If you took just this particular site as a narrow sample of all the cricketing comment available on the internet, it would still take you quite a while to collate all of the anti-one-day-international opinion.
Not that there is anything wrong with being opposed to the 50-over game, after all it will never be everybody’s cup of tea. But in the modern age there is substantially more negativity thrown its way than positive ramblings.
‘It’s too dull a game’, ‘the bat is too dominant’, ‘spectators aren’t interested’, ‘it isn’t Twenty20′ are all points which can be argued and none are necessarily wrong – certainly the last one in a literal sense – but I don’t buy into it.
One-day cricket has differing demands but is none the duller for that; the bat may be dominant but if you negate the ‘dullness’ then you’re leading directly to this; some spectators are interested are but unfortunately not enough; and no one-day cricket isn’t T20 and neither should it be.
ODI cricket has suffered from a couple of factors which far outweigh all others, namely those of saturation and the fixation with the shortest format. I’m no economics expert and I still can’t fathom why I chose to study the subject at school, but I do realise that when supply outstrips demand you have an issue.
The same trend will hit Twenty20 cricket if those doing the organising aren’t careful. Popularity now doesn’t guarantee the same in years to come, and there is enough evidence to bear this out.
But to turn the focus onto the World Cup, it has been refreshing to see healthy attendances in the majority of games and stadia fit to bursting in others.
I watched highlights of New Zealand against Sri Lanka from Wellington’s ‘Cake Tin’ a few weeks ago and if you paid to get in you would have had the choice of a few thousand seats. Fast forward to the other day when England showed up and there wasn’t the room to give the proverbial cat a 360-degree twirl.
The reason? Context.
Games that mean little in the greater scheme of things, especially when they’re coming on the back of others that have been of similar consequence, will not attract the attention of the masses.
The bastardisation of international cricket into a large and seemingly endlessly milkable cash cow can only result in diminishing returns, the scenario that is regularly played out the world over with no sign of cessation. But give the contests a reason and a tangible end result, and hey presto, an event that the public can, and will want to, get involved in.
It’s no different with the 20-over game. The Big Bash and IPL, competitions with a structure and purpose which are heavily promoted, get people through the gates.
Contrast this with the Champions League, a tacked-on, shallow, meaningless, uneven advertising and TV honeytrap which might as well be played on the moon for the number who deem it worthy of parting with their hard-earned.
It is why I find the calls to abolish ODI cricket premature. If it truly was on its death bed, would South Africa against India at the MCG pull in 90,000 punters? Would New Zealand versus Sri Lanka pack out Hagley Oval? Could England against Scotland, on the far side of the planet, draw a sizeable gathering? I won’t go on because the answer should be fairly apparent.
Those charged with doing the administrative work have plenty on their plate, and pleasing everybody is a close-on unattainable target, but if they could achieve one thing in the near future it should be to give the ODI its relevance back.
The four-yearly pivot of the World Cup is in place and the Champions Trophy, having been killed off, is back on the schedules. Two events with a trophy at the end and the ability to make or break coaches, captains and reputations.
Context really is everything. To slightly twist the words of Kevin Costner from Field of Dreams: “Build (apply) it and they will come.” Continue to ignore the obvious and they won’t.
Don Freo
Guest
I love it all. I don't care if a crowd doesn't turn up. It won't go broke. If it's cricket it's great. There just should be more games involving WA. That way, the world gets exposed to cricket at it's highest standard.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Or on the flip side, if they didn't qualify then that might be the catalyst for them improve the standard of their cricket. Considering their population, interest in cricket and the money they have their performances are woeful.
W4str3l
Roar Rookie
turning odis into quali matches for a world cup is no-go. imagine india missing out because they played poorly. 1.2b indians would burn the entire earth. be like brazil missing out on the football world cup
Hayden
Guest
12 Changes I would make to One Day Internationals: 1. Australia, New Zealand, India, England, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Pakistan Nations have Bilateral Test & ODI's Status 2. Make it 55 Overs a Side 3. No Power Plays 4. No Restrictions in the amount of Overs Bowled per Bowler 5. All Boundary Ropes to be pushed back to 2.5 meters before the fence 6. All Series to consist of either a 5 game series or 7 game triangular series 7. All Series squads must consist of 15 players with same regulations re World Cup re Replacements 8. All Series must consist of 2 warm up fixtures by visiting opponents 9. Champions Trophy to start as World Cup qualifiers with semi final winners to automatically qualify for World Cup 10. After Champions Trophy All ODI's will revert to World Cup Qualifiers including against non-bilateral opponents 11. Bilateral ODI's to resume once qualified for World Cup 12. 10 Teams to Qualify for World Cup.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Great point Rellum, this discussion around giving more context sounds like a great idea for ODI cricket. One thing that is so great about football is that because each continent has strong teams and lots of fans, they can run regional tournaments, which offers context to matches, to great success as well. Unfortunately for cricket this only really applies to Asia, but perhaps it is time to start looking at creating qualifying tournaments for all teams for the World Cup, which would at least give a little bit of context to certain games.
BBA
Guest
Is not the problem that the Cricket World Cup is meaningful, but the games played outside of it matter for little, there are too many of them and that rankings or very little else outside of them matter becasue they are structured poorly. Plus there is a closed shop for the Test playing nations that makes development for the Assoicates difficult. Dont know the solution but that to me are the problems.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Small rule changes we could introduce is using 2 piece balls and removing the bouncer limit(controversial know following the events of this season). Right now if you do bowl a bouncer early the batsmen basically knows what length the ball is coming and gives him to much of an advantage at time.
Johnno
Guest
I don't know what to do with ODI cricket. World cup soccer's luxury is it can have meaningful world cup qualifier's such is the depth. Associate nations have meaningful ODI world cup qualifiers but the wider sports fans, doesn't care just hard core cricket fans. Champion's trophy coming back is a good idea I suppose but then again it feels overkill. I'd like to see maybe a club ODI champion's league, like the popular T20 club champion's league, best T20 franchises from around the world having a showdown in India. Would it be such a bad thing if the the only ODI cricket we played at international level be the World cup every 4 years? Other than a few warm up matches pre-world cup I don't have a problem with that. If ODI's do stay beyond the WC, then cut it back to best of 3-series, or a 1 off game, best of 5 or 7 is was too looonnnngggg. The old world series triangular format is a waste of time and tired too. I'd like to see some rule changes brought in for ODI's and some extend to tests. -Scrap these modern bats sweet spots, and only allow 1990's bat models to be manufactured, technology is killing cricket turning it into a batters game, reign it in and go backwards not forwards, if cricket is to survive. I just can't believe how the modern day cricket fan is finding ODI totals of 300-350 fun, as opposed to 150-180,or 200. Are endless 4's and 6's that exciting and bowlers being used as cannon fodder? -I'd also bring in another rule for ODI's, I'd add the 12th man an extra fielder to field during innings, that will help cut down scoring. I'd give the bowling team the option to use a ball the whole 50 overs, as some teams want that for reverse swinging and allowing more spin on the ball, and have the ball rip up more helps the bowlers. -I'd allow 3 bouncers an over too, no power plays, and also have no field restrictions in the 1st 15 overs. All these things would reign in batters dominance and big hitters in ODI cricket, and bring back the return of Geoff Marsh style ODI batters or Dean Jones or Michael Bevan, or Javed Minded grafters who make there living out of holding an innings together or lots of singles. But the question I keep thinking is does the modern fan born 1990-onwards want a batter dominated game, as opposed to a bowler dominated game or even contest e.g. where 180 runs is a good score, I worry modern day fans want lots of runs, I like an even contest with not too many runs scored, and big runs only scored if the batter has played exceptionally.
Patrick Effeney
Editor
This is a good article Alec - one of the better reads on the state of one day cricket. We got greedy. Seven match series are the cashcow you're talking about - great for TV, but a terrible look, as no one goes. The problem for one day cricket is that it's almost always worth playing because of the number of people who watch it on telly, and who therefore see adds ALL DAY on their screens. It's great for that, but the more meaningful the contest, the less it have a bad look with empty stadia.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
I for one like 50 over cricket much more than T/20, for a number of reasons. It's longer; the contest it more even; it's more tactical; and, crucially, it has a better heritage. This last point (of which context is a part) means that people can really get emotionally involved in a game, and in the end, isn't that what it's all about.
Rellum
Roar Guru
I am been saying this for some time, there are far too many meaningless ODI's that are played. Test Cricket also can have this arguement labelled at it. Recent talk of all ODI's being part of a competition/have an effect for a future tournament is the way forward. The recent South Africa series was the most pointless collection of ODI's I can remember Australia playing give there was also a tri-series and a World cup in the same season. To make every ODI have weight there needs to be something on the line and up to this point that is rarely the case. I am personally in favour of an organised schedule of ODI's that leed into the World Cup.