If you think about it, option (a) isn't particularly interesting. It would simply amount to the teams playing two T25 matches, with the winner being essentially the team that wins with a relatively bigger margin.
In what follows, we'll look at the possibilities with option (b). To reiterate, we are really talking of one 50-over innings split into two alternating halves. So it's still a 50-over ODI match in spirit.
Let me try to list some of the advantages (some of them have been already articulated before):
Those boring middle overs are eliminated. Losing the toss is less of a disadvantage. In a day-night game, both teams have a bit of the sun and a bit of the lights. The early match swing is therefore not such an advantage; likewise, the wet ball because of the dew is not such a disadvantage. If it rains after 50+15 = 65 overs are completed, there may not be a result in today's ODI game because the team batting second has played less than the minimum 20 overs. Television channels will love it because it'll still be a full day match and there will be more 'natural' breaks (instead of those dumb IPL2 breaks). Those ridiculous power plays will end, and we'll have simpler field-setting restrictions. If four balls are used, we'll have fewer situations requiring a ball change, we can offer batsmen a harder ball to hit and discourage ball tampering. I also believe that such games will throw up richer and more novel playing strategies, especially if ICC opens up a little more. The 'super sub' for instance was a good idea, and the mid-innings break now provides a good opportunity for substitution.
In fact, while it's currently fashionable to deride poor John Buchanan for everything, his idea of multiple substitutes was quite decent.
Scoring patterns in 25+25 over situations too could change with perhaps three high-scoring peaks instead of two. I see someone like Yusuf Pathan being a great gamble to take between overs 21 to 25.
this
Users
Comment
article