FFS, let's just call it baseball and be done with it

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/highfives-all-round-for-new-oneday-game-20111018-1lyte.html

'5ives Cricket, his baby, has a simple format. Team A bats for five overs then Team B bats for 10 overs, completing the first cycle with a bonus point at stake and throwing down the gauntlet for the next five-over cycle. Team A then bats for another 10 overs, and so on, until the 50 overs have been completed and the victor has emerged. Along the way, bonus points are given for every five-over burst, forcing captains to decide whether to go for the point or concentrate on overall position.'



If they are seriously proposing this then cricket really isn't cricket anymore.

The problem with 50 over cricket? There's too much meaningless stuff. The World Cup this year was pretty good, I thought.

Perhaps limit ODI series to three games, and always as an appetizer BEFORE a test series, rather than being series standing on their own, or after a test series. The last few ashes series, England and Australia have then played seven match ODI series AFTER the main event, and they were extremely flat and tedious.

Well 72% of 226 people in the sh!tty article poll liked the idea.

Is SMH a serious paper or is it a Sun style comic book?

Agree with Trev, whatever they are proposing isn't cricket, and not in the way 20/20 isn't cricket.

Like you say, seems more like baseball.

Baseball:



It's not a worry at all. This has as much chance to catch on as a goat-f*cking half-time show. The format suggested presumes that cricket fans are vapid child-like f*cktards who need their team to 'be close' to the other team - like chasing down an innings is some strange concept.

Maybe this is the sort of format that would make Yanks interested, it's doubtful any cricket-loving country is twattish enough to need such a game.

Furthering this, baseball is a boring bag of sh!t, I don't care what any Yankophile Aussies on here say.

Clamson wrote: (...)

Is SMH a serious paper or is it a Sun style comic book?

It's supposed to be the former. Its sister paper (the Sun Herald) is downmarket.

However, acc wiki:

The Sydney Morning Herald is historically credited with high standards of journalism; however, in recent years it has been criticised for declining standards, with an increased focus on gossip, large photographs and racier headlines.

Ah, cheers Allan, nice to get the lowdown.

No probs Zim.

Good comeback, skully.

Glad you liked it, Lags.

There's just no talking to you, Buckeroo.

Your talk's in the gutter, Harriet Potter.

Meh, I think the idea has merit, and is at least worth considering.

Is the idea that you only get 10 wickets? If so, it sucks. It might be interesting if you had 20 wickets ie everyone gets to bat twice.


My preferred alternative is to play a 40 over match with 2 innings of 20 runs each.

That way you can get the "thrills" of T20 but for a full day's cricket.

I read the article in the SMH this morning and thought it has more merit than t20 cricket has to claim being like cricket.

It's still 50 overs a side, but it removes the discrepancies between batting first and batting second. And given that at many (most?) venues with lights, whether you bat first or not is a major determining factor in the result, that's a good thing.

It seems fairer than the 2xt20 format.

And it gets rid of the Duckworth-Lewis method. Which is also a good thing.

On the downside is the name. 5ives Cricket. Really? And I'd question the need for 'bonus points' through the game, although that might be useful in tournaments as a tiebreaker.

Do the positives outweigh the negatives? To my mind, yes.

And PCS, one picture was fine, but please take your ADHD somewhere else, there's a good lad...

Aye, on reflection it's a f'awesome idea. I reckon there should be an organ playing throughout, maybe some bullsh!t tune that sounds like a kid is slapping the keys. The (20-stone average) crowd could all wear caps and have hotdogs thrown to them. Then the crowd can all go home and f*ck pigs and/or their sister-wives.

Back in your box Cletus, your gun fetish is showing...

fnck baseball!

I like the idea and would be open to seeing a trial. It's certainly more appealing than Twenty20 and may well be better than your average one-dayer.

There are two major problems with one-day cricket. The middle overs when teams just bundy off, and the lack of a contest when one team makes a really big or really low score first up. This format attempts to solve those problems.

Limited-overs cricket is by its very nature artificial. It imposes restraints on play which curb cricket's natural rythyms and potential for drama. The format of one-day cricket isn't sacred.

I also think we're kidding ourselves if we think there's nothing we can learn from baseball and other sports. The phrase "why don't we just play baseball and be done with it?" carries very little truck with me.

Who knows, this may turn out to be a steaming pile of junk. But the idea has potential, so I'd like to see it in practice before dismissing it.