The 2019 Cricket World Cup was a colossal success that had fans captivated right to the final ball of the tournament – and, as it turned out, beyond.
Prior to the tournament, Australian cricket fans had lamented the tedium of one-day cricket, pointing to a lack of significance as one reason for the public’s loss of interest.
But the engrossing spectacle in England and Wales proved that 50-over cricket is not dead. With the proper context, ODIs can continue to offer excitement and entertainment, as the tournament set new TV and digital records worldwide.
An average 710,000 Australians tuned in to the first innings coverage of the semi-final loss to England on Nine Gem, with another 389,000 average via Foxtel.
But now, the format needs to innovate to avoid a return to monotony.
As we await August’s men’s Ashes series, the nation’s cricketing attention turns to the women’s rivalry. Unlike the men’s, the women’s series is decided on a points system. Comprised of three T20s, three ODIs and one Test match, four points are awarded for a Test victory, with two points earned for a limited-overs win. The overall points leader at the end of the series is crowned champion.
AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool
So why not introduce similar series across the men’s summer?
That’s not to say we should change the format of the Ashes, but multiple formats would help to revitalise series against other nations during the home summer.
The 2019-20 home schedule opens with an arbitrary, three-game T20 series against Sri Lanka at the end of October, before three T20s against Pakistan as preparation for a two-Test series in November.
Instead of three separate, disjointed series against different nations, why not play one side in an epic, month-long contest that includes all three forms of the game?
The women’s Ashes drew criticism this week when a draw in the lone Test ensured Australia retained the urn with three T20s yet to play. An adapted design for the men’s summer – featuring two T20s, followed by two ODIs and two Tests – would ensure that the result is in question until final matches.
Maintaining the points structure, one side would still be able to tie the series even if they lose all four limited-overs games.
The introduction of multi-format competitions would immediately provide a setting for one-day cricket that has been absent for some time. Doing so would give renewed meaning to all short-form cricket, while re-engaging fans and reviving 50-over cricket in the process.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
So long as it is white ball only, maybe. Test cricket is its own thing, and not to be diluted by the lesser games. As for context, would being part of a mixed format really add anything? Its still just a series, albeit one instead of two or three, with little relevance to anything beyond itself. The ODI Championship is supposed to add that broader context, but few know it exists, fewer understand the ranking formula and even if they did the WC will remain the main event of 50 over cricket regardless. Mixing the 50 and 20 over games together risks losing the distinction between them, without adding anything. There will be less ODIs over the next little period. This might help the format, as people might be keen when they return in greater numbers - though being hidden behind a paywall, its more likely most people won't even know they are on.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Who cares if Australia wins the “Ponting – Hasan” ODI / T20 series if they beat Bangladesh 3-0 by 200 runs a game on bitumen roads? Surely home boards self interest is in attracting crowds and the CWC19 showed that contests excite crowds. Nothing promotes the future of a series or the ODI format more than fans sitting on the edge of their seats ’til the last over. Excitement and relief when your team wins, or frustration when they lose a close one creates emotion and ticket buyers. Tracks with state characteristics and something in it for the bowlers reintroduces dimensions ground out of the game by administrators fiddling with the game. The biggest issue for administrators has apparently been ‘the boring middle overs; 15-35’, but they were where the game was won or lost in most WC games as the ball got older and stuck in the wicket, making teams reassess how they played, rather than just shutting their eyes and swinging. Having to preserve wickets and also assess who’s set to take you to the end brings the crowd into the game and a boundary is an ‘event’ again rather than the ho-hum it’s become. It also means daring Captains can again gamble on whether they bowl their star out, or give him 3 slips in the middle of the game to break the batting order, rather than spreading retrievers around the boundary so someone is close enough for the guy in row Z to through the six back to. The nuances cause more debate in the stands and loungerooms than a slogfest. Bring back result pitches, that’ll help ODI’s more than multi format series.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Surely it's simpler than that? Just produce result wickets, like those on offer in England. You don't need flat tracks producing telephone number scores to entertain home crowds, you need contests that keep spectators and fans interested to the last few overs of the second innings. I'm no numbers geek, but it has to be apparent that lower scores - 250 to 320 - have a higher percentage of close games - where the bowler has something in the wicket to challenge the batsmen - than the ridiculously flat tracks produced to create eyes closed, across the line scores of 400+. The solution is in the ODI game, not trying to hide it in a multi format.
Waz
Roar Rookie
This constant need to “innovate” will be the death of cricket. Even if you introduced the changes you suggest, how long before people are bored. Concentrate on the cricket and the rest will follow.
Paul
Roar Guru
Hayden, you used one word extremely well in this piece - context. The problem with any form of the game is what is the context for a series or even a match and right now there is no context for much of the international cricket, outside Test series. I agree with the concept of having combined series, with both T20's and ODIs played, rather than one or the other as seems to be the case now. Award a trophy for the winners and all of a sudden there's both context and a contest.
Dutski
Roar Guru
It could work for sure. I think what I learned from the ODI World Cup is that rather then just an arbitrary number of games between two teams that there’s value in having three or more teams leading up to a final series. Like, oh I don’t know, two teams come to Australia and play some round robin games then the best two teams square off in a final series of three games. That sort of thing. Oh, hang on...