also sets the stage for the end. Who has the advantage? Is the game going to be close? All of this is decided in the middle. I hope it stays as it is.

What a stupid reason you give for ur Idea of 2x20 followed by 2x30, That it will allow the toss wining team to draw some advantage. But its only opposite to what should be needed. Toss should not give any advantage in any type of game and the result should purely reflect a teams qualities. In any game, if there were not some choices to make to begin with, then nobody will like to toss. Thats what is best in football, that toss counts near to nothing and in cricket tosses decied matches.

i think that 25-25 wid 4 innings will be great but batsmen should resume their score from where they left with the same ball.other wise it ll be a complete failure

I think Michael Jeh's idea of 4 session 100 over cricket is a great idea. I would recommend the following:
* One innings per team (10 wickets), with 2 sessions per innings.
* Innings split 20 overs first session, 30 overs second session (like Michael said).
* Team with more runs at half way point decides which team bats next session (ie: A 20, B 20, A 30, B 30 or A 20, B 20, B 30, A 30).
* Batsmen at halfway point are counted same as "Retired Hurt" batsmen. Thus, batting captain in 2nd session can decide which of the remaining batsmen comes out to bat (eg: 4 down, 7 batsmen to choose from).
* Points per game: Win 4, Tie/no result 2, Loss 0. 1 bonus point for first innings lead.

I couldn't agree any less

I feel if we need to go for any innovation in cricket esp. one dayers, ICC should make it to best of 3 matches with 15 over innings per game. That makes it 45 overs per side and the change over time. Players get chances to assess the pitch conditions as well as it could be the overall total that would decide the fate of the game. Again it could be 5 or seven wickets per side that can be consumed per innings and the pool of 14 players could be rotated throughout the match but needs to be finalized before every sub-match.

I feel if we need to go for any innovation in cricket esp. one dayers, ICC should make it to best of 3 matches with 15 over innings per game. That makes it 45 overs per side and the change over time. Players get chances to assess the pitch conditions as well as it could be the overall total that would decide the fate of the game. Again it could be 5 or seven wickets per side that can be consumed per innings and the pool of 14 players could be rotated throughout the match but needs to be finalized before every sub-match.

I'm definitely in favour of a 20/30 split in the innings. The level of intrigue it would bring to the 50-over game is very exciting with all the variations in the way a single game could pan out. Also, I think the result of most ODI games is too dependant on the toss, another thing the revised format would counter. That a team carries on with their score from the first innings with the same number of wickets down is a must as it would really test the skills of the batsmen that must resume their innings and therefore needing to settle in again. Bowlers could take this opportunity to get rid of a settled batsman. Anything that makes life a little harder for batsmen but still brings shotplay is good. I reslly hope the ICC looks into this. How about a few trial games at domestic level to see what's what.

I think the format should be kept as it is and 20-20 is not a game but fun.

I've been trying to get people to think of 2 day 100 over games with 50 overs each day. But to make that work, I'd have an extra twist, once a team is all out the result is then determined by the last time that the two teams had the same number of wickets down! This would mean a team way behind would have to attack WITH THE BALL, and a batting team might take the risky strategy of defending wickets. In this case you might say once a team is three wickets down this last equal wicket rule might be invoked. (Example Team A at 30 overs 2-160 team B 6-120, Team B ends up 6-250 team A 9-300, but Team A was 7-240 and loses. (At the end of Team B's innings Team A must desperately try to pick up wickets).

I would also have either a second toss for the second innings, or the order of the teams reversed for the second day (not so important in this case I guess).

Sharath,
goog point - I agree entirely - but of course that won't work for single game finals.

What would happen if a team is bowled out in first inning itself? or a team scores more than another team in less than 20 overs? Such things must also be taken into account

I have always thought of, as reason has, a two day limited overs test match of 50 overs per innings. I would keep it simple though where in essence the teams are only limited by overs but would include powerplays, declarations and follow-ons (if needed) and perhaps make some of them
day-night games with coloured clothing. The idea would be to try and blend tests, ODI's and 20/20's to give both the batsman and bowler an equal opportunity as well as guarantee of a result.

This is a pretty good proposal. This idea solves a lot of problems. Though, once in a while there will be situations where the game is decided before the second session. But that is really no different from the current ODI format so no harm done. Let the gamesmanship commence.

personally, i am against these formats of the game. no doubt t20 has brought in a new life to the game but if you watch it in a broader perspective, its the batsmen that favour the most out of such formats. i just think that cricket has started to become more of a batsman's game which it shouldnt because a team having top notch batting line up usually end up as winners. bowlers do not get the time to show their skills in their 5 overs spells. also, rightly said in the article that the all rounders would suffer the most from this kind of format. an all rounder batting in the first innings would bowl too and then resume his batting in the second innings. the result would be more injuries due to fitness problems.
i would just suggest that leave the game the way it is and try to enjoy the game!

This is a great idea, as it comes in a time ODI Cricket is on the slump. Despite talk about a Good Champions Trophy, the Champions trophy turned in to a flop. How many people would be watching the Aus-nz final. At such a time the concept of ''segements'' sounds really good. As we saw in Sri Lanka during the recent tri-series and also at Joburg and centurion the toss played a major part in the result. To reduce its effect would mean more competition, and that of course is what ODI truly need.
On the authors suggested format the 20-30 formula is certainly better than 25-25.Sounds fun...hope we get to see such a game in recent times...

can any one answer why test cricket is ultimate form of game??????????
its because its ultimate test of two teams.bangladesh has beaten australia in one day international,can thay do in test match???????
my point here is if we split odi format into 20/30,it will give teams more chance to come back in game,reduce toss factor nd by splitting of format into two sessions of 20/30 overs,concept of lead nd trail wil be introduced,which will take the excitement of odi cricket to new heights

no fielding restrictions, no limits on the overs a bowler can bowl make the rules as test cricket but with only 50 overs to b bowled n odi will be better than all the formats

I have been thinking similar thoughts to make test cricket more interesting. Since test cricket involves 450 overs, each side gets half, 125 the 1st & 100 in the 2nd innings. If the team batting 1st is doing well, it can borrow up to 25 overs from its 2nd innings. If the bowling team dismisses the batting team in less than 125 overs, it gets to keep the difference for itself (example team A is dismissed in 100 overs, team B gets 125+25 overs)without having to borrow from its 2nd innings. 3rd and 4th innings are similarly adjusted. In the case of a follow on, the team following on does not loose its overs to the other team, allowing for a repeat of the Ind-Aus match which Ind won after a follow on. Declerations allow the teams 2nd innings to borrow from 1st innings as long as up to 7 wickets have fallen, to minimize declerations to retain & carry over overs after 9 wickets have fallen. Penalty for slow over rate is team looses that many overs from its quota. Faster over rates add oves.

Continuing from my previous post because I went over 1000 characters..
We can always have more "rules" to build on this (rain delays,etc), but the idea is to keep things interesting at all stages while keeping the essence of test cricket over 5 days. This ensures we will have a result after 5 days. We can still have the possibility of a draw if 20 wickets do not fall after 225 overs, but it will be an exciting draw. The retaining of overs by the team following on is because it is possible for the team following on to dismiss the imposing team in less the its 100 overs in the 4th innings so the following on team needs that flexability in the 3rd innings. If it is dismissed again for less overs, the match is over, but if there is a fight back, then the team following on should not be handicapped.

sorry i failed astrophysics at school. any chance we could just play cricket

you cant knock the champions trophy just because the 2 teams that made the final werent the most supported! and i couldnt disagree more about the point made about winning the toss!!! since australia started its hot form in ODI's after the ashes, ponting/clarke have won maybe 3 tosses out of 13 between them and australia have 11 wins, 1 no result and 1 loss from that. how is the toss deciding the match??? this just proves if the team is good enough on the day they can win regardless of when they bat! ODIs and its 40 year history are great the way they are, just because england suck at the format (1 semi finals apperance aside) doesnt mean the format is wrong! it means englands domestic format is wrong! what if soccer had the same attitude? well brazil is just too good 4 us so lets change it from 90 min matches to just 2 sets of penalty shoot outs to make it more even!!! i dont even need to start on where that is going wrong, so why is it any different in cricket!

Splitting up the 50 over innings is a ridiculous idea. The major gripe about ODIs is the middle 'boring' overs. By splitting the innings you may induce a safety approach at the closure of the 1st innings, negating any forward momentum either side may have established.
The beauty of ODIs is that they represent a condensed Test match; they allow for an innings to be built and for bowling sides to establish pressure. By splitting the innings both of these would be lost to some extent.
As for the advantage conveyed by the toss, it's no different to Test matches where the toss often decides victory; tragic collapses & great victories are often decided on 5th day turning sub-continent pitches and 1st day green seaming pitches. The toss is an intrinsic part of the game and should remain so, anyway, it didn't seem to help Eng in their recent series!

cont...If changes are needed, make it 40 overs and ban 5/7 match series, that is just ridiculous. Vettori has it spot on, reduce 'meaningless' games and each game will increase in importance.
Ideally, I would like to see T20 & ODIs as part of a bi-annual Test Championship structure for the top EIGHT teams (relegate Zim & Bang to a 2nd tier). Teams could play each other in a 3 test series (5 for Ashes if wanted) supported by 3xODIs and 2xT20s. Each team would have 4 series per year (2 @ home, 2 away); 12 tests, 12 odis, 8 T20. I don't think that schedule is too hectic for the modern cricketer and some relevancy would be brought into each series. Each game would then award points to a 'real' ICC rankings system that would determine seeding for world tournaments.
This Champions Trophy has been a success because of the tight schedule and the number of games played, each game was important meaning the most consistent teams profited as they should.

I would think a better idea would be to reduce this format to 40 overs and to have twelve players per side. The twelfth player would be an extra batsman who doesn't bowl or field. The reduced overs and extra batsman would allow teams to go harder to achieve a sizable target.

This certainly seems like a good idea to rejuvenate ODI. ODI has become too predictable and is facing a great competition from T20. Some innovation like the one pointed out is a good way to go. It would definitely make the came more competitive and give ODI the X-factor it requires over T20.

Basically, the idea seems to be a much shorter version of test cricket. Two innings per team.I think each innings should last 25 overs.The D/L method can still be used after the first 20 overs if required.25 overs/innings format will allow teams to have proper break(lunch), which should be shortened to 30 minutes and innings breaks should not be more than 10 minutes.It will be like test matches with packed action just in one day and more interesting because teams will be constantly thinking strategies and be on their feet at all times.I think we will also see more runs scored as well on pure batting tracks.Bowlers are likely to improve too just as they did in T20 after 2007 world cup.Maybe allow one or to bowlers 12 overs max. for the match instead of 10. If a team can have 6,7,8 bowlers, why can they not be allowed to have their best bowlers bowling 12 overs. I think 15 overs per bowler might be a bit too much.Wat say you? Go ODI new format!!!

Everything sounds exciting and interesting at first. Of course the suggested format brings with it all that but we need to try it out for a period oftime. It follows rules made for baseball but since it brings innovation 'thinking out of the box', it might be good for the game. Anyway, who said change is widely accepted. It would take some time for us Indians to accept the change but it might be good.

Rehan (and others), let me repeat that I'm not suggesting 4 separate innings. My idea was to still bat for 50 overs with only 10 wickets per team but to split it up into two segments. If a team is 2/85 after 20 overs, they resume on that score with the not out batsmen. There have been some interesting variations on that theme so thanks for the input from everyone, even those who disagreed.

Ridiculous idea! If you saying that you should split the innings so the toss is less important, then surely each team should bat for 45 overs on the 1st day of a test to make the most of the wicket at its flattest. It will also make the 15-20 overs boring to protect wickets for the next innings. People are over-complicating the problems of 50 over cricket. There no need to split the innings, use 12 players (which has already been done once), no fielding restrictions etc. 40 overs is the way to go with 20 overs of powerplay, this will just reduced the amount of boring middle overs and from watching 40 over county cricket, teams tend to attack more through the middle overs and often score 280-300 which is then knocked off.

do we have to make a simple game of cricket more complicated.natural attrition if odi dont pull crowds well so be it.let 20/20 take over.i like ODI's but my criticism is you can score 200 in 20 overs then in 50 overs they score 200 aswell.i realise there are different things happening in all games.but to the average spectator who does not watch alot of cricket and they can see just as much action in 60 overs less they will watch 20/20 any day

The only problem with one day cricket is there is too much of it played.

The people who were fans of ODI and Test cricket 10 years ago still are. Now there are twice as many fixtures, but people don't have the money to attend 2x the games, so you need to double the fan base to cater for it.

This creates a problem because the market does not exist for more ODI's or tests due to their length - they are for the cricket purist only.

Why not leave one day cricket and test cricket alone in terms of structure. No purist wants a 2x20 over innings game - 20/20 takes care of the hit and giggle format.

People talk about ensuring there is not too much 20/20. I would have the same number of tests, less ODI's and MORE 20/20 in the schedule. 20/20 is the format for the masses - it will draw the crowds and pay the bills, leaving us purists to enjoy tests and ODI's in peace without all this idiotic talk about multiple innings ODI matches!

I was surprised to hear about the 25 X 4 format for one day cricket and especially coming from Sachin. When 20 20 format came, i thought this was the format for the future and was thinking what is going to happen with 50 overs game and especially of the records of Sachin in that format. 44 centuries and still you want to change the format. I dont agree with it. Leave 50 overs matches as it is. You can reduce the games played or get teams like BAngladesh and Zimbabwe to play with other low ranked teams like Nethelands Scotland Afganistan and Nepal. It will be good for those country as well and also good for 50 overs games. This champions trophy proved why 50 overs cricket was boring earlier.

Leave ODIs alone, they are perfect the way they are. Splitting it will make it two T25 games which suck. I hate T20, has no meaning. Whoever came up with this idea to split ODIs is an epic fool. I want to see properly structured innings by batsmen not slog fests. Lowering Cricket to the slugfest bull that is baseball just to please the North American market is utter nonesense. This idea of making the ODI "fair" with 2 innings is rubbish too, you call wrong at toss that's your fault, if you are any good as a professional sporting team you will find a way around it. Sport mirrors life, why take out the unpredictability ? Want to make ODIS fun, take out the leg side lbw rule and the leg side wides and permit 3 bouncers per over. Lets see more even contests where bowlers are not cannon fodder, like the recent Champions Trophy.

I will tell you why splitting the ODI games into 4 innings is a very bad idea. Don't let the relative success of teh Champions Trophy fool you. ODIs need to be single innings of 40 overs each.

50 over a side (whether it is 1 innings each or 2) is far too long. Splitting the innings will elongate the games even further. These days not many people want be at the ground for some 8-9 hours in totality.

2) Splitting it into 2 innings each means you are in effect having 4 20-20 matches within one. This will result in way too much of this type of cricket and result in waning support for the real 20-20 games, which has been a crowd puller both at the ground and TV, etc.

3) Here is the plan. Play a lot fewer ODI matches (40 overs a side) every year with more overs per hour so the game finishes in a much shorter time and shorten the mid-innings break.

It would seem that broadcasters and the grounds would like the 4 segment format as it would enable both viewers and those who would attend a match who work during the day the opportunity to see both sides bat and bowl if they are only able to view or attend the "second half" of the match.

I think it's time we get back to the basics. Cricket matches should be played until everyone is out, and there should be no boundaries and no limits in time, and every run scored should be run. Just because someone can hit a ball over the rope doesn't mean that that person has to get six easy runs. There should be four stumps as well. Three is just not enough to keep batsmen at bay. Bowlers should be given an advantage.

Let the format be what it is.
No need to change at all.
One day cricket is not only about top order batsman's game. Never understimate the contribution from lower order also. Look Russel Arnold for example. If it would be 20 and 30 overs then only the top order batsmen would be benefited. So the idea to break innings is just not good at all.

Its a good innovative idea...but it all depends on the crowds response...and in a country like India where cricket is more than a game would be best to have innovations...but i would say that its not better to change ODIs completely but to introduce this concept as a new one and look out for the response from other parts of the world where now a days cricket is just nothing for them...like it happened for IPL or T20 cricket...where in they introduced by keeping ODIs as it is...and with the response of audience they are now introducing more of T20s as compared to before...so i would suggest that not to stop ODIs but just to conduct the new concept and look out for the response around the world and based on that one would be in a situation whether to be carried this innovation further or not....afterall cricket is for entertainment sport and why one should not introduce new concept if the crowd loves....

Valid points by the author and some interesting comments. But the problem is those who make the decision do not read these blogs and they will do whatever they want.

Interesting idea. I suppose the final overs of the first 20 could be rather dull, as the batting team know they have to come out for another 30 so can't go all out hitting. But perhaps this is offset by the 20 overs finishes quickly.

I would like to see some more simple changes to ODIs first (eg no max bowling overs, just min 5 bowlers bowl 5 overs each) before we try more radical changes like this.

What surprises me about the current ODI format is that 90% of the captains save their batting powerplay for overs 45-50. That is unbelievable.
They just don't have the guts to take it earlier, when the other team's best bowlers are NOT bowling at the death. And it is done with all rounders, bowlers at the wicket, not recognized batsmen. This power play nonsense has to end, since no one seems to know how to utilize it, except to use it as a desperation move.

For popularity, simplify..not complicate..

How about removing all these needless rules like powerplay, ball change, etc. and try simplifying the game for the n00bs..

A straightforward 15-overs-per-innings format would do fine, thank you!

ODI shall be split into 4 segments each per team.
A1,A2,A3,A4 and B1,B2,B3,B4 of 12 overs each.Game will be A1,B1,A2,B2 and after break B3,A3,B4,A4. No power play, field restriction and bowling restriction. This gives even advantage to both teams and easier for D/L calculation also. No first innings point is required.
As for as toss is concerned, no toss is required and deciding option shall be in rotation thus neutralising toss advantage/ disadvantage. Drinks along with change over will save time.