I’ve seen a fair bit of the Australia versus India one-day series, and have largely enjoyed it.
Good batting is to be appreciated, whoever it is doing it, and there has been some stuff to please even the purists.
Plenty of evidence in the recent past suggests Twenty20 cricket has fully spread its influence onto its 50-over cousin, and Australia’s trio of victories have done nothing to counter this particular line of thought.
When scores of 300 are being overhauled with relative ease, you know the game has changed for good. Coming on the back of a World Cup that was by far the most free-scoring of all the global tournaments, it adds up to a strong case.
More cricket
» Retiring Hauritz was dudded by Australian selectors
» A highly unhelpful preview of the Big Bash finals
» The Liebke Ratings: Australia vs India fourth ODI
» I’m getting bored with cricket
» HIGHLIGHTS: Indian batting collapse hands Australia ODI win
» SCOREBOARD: Ausrtalia vs India fourth ODI
This brings me onto Brett McKay‘s article from the other day regarding potential changes to the 50-over game.
He reminded us that year after year there is debate around a format alleged to be on its knees, and ways to revive the flagging patient.
Even before Twenty20 showed its brash little face, you wouldn’t have struggled to find somebody brandishing opinions that are still doing the rounds.
‘The pitches are too flat’, ‘it favours the batsmen too much’, ‘the middle overs are tedious’, ‘why are there restrictions on bowlers’ and so on. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I may be in the minority, but there isn’t a lot wrong with the one-day game as simply a game of cricket.
One hundred overs provides plenty of scope for fortunes to change, for a lost cause to be dragged back, for batsmen to construct a meaningful innings, for a bowler to work his way through a spell. And, guess what, it always has done.
Trends change, as do the attitudes of those doing the playing, hence the game of 2016 which is barely recognisable to the one of ten years ago, let alone 20 or 30 years.
Watch any Youtube video of one-day international cricket from the not-so-distant past – search Viv Richards for example and you’ll be amazed at the field placings and scoring rate. It is pedestrian to what classes as standard fare these days. And this is of a batsman who was way ahead of his time.
Where Brett hits the nail squarely on its head is in regards to context. A contest being played for the sake of it will inevitably attract a critical eye because it generally has no defence.
The ongoing series in Australia: what, exactly, is the point? That’s a rhetorical question.
Any administrator worth his salt (I know, it isn’t a long list) can see that the structuring of the 50-over game is crying out for some kind of clarity. A Champions Trophy exists, so why not make that the final point for a four-year-long ODI league?
Also, he has a point when it comes to international Twenty20. Last summer, England played New Zealand in a one-off game and did the same with Australia. Meaningless TV fodder. Domestic cricket is precisely where 20-over cricket belongs.
Furthermore, maybe we could do away with comically short boundaries, and a bit more grass could help the overall package, but generally the surfaces are not too bad.
But on a possible reduction to 40 overs? Would that really invigorate what already exists? I’m not convinced.
How about getting rid of all restrictions? They don’t detract from the game, so the aim of such a move is difficult to fathom. The game may have gone too far the other way when only four fielders were allowed outside the circle, but negating the very spectacle you’re trying to liven up would be a contradiction.
And as for the abolition of the toss, it has existed since a few blokes in top hats and brogues decided to stick a few bits of wood into the ground near a pub, and the sport has done alright since.
Cricket has a few ills – match-fixing, overloaded schedules, avaricious committee men – but the 50-over game, purely as a form of the sport, isn’t one of them.
Leave it alone.
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.
Andrew
Guest
its pretty hard to get a 5 for in 20 20
Don Freo
Guest
I don't think you'll get back to the days of Bradman et al... People get old and die.
Don Freo
Guest
You may not be sure Nic...but you should be. We would miss it. The majority of us. Maybe some Roar posters won't but contrast that with those that line up to get into a game.
Don Freo
Guest
Isn't a game of cricket enough? I don't get this need for "meaning" and a world leader. Cricket fans just love watching cricket being played. Johnny come latelys seem to want rankings, premierships, conferences. Guys...you are all welcome but leave the actual game alone. People that love cricket just want to watch it.
Don Freo
Guest
I can't believe those that get bored by middle over batting in OD cricket. The game has so many tempos. Critics write teams off on the basis of T20 viewing experiences. They criticise the pitches. The last 3ODIs were won by the Oz bowling. Great to watch 'em peg back the run rate. Hastings and Marsh...stars.
adam
Guest
i grew up when top class cricket meant an ashes series & superlatives followed the heroics of bradmans, millers lindwalls etc.yet now, because we have so much cricket- it loses its x factor... imagine watching origin footie played all season... sometimes, as in bikinis- less is more. x
SuperEgz
Guest
The MCC control the "Laws of Cricket" which are followed by everything from a test match to a suburban t20 game. The ICC write the "Playing Conditions" for international cricket that define the extra rules for each of the formats.
Prosenjit
Guest
Agree every bit with one of the best and most honest writer here.not that matches are being lopsided or aussies winning in a canter..they have taken 49 overs(98% ) to chase down targets every match this series.
Chris Vincent
Roar Pro
Barry... you're right. These one dayers have most of the ingredients that would, in theory, add up to 'great cricket'. Big scores, big hundreds, relatively close results... The thing missing is competitiveness. It emerged slightly in game three when India threatened to run through our batting order. Otherwise, it's felt monotonous, predictable and inevitable. Whether this is to do with the pitches, or the meaningless nature of the contests, I don't know. Probably a bit of both.
Johnno
Guest
Who makes the ODI rules, ICC or MCC?
Bryan
Guest
5 Odis has much more TV time than 5 t20
The Barry
Roar Guru
Maybe I'm getting old and hard to please. Maybe the sub-standard start to the summer has put me off. I've found these one dayers interesting at times but fairly bland for most of it. The scoring while going along at 6 an over has rarely been frenetic. The contest between bat and ball uneven. The middle overs pretty stolid. If these scores had been achieved in 1985 or 1995 we'd have been falling off our chairs about how it was the greatest one day series of all time. I just feel, meh. Have T20s effected us so much that now 6 an over for 100 overs is plain by comparision? Is it that they're playing for nothing?
Nic
Guest
I'm not sure that the majority of fans would miss the 50 over game if it was scrubbed from the calendar. Chances are that 8 * T20s would achieve higher crowds and ratings than 5 * ODIs + 3 *T20s From a personal perspective, I have always seen it as being a useful stepping stone between domestic cricket and tests whilst the WC is (or should be) one of the world's great sporting tournaments. However, the vast majority of series are nothing more than calendar fillers whose primary purpose is to generate revenue for the respective boards That being the case, the onus is upon administrators to ensure maximum entertainment and this extends to scheduling. IMO, your run-of-the-mill ODIs are always far more interesting when scheduled before the test series as it forms part of the build up Scheduling them after the main course always makes them feel like filler to me
Kimbeth
Roar Rookie
The format itself is ok. The problem in my opinion is that almost all games are nothing more than 'friendlies'. If India lose this series 5-0 what does it mean in the context of world cricket ?
Pie Thrower
Guest
Ah I've been dreading this day... the day when I agree with one your articles... damn it man, you are talking far too much sense!
Tom
Guest
I love one day cricket. The only thing to change is the series type format they have. You're right we need some sort of league or something rather than playing a seemingly random team in a 3 or 5 game series.
Brett McKay
Expert
Ah, man. All that work....