The future of ODIs in question?


I must admit that I was a Twenty20 sceptic when it first hit the scenes.

Now, after a week-and-a-half of non-stop T20 action, I am asking a fundamental question about the future place of one day international cricket (ODI). Is the future of ODIs secure?

I personally do not see a need for ODIs anymore. What’s the point? Why don’t we just have T20 games for the slam-bang-fun and have Test matches for the purists? The ODI product does not add anything substantially different to what the Twenty20 game provides.

Cricket has always wanted a product that it could take to Europe and America. Cricket always wanted a product that it could take to the IOC and, through it, to the Olympic games.

T20 is it! The T20 game is over in 3 hours.

There is the adrenaline rush. The game is over before you have had a chance to settle down in your seat and have a meat pie and a can of coke. There are heaps of opportunities for the advertisers to parade their products. It also allows plenty of opportunities for a DJ and scantily clad men/women to demonstrate their assets as well as their musical/dancing abilities! And it is entertaining too. It is an ODI game without the needless drudgery of overs 15 to 45!

I think that the ODI game has reached its use-by-date and should be phased out over a 1 year period.

Am I alone in feeling this way?

— Mohan

Advertisements

15 responses to “The future of ODIs in question?

  1. If pure hitting is what makes people go crazy,

    Do you really need 11 players to bat in T20 game ? Even in a one-day on a good wicket, batsmen beyond No. 7 do not have enough overs to bat.

    Can T20 have a scheme like baseball – 7 batsmen and 4 – bowlers/ pitchers. The pitchers do not bat, but are able to field.

    I still like the charm of the old fashioned game –

    front foot square drive – not the sehwag kind of bludgeoning upper cut ….

    back foot cover drive – Martin Crowe

    On-drive (or almost the patented Laxman On- drive)

    front foot leg glance

    Short arm pull – Michael Vaughn

  2. gnbmdr, clearly the Test game is for you.

    My post was not about the relative merits of T20. It was about whether there was a need for ODIs, now that we have T20 established as a product.

    The product sells. Of that there can’t be much doubt. I do not believe it needs the baseball-type variants that you have suggested. It is a sellable product in its current form.

    T20 is certainly here to stay in my view.

    In this scenario, my question is whether there is a need for an ODI product too? I don’t think so.

    — Mohan

  3. A big NO to Mo’s suggestion… for one simple reason… more the merrier and I always believe it is never enough.
    For me cricket is my second religion . To me… Test is ‘Sahasranamam’, ODI is Astothram and T20 is just a namaskaram. All has a place in ‘my’ religion.

  4. Sorry, focussed on tests vs T20.

    Regarding T20 it looks it is crap shoot to me. The better side, may not win. One player (Yuvraj, .. ) can get hot in a given match, and the match is over in T20. There is no concept of bowling. Is that good for the integrity of the game ?

    In a one-day match, a side can recover from initial set backs, 10 for 2 and still make a 250+

  5. So you reckon T20 is pretty much like baseball then? 🙂

  6. Very soon ODI’s may become the darling of the purists.

  7. Having been in the US for so many years, I have grown to become a fan of baseball. I am a traitor .

    The integrity of the game is preserved in baseball; i.e. the better side wins most matches over the weaker side. As much as there good hitters (batsmen), there are very good pitchers in the game – Randy Johnson. There is an equal chance for the batter and pitcher.

    About 5 – 6 years back, people used to go watch Mark McGwire batting practise before the game, in which he will every ball out of the park.

    In T20, there are so many sixers like home runs in a batting practice. What is the concept of bowling in T20 ? Joginder Sharma or Stuart Broad can testify to this.

    BTW, the consequences of one-day match in test cricket are –

    1. there is a result in most test matches and there are not that many drawn matches (some might think this is a positive development)

    2. there are not many batsmen, who are technically correct, grafters, not stroke makers; who often play an anchor role in a side, in the style of Geoff Boycott, Javed Miandad, Mike Atherton, Rahul Dravid, … Now, everyone wants to be stroke maker.

  8. It is true that the shorter the format the lesser the gulf between teams and therefore the better team may lose etc etc..but if the goal is entertainment, isnt that better? To wit, OZ vs PAK would be boring (unless u r an oz fan :)) in a test match, but is edge-of-the-seat stuff in a T20. So, I am leaning towards-tests for real cricket and T20 for general entertainment!

  9. Going by your yardstick of integrity, it would seem to apply in ODI and T20 too. The better team wins more often (Australia, RSA, etc).

    There is a good concept of bowling in T20 that most people — like you, I suspect — haven’t grasped. Every dot-ball is a pressure-situation for batsmen and a win for the bowlers and a bowler only needs 3 dot balls in a row (12.5% of his entire bowling quota) to create a monster in the batsman’s head! The batsman often tries something goofy at this point and could easily get out! Moreover, a team that loses all of its wickets has effectively wasted 8% of its batting quota! So, the latitude for mistakes is actually shortened for the batsmen too.

    Just as bowlers got used to economy rates of 4-5 in ODIs (as opposed to 2-3 in Tests), bowlers will get used to economy rates of 6-7 in T20. They will live with it.

    We will then see even more results in Tests. Who knows? The prospect of a 4-day Test match will be upon us soon!

    This can only be good for the world of cricket.

    And the concept of “technically correct” batsmen and “grafters” is somewhat over-rated, in my view.

    But having said all of that, this is (once again) not an argument on the relative merits of T20 Vs Tests. I was hoping to channel a discussion around the relative merits of T20 Vs ODIs.

    One could argue that ODIs also carry the “burden” of developing stroke players (as opposed to grafters) in a game that takes 8 hrs to complete!

    T20 gives you all of that in 3 hours! So why ODIs then?

  10. Come on Mohan

    You have enjoyed the side shows of titilating dancers shown after every boundary and sixers so much that you have become a convert to this hit and giggle base ballish extravaganza!!

    Just like the RECORD DANCE TENTS IN any Indian town!!!!!!( I did visit a couple while in Mylapore and Pondicherry in the 60’s and 70’s)

  11. I agree completely with Mohan. T20 is as much an exhibition of skills as the ODIs. Look at the batsmen who have displayed some sort of consistency in this tournament – Jadyasurya, Jayawardene, Gilchrist, Hayden, Kemp, Younis Khan – all stalwarts of the ODI game.
    And bowling? The ones who have done really well, are not the dibbly-dobblers as some predicted. Instead Brett Lee, Chaminda Vaas, Dilhara Fernando, Bracken, Vettori and Harbhajan have been able to keep things fairly tight, while picking up wickets.
    If I were to try and draw out a trend from the matches I have seen until now, I think the team that has lost the lesser number of wickets by the 13th over, ususally goes on to win the match!

  12. I understand the dot-ball. Remarkable that Pollack had a maiden over and Afridi a wicket maiden in this T20. Can a bowler dominate a T20 match and win the match for the team? With 4 overs per bowler, it does not give the bowler much of a chance. In one -day, it is possible for Murali or McGrath to have bowling figures like 10 – 0 – 20 – 3; which can have a impact on the opposition. Like a batsmen, it takes the bowler, one or two overs to settle down.

    You had mentioned T20 is one-day minus the 15th to 45 overs and has all the excitement of the first 15 and last 5 overs.

    In Tennis, all the fans like the Tie-breaker is very exciting. Can we play 5 tie-breakers to decide on match ? Would that be fair ?

    The players warm up to the match by playing the first 12 games and with a score of 6-6 and then the tie-breaker is meaningful.

  13. ICC aim is to globalise the game of cricket. This globalisation will occur at the expense of ODIs. Thats for sure.

    But the ODIs will not completely lose its presence. Its just that the amount of matches played at neutral venues, to generate revenue for country boards, will not be organised anymore.
    Instead 20-20 can be more effective in revenue generation as well as making cricket popular in other nations.

  14. The first 10 overs (Powerplay) and the last 10 overs only produce all the action in ODIs. It will be no wonder if T20 replaces ODIs soon

  15. Pingback: Future of ODIs - Take two… « i3j3Cricket :: A blog for fans of Indian cricket…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s