Why does everyone want to change cricket? Smaller bats, shot clocks, codes of behaviour and ball tampering seem to be what everyone is talking about. I love Test cricket exactly as it is.
Australia’s reaction to our three miscreants who were guilty of trying to get the ball to swing more to beat South Africa was as extreme as anything I have seen watching sport all my life. It started off with ‘ban them for life’ and ended up with very sizeable suspensions for two of the best players in the world.
The ICC talked about five games, while the Australian public seemed to react as though someone had run over a Koala – certainly a response much worse than that to Andrew Gaff’s punch, which destroyed a young player’s season. The players’ press conferences were agonising to watch.
Reading Ricky Ponting’s latest suggestion about shot clocks being introduced to speed up over rates, I think that this is one of those cases when the suggested reform is no longer a serious issue.
The real problem the ICC will probably never address is that 50-over cricket is on its way out – and, if I recall correctly, one-day cricket was introduced and promoted because Test cricket was boring everybody to death and Kerry Packer thought that cricket under lights would resuscitate the old game.
All the things the media and the national cricket associations hoped for came to pass – big boisterous crowds and excitement. I remember Allan Lamb hitting a six to win a game against Australia. Cricket had become commercial and cool.
(AP Photo/Rajanish Kakade)
Then the powers that be proclaimed that even one-day cricket could be improved and cut the game down from eight hours and 100 overs to three hours and 40 overs. Look at baseball – they play 162 games a year and the games take three hours each. The public need nugget-sized cricket, not a full day of it.
So T20 was developed and the IPL, the Big Bash League and other tournaments in such cricket strongholds as New York, Toronto and Bangladesh were formed. Bring the kids and dance to hit songs whenever a wicket falls.
Now the crowds are questioning the rationale behind one-day cricket, and it seems inevitable it will be changed and merged into 20-over cricket or something similar. This is because both of these brands appeal to the same audience and cannot both survive.
Whether Test cricket will survive is a different question. I know watching Trevor Bailey batting for a whole day for 60 runs is not likely to have patrons queuing for tickets, but suddenly the influence of 20-over cricket has caused a significant increase in the scoring rates in Tests.
No-one can get away with a scoring rate of two per over, and the excitement of watching an edge going for six cannot be denied.
In the end commercial reality will survive, not the ICC rules committees.
daryl kingston
Guest
England not even trying and to be frank they dont really lose the ashes seeing as there always at lords so there not even trying to put up a fight for a replica cup its has gotten so boring the last couple of ashes
Shivansh
Guest
Poorly supported? I would like a source on that, baring the first match which was day match and last match which was a dead rubber, all ODIs were sold out. So the problem lies in 5 match ODI series and not ODI Cricket, 3 match ODI series is very very good and has a 70% chance of a decider taking place.
DTM
Guest
The problem with ODI's is that it is the TV stations that (indirectly) demand games go the full time as much as possible. Therefore the various cricket boards around the world prepare wickets to suit the batsmen - only to maximise their revenue from TV rights. I don't understand why anyone would want to be a fast bowler in an ODI these days (other than the money). The odds are stacked against them with pitches and fielding restrictions. Not surprising many of the top tier bowlers are rotated through a 5 series game or not available at all.
DTM
Guest
Agree with much of what is said here in the comments. For me, the most irrelevant matches are international T20's. These should be limited to a single World Cup tournament every 4 years. The players and the fans get enough of the shortest format through the local leagues BBL, IPL, CPL etc etc. I don't even remember who Australia last played in a T20 - was it SA or England? And who won? Would be much more fun going into a T20 World Cup not knowing who is the best team.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
When TV stations stop competing for the rights to televise the game, that's when we might have an issue. Rellum's point about bowlers (or pitches) is valid. Cricket fans don't go to watch runs being scored. They go to watch a battle between bat and ball. A six can be exciting...when it is unique. When a mis-hit can go for 6, something is wrong. 22 sixes in an innings is now unremarkable because it is commonplace.
Rellum
Roar Guru
I still like One dayers mostly because it is the only time I get to see QLD and Australia play in their actual colours. The games now are boring because the bowlers have little impact in a format they are still supposed to have an impact in
Jimbo
Guest
Sri Lanka's ODI's have been poorly supported in the last month. The coming T20 is a sell out. That's the trend most places.
jimbo_
Guest
i love watching the WC and some of my favorite games of cricket ever have been ODI's.. but ive been hoping for a long time that the ICC either amalgamates 50 over and T20 cricket into a 30/35 over hybrid or does away with either ODI or T20' completely- i think one of the biggest problems with cricket is the scheduling which means less of the best players are available since we've tried to juggle the 3 formats
JamesH
Roar Guru
In what world did over rates suddenly stop being a problem?!? ODIs won’t go anywhere soon because the interest in T20s is primarily at domestic level, not international level. What the ICC needs to do is give more context to all forms of cricket, with more mini-tournaments and championships. Also, run rates in test cricket were going up well before T20s came along, mainly thanks to the Aussie teams around the turn of the century. T20s have had a far bigger impact on scoring rates in ODIs than in tests.
Camo McD
Roar Guru
Agreed. ODI cricket still seems to be the TV staple at international level. I still really like the format but I reckon it works better in the old tournament style comps with 3-4 teams and a final played within a couple of weeks than boring 5 or 7 match bi-lateral series which now seem to drag over a similar time period. With many more competitive teams these days there is nothing stopping short, sharp 5-6 team tournaments being organised and including the likes of Nepal and Scotland.
Jarijari
Roar Rookie
The real problem the ICC will probably never address is that 50-over cricket is on its way out. Correct. The ICC and the various national boards won't address it because television contracts are locked in for the next few years. Full details on the 2018-2023 Future Tours Program are available here: https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/742353 Before the one-day World Cup in England in June-July next year -- in which the 10 teams play each other once before the finals -- these are the projected numbers of ODIs for the leading nations, as per the FTP: Australia 19, England 16, India 26-30 (inc Asia Cup), New Zealand 14, Pakistan 25-29 (inc Asia Cup), South Africa 21, Sri Lanka 15-19 (inc Asia Cup), West Indies 16. Projected ODIs for 2022-23: Australia 23, England 14, India 28-32 (inc Asia Cup), South Africa 18. Nice try Keith, but one-dayers won't be going away any time soon. TV companies particularly like the eight-hour format and there's no way they will agree to a cutback.