The great Mark Twain misquote reads, “Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated,” and I reckon one-day cricket must feel this way too, sometimes.
Twenty20 cricket was invented in England and first played at a first-class level in the northern summer of 2003.
Roughly three minutes after the completion of the first ever game, the first report of 50-over cricket’s demise was penned. Perhaps.
For a format on its death bed, one-day cricket has proved remarkably resilient to be still going 13 years later!
More cricket:
» The BBL’s Super Saturday: What you need to know
» Dhoni’s poor attitude is dragging India down
» It’s time to take a stand against fixers
» Can New Zealand’s violent batting destroy the world?
» Sri Lanka’s beach cricket heroes
Tuesday’s first ODI in Perth between Australia and India was intriguing for several reasons. For one, more than 90 overs had been bowled before we saw a sixth wicket fall. Australia lost two more in the last seven overs of the match, by the end of which cricket fans in the west were exiting the WACA having seen 8-619 for the day.
It’s no wonder India batted first.
Secondly, Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma’s second-wicket partnership of 207 in a losing game had me thinking it had to be a record. Turns out it wasn’t even close.
Kohli and Sharma’s stand was actually the 12th double century partnership in a losing game and comes in at number nine on the list. And for whatever it’s worth, nine of the 12 losing double hundred partnerships have come since 2000.
But it wasn’t even the highest partnership for the day, in the end. George Bailey and Steven Smith’s third-wicket partnership of 242 was narrowly pipped by Bailey’s ‘Floppy Gold’ as the highlight of the day.
Like Kohli and Sharma, Smith and Bailey came together very early in the innings. And all four batsmen were able to do something that would be very rare in limited-overs cricket if – as many believe is inevitable – the 50-over game went the way of the Thylacine of the Dodo.
They all built an innings.
Now if you’re thinking this is a familiar theme from me, you’d be right. And you need to blame Will Sinclair for its re-emergence. After the Smith-Bailey stand came to an end, Will made a poignant point on Twitter:
“That was masterful. Can’t believe people are complaining it was boring. Great stuff Smith and Bailey. Masterful,” he said.
“Considering they were two for rock-all, it’s an outstanding partnership of innings-building. What more could you want!” I returned.
Will: “It’s why ODIs remain superior to T20 at an international level – time to recover and build an innings.”
Me: “Might be time to revisit an article on this very topic I wrote a few seasons back…”
And so here we are.
Three years ago – nearly to the day – I made similar observations after Phillip Hughes made his second ODI century in just his fifth match, against Sri Lanka in Hobart. Less than a fortnight earlier, he’d made a century on ODI debut in Melbourne.
Of the Hobart innings, I wrote:
“Hughes’ own innings could neatly be broken up into three blocks. His first fifty was raised in 82 balls, the second fifty came at a neat run-a-ball as the confidence started coming back, and the last unbeaten 38 from just 22 deliveries.
“As far as one-day innings go, Hughes’ 138*… might even be as well compiled an Australian one-day innings in the last 12 months or so.”
And later: “Cricket Australia could do a lot worse than to put Hughes’ innings onto DVD and send it to every junior coach in the country. This innings, kids, is what you should be looking to emulate when you need to bat for any length of time.”
The Perth innings of Sharma, Kohli, Smith, and Bailey could all be viewed similarly. All four of them took their time to get set and steadily accelerated as the innings went on.
Sharma finished 171* from 163 balls, but his fifty came in 63 balls, and his century in 122. Kohli’s 97-ball 91 included a 61-ball fifty and a strike rate that hovered either side of 90 throughout. Smith and Bailey took 55 and 60 balls respectively to bring up their fifties, and Smith would be the only one of the four to raise a ton in less than 100 balls.
All four were just about the ideal one-day innings, and Sharma’s and Kohli’s certainly didn’t deserve a five-wicket loss.
Think about those four innings, and consider how those same scores would be made in a Twenty20 game.
Travis Head’s New Year’s Eve hundred was outstanding, but it was hardly subtle. He went at a run-a-ball to 24* and then just started picking balls to hit. On 45* from 38 balls, he went 4-6-4-6-6-1 to jump to 72* from 44.
From 83* from 50 balls he went 6-6-6 to win the game and raise his hundred in style from 53 balls. It was a well-clubbed innings, don’t get me wrong. And it certainly got the job done.
Usman Khawaja’s Big Bash League opening weekend ton for the Sydney Thunder will remain one of the knocks of the summer, and is actually one of the few ‘built’ T20 innings I can recall.
It featured a gradual acceleration, rather than sudden hyperspeed: 25* in 18 balls, 50* from 37, 77* from 51, to finish 103* from 66 balls. I’m sure the way he built that innings was a significant factor in him winning his ODI recall.
But would it happen if the 50-over format disappeared? I’d have extreme doubts.
Being able to bat for hours and building innings and partnerships – and indeed, bowling in partnerships to build pressure – is one of the great reasons the full one-day game is so enjoyable to watch. It’s an art that would become extinct without the great benefit of time that the 50-over format provides.
Twenty20 can be the cash cow and the place for the entertainers. But the one-day game will always remain the home of the craftsmen.
(And thanks, Will!)
Suneer Chowdhary
Roar Guru
Good article, Brett. ODI cricket isn't dead, at least looking at the numbers in the stadium or the TV ratings when it comes to even battles. So put Australia, India, South Africa...and after the previous World Cup, NZ against each other and I think there will be a lot of interest. Put Bangladesh in that list too because the amount of cricket-crazy population there is only growing after their ODI team's successes. I am not sure if his the other teams are doing though. Is there enough interest in West Indies, for instance. Pakistan, given they play all their home games in UAE. Sri Lanka? Zimbabwe? don't know, would like to understand what their numbers are. The other aspect I would definitely like to see personally is context. My suggestion, to have a three-year long World Cup qualifiers as the only ODIs we play, involving, say, 24 teams. Home and away series. the top 10 or 12 teams making the World Cup. The six months leading up to the World Cup can be used for 'friendlies', bilateral series as we now know.
John
Guest
ICC need to make 20/20 games domestic only and 1 day cricket internationals only. I would look at making one day internationals 40 overs think it would still allow for batsman to construct 100 and the bowlers to bowl 10 overs each.
James T
Guest
What has happened to Australia's fast bouncy pitches? They seem to be getting slower and lower every year, so much so that the waca has now become arguably the most lifeless track in the world. I understand lifeless pitches for tests so they last 5 days but surely a bit of life makes odi's more interesting.
James T
Guest
Agreed there needs to be competition. I remember in early 2000's I wanted to see lee bowl just as much as seeing gilly and punter bat, now I struggle to sit through an innings because u know the ball will do nothing and the batsman will simply hit through the line.
Simoc
Guest
ODIs . The test matches of tomorrow. T20 rules
sheek
Roar Guru
Well.......... Four 300 plus innings in two games. I'll be buggered as they say in the classics!
Bob
Guest
One thing that's happening is that the skills our batsmen are developing in the BB is being put into good effect in other forms of the game. We are developing a large number of high quality batsmen.
sheek
Roar Guru
At the 35 over mark of the Aussies innings, I'm now recanting & calling it a 50/50 game. Oh, it already is?
Bakkies
Guest
The Black Caps, Pakistan and SA would offer more of a challenge.
Bakkies
Guest
Particularly when CA issue central contracts to players in the one day squad
Offsideman
Roar Rookie
Agree that ODIs need to be changed and given more actual direction. The real problem as people have pointed out, the roads that Australia keep producing are just plain boring. We crucify India and England for doctoring pitches but we are just as bad if not worse. In the ashes we had two roads, two seaming pitch and a green bastard straight from the foul pits of hell. In the Australian we had a bouncy WACA(maybe) then a whole bunch of roads that maybe cracked up on day 5. Adelaide hasn't seen green on it in years, The latest WACA pitches have been a joke and a man without thumbs could make a ton at the Gabba on a sunny day. Ca needs to get serious about changing its tactics and making the game more competitive at home for all teams.
WillyB
Guest
I have more interest at the moment with T20 BBL than 50 over ODI. The problem I have with current ODIs is the amount of games played and that a visiting team just turns up to the host country without a test being played. I agree the BBL are at least playing for something a spot in the finals for home advantage or to scrape into it. I also wasn't much of fan of having a triangular series in ODIs. I am a bit disappointed that no BBL is on at the moment when ODI is being played. I think channel 9 have a bit to do with my lack of interest in the current ODI product being offered.
sheek
Roar Guru
Let me say this now at the start of the Aussie innings. While I had a 'feeling' they might haul in 300 in Perth, I doubt they will be able to do it twice. Good on India though in topping 300 twice. Aussies pushing their luck thinking they can get 300 twice as well, chasing.
b
Guest
The BBL is just a money making venture because teammates this week are opponents next week in the next H&G comp being played, wherever. While players do move around in other comps, I've never seen the movement H&G has in any other sport. There is nothing to play for but the paycheck.
b
Guest
The BBL is even more meaningless, because of the volume not only of T20 internationals, but also the BBL style comps that are everywhere, and don't even have national pride to play for. That's why T20 bores me to tears, there is always another game just around the corner, and they are all the same, and the players are only playing for paychecks, it's as meaningless as sport can get. ODI's have plenty of that meaningless "entertainment", but they also have skill. Also, players are playing for more than money. For those who think the current series has no meaning, beating India always has meaning. Beating a bunch of people who are on the same side this week, and different sides next week, has no meaning.
VivGilchrist
Guest
...in fact I miss the days when bowlers used to take wickets.
VivGilchrist
Guest
Curators have been replaced by Road Workers. Bowlers are hard done by....Remember when top edges used to fly straight up in the air and get caught by the 'keeper rather than going for six?
The Bush
Roar Guru
Yeah 170 or 180. It wasn't just that the the Windies had a great bowling line up (or that the contest was more even back then), what was phenomenal is I remember us being something absurd like 6/33. How you craft an innings from that point forward, working only with the tail is simply genius.
The Bush
Roar Guru
I get the old adage Brett that you still have to do it, along the lines of you can only play the opposition you're up against (hence why we can't put asterisks on statistics just because it came against Zimbabwe etc). But that doesn't make it the best contest it can be and it certainly doesn't make it the best viewing experience. One thing I will say in response to your comment about India being 1/30 and Australia being 2/25 is that my understanding is Dhawan is out of form (as shown by again getting out for nothing today), whilst Warner is decidedly average at ODI cricket (and due a failure after his red hot summer) and Finch is Finch - these sort of players would randomly fail in a game of kanga-cricket if they played enough of it...
Brett McKay
Expert
I do get that point, Bushy, but I'd respond the same way I did to anyone trying to talk down Voges' and Marsh's Hobart knocks - even if the wicket was flat and the ball wasn't moving, the batsmen still had to play the right shot to the right length ball and find the right gaps or areas of vacant space. If it really was so easy, then India wouldn't have been 1/30, and Australia wouldn't have been 2/25. But I certainly agree that that that WACA pitch went too far in favour of the bat on Tuesday. But then it was for the Test, too..