That wasn't the suggestion being made at the beginning of this thread though - the suggestion was that if we don't like ODI's why don't we stop playing them, and I don't think the ICC would accept us doing that, I think if we tried we would be fined heavily for not fulfilling the future tours program..

__________________
umeiV luphqhsesqe, all’ h luph umwn eiV caran genhsetai.

True but if England honoured our one day commitments for say the forseable future, and then said to the ICC, when England have completed the tour of Australia (or kept to present obligations- whichever is the sooner) then I can't see how the ICC can intervene.
This would not just apply to England, but any team who's players are getting burned out after a Test series.

__________________
Ern

Well, far be it for me to buck the trend, but I actually enjoy ODIs. Not as much as tests, but an ODI is great to go and watch too. In fact, in terms of county cricket, I would really only go and watch a 4 dayer if I had nothing else to do, but try and watch as many one dayers as possible.

I would therefore be bitterly disappointed if England were to pull out of one dayers. Frankly, I can't believe that the suggestion is even being countenanced. Even for England, a large amount of the cash that the ECB receive must be from one dayers. The suggestion that they'd willingly axe these is preposterous. Even if they were to, whether it would be right or not to do so, we would receive a whacking great fine from the ICC. This is a pie in the sky idea if ever I heard one.

However, on the other hand, I do disagree entirely with the implied undertone of the thread starter which comes across in quite belligerant tones about English participation in one dayers. One day, I will go to Pakistan and India to see England play, and I tell you, I won't be going for the atmosphere of a test match, I'll be there first and foremost to soak up the unique atmosphere of a sub-continental one day match. In fact, next time the World Cup's in the subcontinent, you'll find me standing watching from behind the bowler's arm from Kandy, Mumbai, Dhaka or Karachi and I'll be enjoying it - that's for damn sure.... (As long as I haven't got Delhi Belly or half my body's had to return home because it didn't want to tour the subcontinent or some other similar reason )

The simple answer is for teams who do not want to compete in ODI's by putting out a squad of test players is to make a specialist ODI squad. Then they get ages to prepare for series, have a great bond as a squad with no interruptions for knackered leave and the Test wins because the players are fresh.

__________________
Watch this for a perfect about.
James May

And if that were to happen, over time the best players would end up in the ODI "bucket" - Tendulkar, Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist, Inzamam, Lara would all have to end up in the ODI camp as that is where the majority of the money and the public support is, and this would mean that to be comparable the likes of Flintoff, KP and Tresco would end up doing the same. As a result, Test matches would be left much the poorer if this daft plan is implemented, having to rely on the likes of "Test match specialists", eg Bell, Kaneria, Chopra, Chanderpaul, etc.

In any case, are there teams who do not want to compete in ODIs? Not really - all teams invariably select their best players for ODIs, and stars are rested only if the series is already won. The greatest evidence of England's seriousness towards ODIs is their insistence on playing Flintoff even when a quarter fit!

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

I've been thinking a lot about this issue. At the moment, the BCCI are being increasingly belligerent in gaining what they want in world cricket. This is a bit of a worry to me. There should not be a single country or group of countries dominating world cricket. It wasn't good when it was dominated by England, and we'd see similar problems if India were to dominate cricket.

I can see that the current India board mainly see things in terms of revenue and profit. If this continues, we could see low revenue opponents such as New Zealand and the West Indies being marginalised despite them providing a decent competition for India (especially away from home).

Also, there is exactly the question you've raised here Zainub. India are not in favour of 20:20, yet its been a big growth sport in England, South Africa, New Zealand and Pakistan. Is it right for one or two countries to veto that success and stop it being played in a World Cup?

The ICC needs to be the powerhouse, the place where the stands are made and the remits decreed. It should take a leaf out of FIFA's book. Back in 1990, a very large proportion of World Cup places were given to European teams - the place where the money lay. They ruled that this was unfair and were also able to stand up to UEFA (European Football Union) and say that more countries from Asia and Central America should qualify. Although FIFA and UEFA often have to compromise, it is definitely FIFA that rules the roost. The ICC should be leading to make sure tournaments and money are fairly shared - the ICC should not be dominated by the ECB, the ACU, the BCCI or indeed any union or group of unions.

However, as it stands at the moment, the ICC is weak and easily pushed around by all parties until nothing gets done.

Is it right for England to 'veto' one day internationals? No, most definitely no. But is it right for the BCCI to dictate that a 20:20 World Cup cannot be played? 'No' to that as well. The ICC should be taking the lead and if they feel that the best interests of cricket would be better served with a 20:20 world cup rather than the ICCCCT, then go with that.

I'm very much with Andy on this one. I thoroughly enjoy watching one day cricket. Some even stick in my mind - a tie at Trent Bridge in 1989 against the Aussies with Ian Healy sprinting singles even though he had a runner! and last summers first match at Bristol when KP savaged Gillespie and Kasprowicz. The crowds do turn up to watch One Day Internationals in England, they also turn up to watch Test matches. Perhaps Indian and Pakistani crowds at Tests are so low is due to the applling wickets used for test cricket the majority of the time. Too often we see scoredcards where on side racks up 600 and the other replies with 500 and the game was evidently destined for a draw before a ball was bowled.

The BCCI is a pain in the backside. It's flexing it's biceps at the moment but should soon be made to realise that it has one vote, for India, and that's it. It does not dictate what everyone else wants to do. If England, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia want to play Twenty20 then we will do so. If the Indians want to miss out then that's up to them. Eventually there will be a Twenty20 World Cup. And India could quite easily win it, if only their Board would let them play it.

As Andy pointed out, England aren't going to leave ODI cricket. What England needs is for the ECB to arrange tours that are better scheduled, that allow the ODI cricket to be taken more seriously not as an "after the Lords Mayors Show" type of thing where they're tacked onto the end of a hard Test Series. I would love to see England win the World Cup. I would also love to see ODI cricket on the sub-continent, I've seen Test cricket there just now ODI stuff. If some England supporters decide they don't like it then that's fine and up to them. Some may even remember Kerry Packer's "Circus" and have disliked it from then, the majority probably don't care purely because England aren't really up to much!

Goodness me this IS getting out of hand.

I don't think I really advocated the total ceasing of all ODIs in England.

I merely thought that if a country prefers to play ODIs then they can go ahead and play as many as they like, whereas if a country prefers Test cricket then tours there should naturally be weighted more heavily in favour of the long game.

In England, tours always used to be between two and three and half months; and touring sides would play five Tests and since the mid 1970s about three ODIs. That to me, is a very sensible schedule.

In fact getting right back to the Tests beginning every other Thursday, leaving a week between for either side's players to play county matches, just seemed so sensible, that to me it utterly beggars belief that anybody thought it was intelligent to change it.

"Oh yes, wouldn't it be great if we could start a Test match every sixth day; the crowds would just keep rolling through the gates. Every day would be like cricket Christmas."

Yep, and the game would be dead in months. That, and the players.

__________________
Red-it, Red-it, Read it and wept

There is nothing wrong with one-dayers, or players playing in one-dayers. The trouble is, as I've been going on about on this forum for ages, is that there is way too much international cricket.

Look for example at the schedule Australia have had recently. After this match against Bangladesh finishes, Australia would have played four matches in less than a month (The first South Africa test started on 16th March). Since the Ashes ended, only about seven months ago, Australia have played series against the ICC World XI (1 test + 3 ODI's), West Indies (3 tests in 26 days), New Zealand (just 3 ODI's), South Africa (3 in 21 + a Twenty20), South Africa (3 in 19 + 5 ODI's) and now Bangladesh (2 in 11 + 3 ODI's), all test matches in each series have been back-to-back. It's a complete farce!

Australia had five days to go to Bangladesh from South Africa and start a new match. I mean, can anybody tell me what on earth is going on?

England in India; seven ODI's is way over the top I think. Each series should have a maximum of three. The ICC only thinks of money at the minute, they don't care about players' welfare. Since the Ashes, England have been obviously tired, how much rest have they actually had? Probably a month or two, maybe even only a few weeks for the players who had to go and play in that meaningless super series. This tour in India is coming to a close, only for the players to return home to prepare for the start of the English season and more tests.

Players are playing in more tests in four months now, than they used to in a year, no wonder Trescothick is going home, if you need a few weeks' rest, you're out of the tour. Shane Warne hasn't taken a wicket in this Bangladesh match, why? Because he's fatigued. The workload is too much, mainly because tests are crammed together to accomodate more tours and more matches (tests and ODI's) each year.

My solution is simple, less cricket. We would get to see better players, playing better having had more rest and preparation for lighter schedules.

• We don't need two months of ODI's in the English summer. A maximum of 3/4 games per team would allow tests to be more spread out and then players can actually rest properly inbetween matches.
• Each off-season there should be either one large tour, or two small tours per team. (A small tour is not three tests and seven ODI's. A small tour is 1/2 tests and 3 ODI's, lasting about a month)
• Have the World Cup, fine! But scrap all other silly tournaments like the Super series and ICC trophy. They are played at times when many players need respite.

__________________
Whatever your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you mine are far greater!
Albert Einstein, 1879-1955

Yup... I think that's what I said. Fewer ODIs in England. Longer tours, besides the climate is not so unpleasant, no-one is going to die of heat-stroke over here. More rest days.

Yup, I reckon this can work.

How about this? Touring side comes to England in early May, and plays three or four, four day warm up matches, then the first Test. Then a week off and the second Test, then a week off and the third Test, then a week off and the fourth Test, followed by a week off and the final Test. Then maybe two or three warm up one dayers, followed by three ODIs in a week, on say Sunday, Wednesday and Saturday. The international season if you like building toward the main event of three ODIs. OR if you prefer, the Test main event followed by three frivolous ODIs. Then the touring side could go home, and the English boys could put their feet up in time for the various climaxes of the domestic season.

Sounds ideal. I wonder why they don't do it like that.

__________________
Red-it, Red-it, Read it and wept