I think there are two main reasons why, speaking for myself, ODIs are generally forgettable:

1. There are more of them!

2. ODIs are set up to hobble bowling attacks and make batting easier. Ajay Jadeja, Michael Bevan, Andrew Symonds, giants of the one-day game, were middling to not-good-enough Test players because ODIs with limits on the number of overs a Muralitharan or McGrath can bowl and the need to save runs allow batsmen vulnerable to pace or bounce or legspin to shield their inadequacies. You seldom see a batsmen being tested as he routinely is in a Test match by a demon bowler. Bowlers in ODIs are patsies which is why most ODIs have the durability of two-reel slapstick shorts. The batsman doesn’t have a proper foil and I think you need that for real drama.

I think the two forms should become more like one another. ODI bowling rules should be relaxed to allow bowlers to bowl for longer. Fielding restrictions should be limited to four in the circle right through the match. So away with the power plays altogether. Let ODI batsmen, specially opening batsmen, earn their runs. Similarly, the one-day wide rule should be applied to Test cricket and there ought to be an overs cap on Test match first innings to make sure teams don’t play for draws. I’d like a shorter and longer version of the same game. And please, no supersub.

Just when we thought the discussions have moved away from Saurav (bashing and defending), Mukul couldnot resist the temptation.

I hope, for the sake of the game, others would continue in the right vein and not fall in the trap.

I completely disagree with Mukul's observations regarding Jadeja, Symonds and Bevan. Maybe these guys didnot do as well in Tests but there are as many great test players who didnot do that well in ODIs. Why is Justin Langer not a part of the Australian ODI team? Why was Mark Taylor not as successful in ODIs as he was in tests? Why do we still have trouble accepting Laxman as a great ODI batsman? Surely, these guys must be lacking something which Jadeja, Symonds and Bevan don't when it comes to ODIs.

Mukul,

Mentioning the name Saurav in this article is going to clog the systems with responses.

Selection of Saurav IS one of the bad things that can happen to Cricket in India right now. My heart bleeds for the likes of Yuvraj and Kaif who give their everything to Cricket. I'm pretty much sure either of the two will have to give way for the uncanny Prince to help his selfish nature. Why should they be shoddily treated like this? If Saurav needs to be kept happy why cant they find him a "position" outside the team? I have not forgotten the services rendered by Saurav, he has been a master on his own and our eyes. He was a good leader, all of us need to keep in mind that "all good things must come to an end". Of all people Saurav should know this. On what grounds are they hoping to include Saurav? Past Records? Well, in that case why not we call Sunil Gavaskar or Dilip vengsarkar to play again? They have got wonderful records and statistics.

This is the kind of change Indian Cricket needs to go through. Talents should be recognised and rewarded, not people who are favorites of the big shots. If they want to keep an Individual happy why can't they form a team and give their "chums" massive responsibilities? Do they have to cut out off people are ozzing with talent waiting for a chance to prove themselves?

Come on BCCI stop playing these power games with the lives of budding cricketers. By doing this you are pulling the mat under your own feet.

Isaac,
Indonesia

I have been following this discussion closely and it has strangely transformed from one that deals with Indian Cricket to one that is currently dealing with Test Cricket vs Indian Cricket.

I will join the Saurav debate with just briefly. He deserved a chance to prove himself and I thought that he should have been included in the ODI team and not in the Test team. However his contributions should not be forgotten and he does not deserve to be dumped like how he was and so it is fair that he gets a proper farewell (if he does not perform). If as a result of this he starts scoring runs and becomes the "God of off side", that could be best thing to happen to Indian cricket.

I dont think the authors suggestion to improve test cricket are going to work. Placing an overs limit on test cricket kind of defeats the purpose. I will make a radical, counter intuitive suggestion for test cricket. Increase the length to 6 days instead of 5. Most of you now would start shouting at me and start gunning for now. But, I think by making a test run for 6 days makes a draw a non option. Hence all teams would have to play for a win. The best example of this came during the "Super Test" which was actually a 6 day match, but was over in 4. Taking the draw option would I believe make the matches so much exciting and attacking and as a result entertaining. It would also make the weather a non factor also leading to the happy option that the draw is taken out of the equation.

Now I will go and hide in some corner to save myself from the eggs and tomatoes.. :)

Ravi.

"The two forms should become more like one another". I am unable to recall anything I've read or heard in the last few years that I can agree more to. Both forms SHOULD be made to draw from the better aspects of each other. Ravi has made a nice comment about taking out the draw from the Tests though 'one Super Series match does not a policy make'.

Regarding ODI's, I was quite disappointed to see an anticipated change of present rule not suggested by the committee. I think at least 2 bowlers should be allowed to bowl 12 overs in ODI's. That automatically converts 4 of the easiest overs to 4 of the best overs to be faced by the opposition.

This change will also allow the inventive skippers to use each of their 2 best bowlers of the day in 3 effective spells, if need be. This would certainly have resulted in disappearance of 12-15 obscenely scored typical ODI runs from the inflating totals of modern ODI's.

As for Tests, a limited overs first innings is something I really root for. A detailed analysis of my take on required Test reforms can be read at: http://testmatchreforms.blogspot.com
All in all, spot on Mukul!

Its time to go Saurav Ganguly.. your time is up...your retirement at this present time would be a greater benefit to indian cricket then you keep playing...opposition teams want ganguly in the team as they would be playing 10 men...sorry to be harsh but the truth must be told...also if u are regarded as an all-rounder...then we might as give the opposing teams the trophy...enough said...."its time to go"

I have no idea why people hate the super-sub rule so much. I think it is a brilliant idea. It is an excellent opputunity for specialists who were being sidelined by these jack-of-all-trades ODI cricketers.

I mean i would like to watch a laxman bat but i don't care much for his fielding or bowling abilities. So, previously laxman couldn't be accomodated but now there is a possibility. Similar is the case with an ashish nehra kind of bowler for example. The super-sub rule is a boon for the genuine specialists in ODIs.

Maybe to point to a more recent scenario, you can look at gautam gambhir, venugopal rao & Murali karthik. Ideally i want to see gautam gambhir and venugopal rao bat and murali karthik bowl, but previously they did not merit a place in the team due to the specialist nature of their skill and we instead went for someone like robin singh or kanitkar. i would like to watch a karthik tieing kallis down anyday to a kanitkar sending down his stupid medium pacers and giving 4 runs an over.

I suppose the main reason Ganguly has been named as a batting allrounder is in order to ensure that there is no confusion in his role vis-a-vis VVS Laxman. Ganguly's slotting as a batting allrounder puts him in the same category as Yuvraj/Kaif, hence ensuring that the top five are confirmed, settled, and feel secure (especially Laxman, after what transpired in Zimbabwe). The only competition, then, would be for the number 6 spot, between Kaif, Yuvraj, and Ganguly himself.

Mukul started off his article with a mention of the different kinds of strategic thinking required in the two forms of the game. Wouldn't removing the overs-cap on a bowler take away some of the challenges the one-day game poses to the fielding captain in terms of tactics? Removal of the power plays would also have a similar effect. Until a few years back it was rather unthinkable for a fast bowler bowling with the fineleg within the circle and now we even see the third-man inside the circle. While I agree with the notion that test cricket demands a completely different vein of tactics from captains, putting a limitation on the number of overs a side faces in the first innings would only serve to dilute the influence superior/inferior tactics can have on a test match. Additionally test cricket sees more results than draws these days. In fact there are hardly any drws so that's the least of test match cricket's worries.

Well said Mukul again. Got most of it right. Couldn't agree more on the strategic intricacies of test match cricket.
However, why why touch upon Sourav issue again ? already we see the bashers & defenders in the few comments posted & am sure yet more to come.
One issue can't agree on is the limiting of the 1st innings overs. That would in most cases take away the follow-on scenarios. After all why are people so allergic about draws. Its the only game which has this unique result. Is winning & losing only things in life ? ultimately its a draw for most of the population by the time their judgement day comes.
In fact the only thing that needs to be done is to take the weather influenced draws out of the equation, and the authorities need to look at that. Draws have already lessened than the 80's & early 90's & run rates have increased as well as bowlers' strike rates, which means that positive cricket is the way today, though pace-bowling (the real decisive force in Test cricket) has declined from the yesteryears, sorry Glenn McGrath. One can't deny the influence that ODI cricket has had in these areas, apart from fielding standards.
Hence both will co-exist, as pop music does side by side with blues & jazz.

In ODI's Bowlers should be allowed 9 overs plus one over for every wicket taken. This would truly allow us to see the best of the best. Simple!

I beg to differ with Sreekanth's comment above. The specialists would get true value only if the supersub rule is modified further to declare the substitute AFTER the toss.

Under the present circumstances, if I were a captain not having the luxury of a few genuine all-rounders in my side and I also did not know whether I am destined to set a target or chase one after the toss, then I would have preferred this bits-n-pieces guy to be my supersub who is a mixed bag for either eventuality.

Making a pre-determination and taking a specialist is agamble that can pay-off handsomely if I keep making the correct call when the coin id thrown up. The 2nd ODI versus South Africa was a good case for this. Conversely, if the toss is lost the gamble may backfire badly like the 1st ODI versus the same team. The supersub was the same - a specialist batsman; but look how 10 Indians contributed in the first match and 12 in the second.

Both times Rahul & co. nominated a predetermined supersub, and thus depended heavily on fate for the result.

The powerplay rule was in my opinion amazing, when I heard there were going to be three sets of power plays...then I saw the breakdown of 10, 5 & 5, and I was really frustrated, the powerplays themselves are a great rule, but extending them by 5 overs seems ridicolous, I find this more annoying then even the super-sup role, which I believe wasn't a good idea but I can live with it. As far as Ganguly goes, as a huge Kaif supporter I can say that I hope Kaif plays in the test match, but in fairness to him, Ganguly deserves a chance, and I'd rather see Kaif fight his way onto the team (Admittedly he fought brilliantly against Australia, but in the end it doesn't seem to have been enough) and while me and my buddies will laugh at Ganguly being an all-rounder, maybe...just maybe, it may work? Maybe it would be like Dravid donning the gloves, an unlikeley but effective move? But yes, if he fails to perform in this test match, bring on Kaif. But until then he deserves one more chance.

Also in ODI's a Maiden Over should take 2 runs off the batting teams total!

Don't know what it is about Ganguly that he finds a place everywhere except the Indian side. Anyway, I am a firm believer that the drama of test cricket can never be upstaged by the whims and fancies of ODI's.I may sound like a self proclaimed connoisieur(sorry if I spelt it wrong) but I cannot see an ODI churning out absolute corkers like Chennai test between Ind and Aus in 2001.I take this match as an example as it had everything a cricket follower is looking for. It had domination of Austarlia , resurrection of India and heart stopping moments which can put ODI's to cleaners.Not to forget , it gave us a runless ,grinding period,very much part of test cricket, on third day as well.And all this unfolds in a teracherous , insidious way over a period of 5 days which keeps everyone's tabs on(at ;east mine). A limited version of cricket ,20-20 and all, provides a shortlived satiation but test match is truely and only for ages.Suggestions put forward by the writer are reasonable and can be tried for better.

The power play should be 5-5-5 as else it just becomes wild hitting.

Though i agree that test cricket has more strategic content, ODIs did revive tests and i would give anything to watch Jadeja smack sixes off Waqar ... (not so much intest cricket till KP came around)

I agree with Mukul Kesavan's proposal that ODI and Test cricket should be as close to each other as possible in format. My suggesions are :
1. Total duration of a Test match should ideally be a contest of 200 overs over 2 days.

2. Team 1 wins the the toss, bats till lunch on Day 1 or 50 overs. Team 2 bats the next 50 overs on Day 1.
Bonus points could be awarded for the first innings.
Day 2 : Team 1 bats for any duration between 25 and 50 overs. Captains can declare here. However, Team 2 can use these unused overs to score the remaining runs.
Team 2 knocks off the winning runs in 50+x overs, or fails to score the required runs in 50+x overs, in which case they lose.

If play on one of the days is lost, this becomes equivalent to an ODI. If both days of the match are rained off, we have a draw.

3. No field restrictions or power plays or restriction on bouncers. Restriction on no of overs bowled per over to be removed as well.
Only wides would be as per ODI format.

We have recently seen a big innovation in ODI cricket through Powerplays and Supersubs. These changes are fairly simple and easy to understand for common cricket fans.

Test cricket has changed a lot in the recent past and we see much higher number of results.

However, if a bonus point system has to be introduced it has to be very simple system, like the way a fielding side has to bowl a stipulated minimum number of overs per day, the batting side should also be required to get a certain number of runs within those overs or the bowling side will get the bonus points, so the batting side knows when they come out to field that they have to restrict the score to claim the equal bowling points to stay in contest.

Any complex point system could be dangerous to implement because a common spectators would not care to stretch their brains to understand the concept and it could easily loose interest.

KSINGH

My suggestion to the ODI format should be to bowl from one side for 5 overs. This is going to reduce the time it takes to play one innings significantly and would make the game of cricket more enticing for markets, such as, US and others. There is too much time wasted to switch sides after every over. If it takes 2 minutes to change sides, that is close to almost two hours of nothingness. Now if you can reduce those 2 hours from the 7 that it usually takes, the packaging of the ODI games gets very close to the 5 hour packaging that the majority of the new markets could be interested in.

This should be tried for ODI first, followed with the 20/20 and then the Test. I bet we are going to see a lot of more results in Test with the increase in the number of playing time! Its win win for everyone.

Basics of marketing. Focusing on mass marketing and packaging the right product through target marketing, results in market share.

I like the idea of 5 overs from one side. Thats got a lot of merit.

I thought the odi could be played in away so that teams and spectators have a kind of immediate sense of when their team is losing or winning. This is achieved by teams swapping roles at the loss of their 3rd and 6th wicket.

Ex:
India 3-87 16th over
NZ 3-101 19th over
India 6-198 39th over
NZ 5-255 50 overs
India requres to win 43 from their last 11 overs with 4 wickets remaing.

I got the idea from the worm comparison that the show during a match.

for more info checkout
www.freewebs.com/3inningscricket

I think a couple of people have pretty neat ideas in the above discussions:

1. (Angshuman) Being able to decide on the Supersub after the toss definitely makes a lot of sense. I think most people agree that the Supersub rule heavily favours the side winning the toss. This would hurt bits-and-pieces cricketers, but not genuine all-rounders.

2. (Zaman) I don't think anything significant is lost by having a certain number of overs being bowled from one end (at least not in ODIs and 20/20). It is indeed much easier and quicker for the batsmen to change ends than it is for the whole field to move around. However, this might not work well in Tests due to the dimension of spinners bowling in the rough.

I have nothing against the Powerplay rule, but a good idea I heard mentioned by a commentator in one of India's matches recently was that the batting team should be able to decide on taking one of the 5-over powerplays (before the 40th over), because at this point of time most teams seem to be finishing the powerplays by the 20th or 25th over. If there is concern about batting sides becoming even more dominant as a result of this, then maybe we can go back to 15 overs of field restrictions instead of 20.

Zaman has made an excellent suggestion. Only that we need to fix the "retaining the strike" problem then. What if we end up with an in-form batsman who's going over the ropes on every loose ball? He gets to keep the strike for 5 overs and the bowling team is done in. Forcing a change of batsman at the end of the over gives the bowling side a chance to attack the other batsman atleast and keep the pressure on.

Odi cricket beginz with starz and endz in a bar, where as test cricket begins with a day one and endz up with the dominating one.

Well what to say the new rulez which icc has applied on odi cricket are really useless. Why to change rulez every now and then, a new person who doesnt know abc of cricket if starts taking interenst in cricket and then gets to know that that rule has been changed, then with frustration or anything else, that new learner will definatly say bye bye to cricket.

and in other ways also odi cricket was just 50 over game and it was fine but impmlying super sub and thinz to odi cricket is making a complicated game itself.

infact icc should have implied these new substitution rulez in test cricket rather then odi cricket. The reason why i m saying this is because test cricket is a long 5 day game and u definately need substitutes in test if by chance ur key player gets injured and if ur key player gets injured on day 1 of a five day test match then it woulnt be good to replace him with subsitute.

so i think icc should work on it.

thanx

I am a student of Class X of Sanskrit School in New Delhi. It seems to me that no one is recognising the threat Western Sports, especially football, pose to cricket.

Already in my school, cricket has lost out to football. Everyone thinks cricket is boring and dull. Everyone wants to be a follower of Man U or Chelsea to be 'cool'. And this is just the begining. Slowly even the people who follow cricket are going to give up so that they can be assosciated with the influential group that is totally 'western' in behaviour and lifestyle. This explains why cricket is declining in the Metros.

What I fear is that, say 10 years later, after globalisation has reached even the smaller towns, Western sports might start dominating even those regions. In that case, no performance from the Indian Team will be able to save the game.

And these same kids will grow into adults and, thus, football will become a big market in India.

I sincerely hope the BCCI does something to modernize the game. May be Tewnty 20 is the way to go.

If Western Music can have such a big impact on the Indians, it is only a matter of time before the Sports do.

I can't believe what I've just read! Are people actually trying to suggest the number of overs a team can bat in an innings should be restricted? Please, for goodness sakes, don't give my any of this revolutionizing phobia. Test cricket is wonderful as it is. We've just had an absolutely astounding summer of cricket with the Ashes, and the England-Pakistan series is also turning out to be anything but boring, there is no reason or need what so ever for test cricket and one-day cricket to be made more similar. You want to experiment, go ahead, do whatever you want with 50 overs cricket, get rid of it altogether if you please, and make the next world cup a 20Twenty affair, I wouldn't be bothered one bit. But please keep you Mickey mouse ideas to where they belong - Pyjama cricket. Test cricket does not need any of this. It is perfectly great like it is now, riveting, exciting and very fulfilling to watch. No changes need at all.

Zainub
Sundries - http://www.bloxster.net/zainub

I cannot agree with the statement that a batsman in ODI's is not properly tested because bowlers have only 10 overs to bowl. The perception itself is wrong. The bowler is given 10 overs to test himself too. If he gets the wicket or restrict the batsman from scoring, the bowler passes, else the batsman passes. Its unfair to say Jadeja, bevan et al scored with part time bowlers. As someone in the list mentioned I would love to see a repeat of Jadeja smashing Waqar for sixers.

ODI & test matches test the players in their own way. test matches test physical capabilities more than one dayers and one dayers test the mental tactics. A cricketer is complete only when he can prove himself in both forms of the game.

And for the intriguing subject of Ganguly, he has been a legend in Indian cricket. If he is not performing well as captain, sack him as captain BUT NOT as a player. Day in and day out people like Mukul Kesavan and the media butchered him mentally. Ironic that instead of targeting the visting team's captain psycologically, our media targetted Sourav when pakistan came in. Its logical to think why that person got so depressed looking at his bashing every morning.

He is still a great player and 15000 runs, 34 centuries and 60 half centuries in 10 year career DEMANDS his return.

For people requesting Gavaskar/Vengsarkar back in Indian team, please be rational. Saurav is 32, those two are 50+.

I have a simple non-intrusive suggestion to even the ODI game a little bit.

Instead of adding things like powerplays and supersubs, let us "adaptively" increase the quota of a successful bowler by one over, for each wicket he takes.

So if McGrath can take 3 wickets in 10 overs, the skipper can give him an additional 3 overs. This should encourage teams to have incisive bowlers. At the same time, if a team is confident in its 3-4 top notch bowlers, it can comfortably go with great batsmen and not bother with the irritating dibbly-dobbly-touch-and-run crowd.

A suggestion to take care where the bowlers struggle to hold the ball.. what if we had the 1-day game in 2 innings? Team A bats first for 25 overs. Team B bats next for 25 and then the remaining part goes from where Team A left batting at the end of over 25. That way both the teams get a chance to check if they are able to hold the ball.. and get rid of the much talked about "dew factor". Wouldnt that be interesting to watch too? A smaller version of test match? 2 innings and much to calculate from the teams' perspective. Well, its just a thought.

The idea immediately above makes a lot of sense to me. It would help to reduce the dependence on the toss. The dependence on the toss is a major factor that detracts me and my friends in the US from cricket. If a team wins, it was a team effort, if it loses then the toss was a crucial factor. If the 'dew factor' is so important, why not let the teams decide the match on the toss itself?