The PlanetCricket View: O-D-mise

[PlanetCricket]

Article by Martin Jones -

One-legged, two-toed, victorious, and everything that is great about ODIs

There?s a lot of debate about the One Day International format and its role in the future of cricket. There are regular, excellent cricket matches in the format ? just look at the first Kiwi-England game recently that was concluded by a one-legged, two-toed Martin Guptill hobbling out to join his skipper for a thrilling run-chase. ?This clearly showed what the format still has to offer, and why we can?t simply change the rules and expect it all to be okay. We need to stop tinkering with ODIs in the same way that we?ve left Test and T20 cricket alone, let it develop its identity, stop questioning it.

The problem isn?t in the kind of cricket that?s being played, it?s in the amount. As England are traipsing around various Indian outposts in the midst of a seven-game ODI series that is long since lost, even the most hardened of Barmy Army supporters can be forgiven for feeling intense apathy. What ODIs need is a bit of prestige, prestige that has grown impotent in the way that a virus would be impotent against someone with the relevant vaccination.<spanid="more-4424"></span>

Once every four years, we have the World Cup. The next edition is set to be held in Oceania, and is expected to include fourteen teams in the style of the previous edition in the Subcontinent. It will be the first time since the inaugural two World Cups that the format has remained unchanged, and the 2015 was only kept from excluding the Associates by a deafening and unanimous outcry of displeasure from an entire global network of cricket fans. The ICC u-turned like a Conservative Minister. Should the 2015 tournament be as well received as its 2011 predecessor, will the ICC continue the paradox of culling the up-and-coming nations in search of a greater global impact? Would it yet again give a new face to cricket?s greatest celebrity?

Because if they want to save ODIs, they have to look at celebrity culture. If Rachel Weisz was in every film or TV show I ever turned on, I could possibly get bored of seeing her face, which would be devastating. If she went out and bought a new face, then would I even recognise her? I doubt it. So why should the ICC continue to force the 50-over format down our throats, and why should it keep changing the face of its greatest show-piece?

So, what I?m trying to say is that we need to cull meaningless One-Dayers. Bilateral series of no more than three matches would be fantastic, as would be a return to tri-series and quadrangular tournaments. Do not change the World Cup unless it is clearly broken. We need every match to keep its context. And the Champions? Trophy, very soon to start in England? Keep it. Give it the billing that it deserves: the best teams in the world playing against the best teams in the world and only the best teams in the world. Not a Budget World Cup, and not just another ODI tournament.



More...

 

[Aislabie]

Something tells me that the image didn't resize quite as expected

 

[Anish.]

Nor did the codes work out as you wanted it too .

 

[Aislabie]

Nor did the codes work out as you wanted it too .

Check the homepage - I think it went fine

 

[Anish.]

Yes it did .

 

[angryangy]

I think I'd sooner the bot posted a link and just used the forum for discussion. There's the obvious breaking the transfer of html, but just generally it is so much better to write in wordpress.

 

[Owzat]

ODIs still provide us with the greatest competition in cricket, the World Cup. Plenty of English and Aussies will argue the Ashes is a bigger deal, and to those two sides maybe (rightly or wrongly) it is, but the World Cup is the single competition that all countries would love to win.

I agree the format changing can be seen as a negative, the inevitable influence of TV and $$$$ on any sport, but it has had to adapt bnecause of the number of sides in the world. In 1987 the eight team World Cup still worked, just about, but in 1992 you had nine Test sides and while I liked that format and World Cup, it was devalued by the absence of minnows.

The arrival on the scene of Bangladesh as a Test nation further complicated matters, no longer were we dealing with seven Test nations as we were in 1987, but now there were TEN. Do you go with two big groups or four small ones? I think the experiments as with 2007 failed, TV and the ICC will have held an inquest afterwards because one key defeat in two groups saw India and Pakistan knocked out.

But the over-riding factor in ODIs that ruins it is money and TV controlling schedules. In the World Cup they have a "holy grail" of a round-robin with all the top sides playing out thrilling games. It's actually just overkill, accept that not every top side has to play every other top side to make a great tournament. In the regular continuous cycle that is Tests and tours they want to see more of what sells, even if the five and seven match ODI series that go with the Tests are often counter-productive. You can't guarantee it will be 1-0, 1-1, 1-2, 2-2, 2-3, 3-3, 4-3, it simply doesn't work like that.

Does that mean ODIs are a dying format? Of course not, plenty like to prophesise the demise of a format for whatever reason, perhaps they just can't cope with the idea there are three formats and have to nitpick "weaknesses" in one to whittle it down to two. For me T20s are naff, too quick, little tactic or finesse, just bowl and bat hoping that the other side caves or you can come out on top.

Ironically there probably is a far better format out there that we may never see, combining the tactics and restrictions of ODIs with the durable qualities required of Tests - an extended limited overs format. That could conceivably replace Tests, I doubt there'd be room for both and TV and the boards would probably not want it as they can sell more cricket with a five day match than say a 2-3 day match, even if the latter offers more.

Personally I think it would be great, even if only to see it trialled. Say 120 overs a side, bowlers limited to 24 overs each, fielding restrictions minimal and certainly no power plays - you'd get say three new balls to use as you see fit. You'd have to get the balance of batting and bowling right, needing 24 overs from a fifth bowler while wanting batting strength and depth. You'd not be able to race off as you'd need to bat what is a long time even in Tests, batting out your overs may prove more beneficial than a quick bash. And as it is over a longer period the game should stay alive a lot longer, assuming the pitch has been prepared to not do too much and remain good for batting while offering something to the bowlers.

That would truly test tactics, as long as batting first or bowling first didn't offer a major advantage. You'd have to bat phenomenally to bat someone out of the game, do captains go for wickets or containment? When do they go to their fifth bowler?

But while ODIs are the format for the major cricket competition then they are not likely to die out anytime soon, even if the $$$ of the IPL may beckon more and more. They'll just keep tinkering with the format of the competition and of the ODIs themselves to keep their paying customers. At the end of the day they just see you as a walking bag of their money waiting to be collected

 

[Epic]

I think everyone by now knows my stand on ODI cricket, to keep it nice, let's just say I don't like 'em.

----------

Ironically there probably is a far better format out there that we may never see, combining the tactics and restrictions of ODIs with the durable qualities required of Tests - an extended limited overs format. That could conceivably replace Tests, I doubt there'd be room for both and TV and the boards would probably not want it as they can sell more cricket with a five day match than say a 2-3 day match, even if the latter offers more.

Personally I think it would be great, even if only to see it trialled. Say 120 overs a side, bowlers limited to 24 overs each, fielding restrictions minimal and certainly no power plays - you'd get say three new balls to use as you see fit. You'd have to get the balance of batting and bowling right, needing 24 overs from a fifth bowler while wanting batting strength and depth. You'd not be able to race off as you'd need to bat what is a long time even in Tests, batting out your overs may prove more beneficial than a quick bash. And as it is over a longer period the game should stay alive a lot longer, assuming the pitch has been prepared to not do too much and remain good for batting while offering something to the bowlers.

That would truly test tactics, as long as batting first or bowling first didn't offer a major advantage. You'd have to bat phenomenally to bat someone out of the game, do captains go for wickets or containment? When do they go to their fifth bowler?

Interesting... I would watch it, but like you said, probably never going to happen.

But while ODIs are the format for the major cricket competition then they are not likely to die out anytime soon, even if the $$$ of the IPL may beckon more and more. They'll just keep tinkering with the format of the competition and of the ODIs themselves to keep their paying customers. At the end of the day they just see you as a walking bag of their money waiting to be collected

That shouldn't be the case come 2017.

 

[puddleduck]

Nice little piece. Enjoyed the general tone of it