Talk:One Day International

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Might be worth mentioning that some of the early ODIs (eg NZ v Eng 1974/75) were played as 35 8-ball overs. Loganberry (Talk) 01:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rules - ties[edit]

What's up with this text:

"If the number of runs scored by both teams are equal when the second team loses all of its wickets or exhausts all its overs, it shall get decided by Which team lost fewer wickets to reach the score, if no result, the team with the higher run rate at the start of the innings shall win, if still no result, the match then goes into a bowl off."

Every ODI I've seen, when both teams score the same runs, it's a tie. I've heard of the number of wickets being used to determine a winner (never seen it though); both teams would have a run rate of 0 at the start of the innings; and what on earth is a "bowl off"? BlueXR6Turbo

This info was only recently added to the article (diff). It contradicts the ODI laws on the ICC website, which state:

Law 21.3.1  If the scores are equal, the result shall be a tie and no account shall be taken of the number of wickets which have fallen.

I've reverted to the previous (accurate) wording. As for the "bowl off", I can only guess the editor was referring to a bowl-out. --Muchness 12:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a bowl off is similar the equivalent to a penalty shoot-out in football, each team chooses 5 bowlers to bowl at the stumps (no batsman) and who ever hits most wins. If it is a tie after 5 it goes to sudden death (this actually happened in a twenty20 last year)

ball change[edit]

How about mentioning the ball change in the 35th over rule. Is this a rule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.170.40 (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

This should be moved to 'One-day International' or 'One-Day International' if the rules of English are to be followed. Or simply 'ODI', if common usage is preferred ('odi' redirects here). I notice the direction to the women's version at the top has it correct - but it turns out to be a redirect! Rothorpe (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cricket World Cup trophy.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Cricket World Cup trophy.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fielding restrictions[edit]

The article is wrong. Fielding restrictions were not introduced in 1992. All the reference says is they were changed in 1992.

From memory: there was a game in which all English fielders, including the wicket keeper, fielded on the boundary during the last over. I think that was 1979-80, meaning the restrictions were introduced, in Australia at least, in 1980-81. There were certainly restrictions in 1980-81 because Australia had one too many fielders outside the circle during the infamous Underarm bowling incident of 1981. Adpete (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NCL Ranking[edit]

Basin acharya Babin Acharya1 (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

India 1 

Anilsjadhav (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on One Day International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting for Temporary Status List[edit]

As a result of current qualifier tournament, list of teams with temporary status is complex, can we make table for that? For Ex:

List
Rank Team From To Notes
1  Kenya 10 October 1997 30 January 2014
2  Ireland 13 June 2006 13 September 2017 Promoted to full status

H1007 (talk) 07:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, table makes more sense than an unformatted list. I'd add in a column or 2 to detail how / why the team gained / lost the status, even if this is just the name of the tournament where this happened. Spike 'em (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd remove the rank column and the contents of Notes could be merged with the other columns I mentioned. Spike 'em (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My attempt:
List
Team First ODI Qualification reason Status until Notes
 Scotland 27 June 2006 Won 2005 ICC Trophy 2022 WCQ Continued status following results in 2009, 2014 and 2018 WCQ
 United Arab Emirates 2nd at 2014 Cricket World Cup Qualifier 2022 WCQ Continued status following results in 2018 WCQ
 Netherlands Won 2015–17 World Cricket League 2022 WCQ [a] Also qualified for the inaugural ICC ODI League; Held ODI status from 2006 to 2014
   Nepal 8th at 2018 Cricket World Cup Qualifier 2022 WCQ
  1. ^ This is assumed as no details yet of how qualification for 2nd ODI League will work

So far, eight teams have held this temporary ODI status before either being promoted to Test status or relegated after failing to finish high enough at the World Cup Qualifier. This list includes Netherlands, who have subsequently regained ODI status:

Former ODI List
Team First ODI Qualification reason Last ODI Status until Notes
 Kenya 10 October 1997 30 January 2014 2014 WCQ Previously held permanent ODI status
 Canada 16 May 2006 3rd at 2005 ICC Trophy 28 January 2014 2014 WCQ
 Bermuda 17 May 2006 4th at 2005 ICC Trophy 8 April 2009 2009 WCQ
 Ireland 13 June 2006 2nd at 2005 ICC Trophy 13 September 2017 Promoted to Full-member 22 June 2017
 Netherlands 4 July 2006 5th at 2005 ICC Trophy 28 January 2014 2014 WCQ Regained ODI status, as above
 Afghanistan 5th at 2009 WCQ 14 June 2017 Promoted to Full-member 22 June 2017
 Hong Kong 1 May 2014 3rd at 2014 WCQ 17 March 2018 2018 WCQ
 Papua New Guinea 8 November 2014 4th at 2014 WCQ 17 March 2018 2018 WCQ
Spike 'em (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good. In former team list, Relegation reason can be added like Qualification reason. H1007 (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a bit more info to the Status until column. Any ideas on better column headings gratefully received, as I'm not sure mine are the best. Spike 'em (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is just a failure to update the numbers, but the Temporary ODI status section says that "the following four teams currently have this status", then lists six countries. It then says that so far eight teams have held this status before being promoted or demoted, but it lists seven. Not sure what is going on here, but something doesn't add up.50.37.125.12 (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe-Permanent ODI Status[edit]

How is starting date of Zimbabwe's permanent ODI status as 1-Feb-1992. They got Permanent Status in 1992. They made their test debut against India in 1992. They also played a ODI in that series on 25-Oct-1992. Should this not be the staring date? Shubham389 (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why NatWest Series in this Article[edit]

Why only NatWest Series in this Article? Sherifkk (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that its merged here from a deleted Article, But it looks irrelevant Here. Nominating to Delete this section from here. Sherifkk (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:One_Day_International&oldid=1194716268"