| In June 2010, Cricket Australia proposed a 40-over | | | | slogging that many persons expect is not always the |
| one-day format for its domestic season. The ECB of | | | | case. The "Biffers" who just swipe at the ball tend to |
| England already have 40-over limited overs cricket, | | | | be worked out easily anyway. What splitting the |
| but Cricket Australia went a step further. Instead of | | | | innings does is effectively remove meandering middle |
| merely reducing the number of overs from 50 to 40 | | | | overs and add more context to the innings. |
| per innings, the Aussies suggested that the innings | | | | What the early naysayers did not realize was that |
| should be split into two 20-over innings. Initially, there | | | | Cricket Australia's proposal would bring balance to |
| was a mixed response from average cricket fans. | | | | limited overs cricket, particularly for day/night |
| What some uninformed fans did not realize was that | | | | fixtures. The toss would not be all-important if both |
| each side would bat with 10 wickets over 40-overs, | | | | sides get to bat in natural light and under lights. |
| but that the innings would be split so that the | | | | Having one side consume all of fifty overs before the |
| opponent could bat before the second round of 20 | | | | second team bats can make the toss more |
| overs. For instance, assume that Team A, batting | | | | important than it needs to be, particularly when dew |
| first, scores 120/4 off 20 overs. Team B, in their turn | | | | is a factor in some night games. |
| at the crease, scores 101/5. Batting second, Team A | | | | Reducing the overs by 20 overs overall, and allowing |
| has to resume from 120/4 to set the final target for | | | | both teams to bat can also make rain-affected or |
| Team B. When Team B begins their victory chase, | | | | interrupted games fairer by a better application of |
| they would start with just five wickets in hand. | | | | the Duckworth/Lewis method. Currently, 20 overs |
| Even before the English introduced T0 to cricket, | | | | per side constitute a one-day match. Therefore, if a |
| 50-over cricket was already on the wane. The main | | | | match is interrupted at the halfway point, it would |
| problem with 50-over cricket is that the middle overs | | | | not need to be abandoned but an outright result is |
| tend to be meandering. The ICC tried to improve this | | | | possible. |
| situation by allocating an extra five overs of a Power | | | | As far as I see, by giving your opponent a |
| Play (where more stringent field restrictions apply) | | | | first-innings and second-innings target, there would be |
| and giving the bowling team the option of taking their | | | | more excitement. In a sense, the game would be like |
| Power Play anytime after the 10th over has finished. | | | | a mini-Test, with four innings, the only difference |
| However, this has only made a marginal difference, | | | | being that ten wickets have to last through both |
| since teams use their Power Plays predictably. | | | | innings for one team. In the 50-over format, if one |
| Some cricket pundits suggested splitting the innings in | | | | team is mounting a huge score, you have to wait on |
| the manner that Cricket Australia proposed before. | | | | the opponent's response many overs later. With |
| This would not make one-day cricket more like T20 | | | | Cricket Australia's proposal, there might be more of |
| cricket. In any event, proper analysis of T20 games | | | | an ebb and flow to one-day cricket. Ultimately, this is |
| shows that batsmen need proper technique to | | | | worth a try because in the eyes of many cricket |
| succeed in this form of the game. The uneducated | | | | fans, one-day cricket needs revamping. |