Sanjay Manjrekar’s line that ODI batting is “easy” sounds spicy, but it leans on an outdated picture of 50-over cricket. Modern ODIs are not a diluted Test; they’re a format with built-in pressures where batting success depends on repeated recalibration rather than one steady method.
Manjrekar’s core-point is that top-order batters find ODIs the most comfortable format because conditions and incentives favour run-making. That framing skips what ODIs uniquely demand: three different innings modes, ball-behaviour shifts, and scoreboard pressure that punishes even the smallest of misreads.
ODIs force more phase adjustments than any other format
In an uninterrupted ODI innings, fielding restrictions are split into three blocks: overs 1-10 (maximum 2 fielders outside the circle), overs 11-40 (maximum four), and overs 41-50 (maximum five).
That hard-wires gear changes into the innings. The powerplay rewards boundary access, but the cost of an early wicket is huge because it changes how safely you can cash in later. The middle 30 overs are the ODI control room: captains protect boundaries with pre-planned pockets and use ring fielders to stop the easy single. Then the last 10 overs demand a third skill-set: controlled hitting against the variations from the bowlers, with catchers stationed for mishits.
While Test batting asks you to solve one long puzzle, T20 cricket demands spontaneous thinking. ODI cricket asks you to solve three puzzles back-to-back, with different risk maths each time.
The ball rule makes late-innings batting less predictable
ODIs also have playing-condition quirks that change the exam mid-innings. The ICC’s recent tweak to the two-ball rule is a clear example: two new balls are used up to the end of the 34th over, then the fielding side chooses one of those balls to be used from both ends for overs 35-50.
For batters, that means the final phase is less of a guaranteed “same ball, same-response” finish. You may get a ball with different grip or wear than the one you have been timing at the other end. Good ODI batting is therefore not just shot-making; its reading behaviour and adjusting scoring options in real-time.
Higher scores don’t prove the format is easier
Another trap in the “easy” argument is equating scoring inflation with reduced difficulty. Higher par scores compress your margin for error. An innings that once counted as a stabilising 70 off 90 can now leave a side chasing acceleration later, when fields are set for it and bowlers are holding their best defensive weapons.
In that environment, the top order is balancing two opposing demands: preserve wickets and keep with a par that keeps rising. That double blind is format-specific pressure.
No close-in fielders is a false shortcut
Fielders placed close to the bat with the ball moving is a kind of danger, mostly relevant to Test cricket. ODIs replace that with the run-value pressure. Captains don’t need three slips to create dismissals if they can create dot balls in clusters and force a batter to manufacture boundaries into protected pockets. Defensive fields are often attacking fields: they are designed to tempt one release shot, with the catcher already waiting.
And ODIs punish misjudged tempo in a way T20 doesn’t. In a T20, a collapse can still be patched with a couple of 10-15 ball cameos. In an ODI, you have too many balls left for pure slogging to be a plan, but enough time for a steady rebuild like Tests. That middle territory is where innings die: the rate stalls, the required rate spikes, and shot selection becomes desperation rather than design.
So what’s the honest conclusion?
ODIs absolutely offer advantages to top-order batters – that is how the format is built. But advantage is not the same as ease. Modern ODI batting is a high-precision discipline: it demands phase-by-phase recalibration, a wide scoring toolkit, and constant decision making under rules that deliberately change the field and, increasingly, the ball’s behaviour.
ODIs actually expose one-dimensional batters. The best ODI innings look smooth because the adjustments are hidden. The difficult is in how often you have to make them – and how expensive it gets when you don’t.
