Oh dear I never meant to imply that was YOUR opinion, I think someone mooted England abandoning ODIs - I'm not entirely sure who though

What I am entirely favour of is preventing back-to-back tests and also taking all opposition seriously. Obviously, the demand for tests against Australia, India, Pakistan and the West Indies is higher in the UK than for other opposition. I would like to see 5 tests and 5-7 ODIs against these 4 teams - evenly spaced with the tests starting in May and the Oval test covering the last weekend in August. In between (end of July, beginning of August) the ODIs can be thrown in. I think this is better than stacking all the tests together. Personally. The other teams should have 3 tests and 3 ODIs each in a summer double header (e.g. NZ & Bangladesh 3 tests each, 3 ODIs Eng vs NZ, NZ vs Bang and Eng vs Bang)

What I really think is needed, is as Lemming has outlined, enough time for the players to rest between games. Back to back tests is not a good idea and not sustainable.

I'd agree with playing less games in winter tours, clearly the players are way too fatigued from the summer and are then having to do a major series in alien(do not play in them reguarly) conditions. England's current line up of seven tests in the summer fits the bill alright with me, Australia played eight with the two ICC World XI games. I think lowering the number of ODI's by two in a series or eliminate a test match depending on whether you prefer the ODI scene or test matches.

England could do as a standard tour schedule of:

• 4 test matches
• 3 ODI's

This would result in a potential 23 days of cricket.

India could do a standard tour schedule of:

• 3 test matches
• 5-7 ODI's

This would result in a potential 20-22 days of cricket. Thus giving a level balance.

Obviously if the two teams played each other England would have to succomb to playing 5-7 ODI's in India and India would only be able to play 3 ODI's in England.

__________________
Watch this for a perfect about.
James May

I think it is fair to say that both tests and ODIs hold their own with their own respective fans.. obviously the hardened old cricket fans are for the test version of the game which involves a lot more strategy and more time to execute it, but the success of cricket itself in the recent years both as a commercial and viable/interesting sport is due to the presence of ODIS, here in the sub continent you will not find many fans of the test game for a very simple reason it takes too long to achieve a result. By that standard most of the fans here in the sub continent love the ODI game and the flair and entertainment it brings, 20-20 aside from the indian board has been a tremendous success here in the subcontinent... i have been playing 20-20 cricket here inb\ the streets of karachi and in the grounds even for the last16 years.. its totally understood and accepted, its just the boards wanting to flex their muscles, doesnt mean the publics not for it. Englands view of the ODI game is quite weird for me, if they dont feel like playing it they shouldnt but then they would be restricted as a side.. maybe they can set the ODI and test schedules according to their own stamina and relax in between. In fact i wouldrecommend that for most teams, the amount of international cricket being played these days is just far too much for the players and for the fans. Personally i dont think 10% of the fans of cricket here in the sub continent care two hoots about the ashes.. if england think thats their world cup so be it.. its not for us.. just like the india pakistan rivalry wouldnt matter that much to english fans... isnt it ironic that the world cup is based on ODIS.. ? that in itself should prove a point.. playng only tests is just not commercially viable.. if england does that then i dont think they will be playing outside england.. because here ODIS draw the crowds and we love em!!!!!!

Very good points, balanced and fair, and well said.

One thing that does interest me, is something someone said [wrote] earlier on.

Subcontinental Test matches tend to be played on very lifeless pitches; you'd have to play six or seven days to get a result quite often.

Is it possible that this is done on purpose? The home side never likes to lose of course, but if it is just not possible to lose... unless one plays suicidal cricket like England... then that stops any terror of angry crowds reacting badly to circumstance.

If there was an ICC wicket inspector for Test cricket, in the same way that there is in English County Cricket, I wonder if subcontinental Tests would garner any more support.

All that said, I do recall that the ICC were playing with the notion of having six day Tests in Pakistan.

That, I think, would probably be a move in the right direction.

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

Interesting thought, but not true, in my view. If the cricket boards made lifeless pitches because they were scared of losing or of the crowd's reaction, they would never organise any ODIs, where European football style hooliganism has happened on quite a few occasions! In ODIs, there is an even chance that the home team would lose (and statistically, much more than even if they are playing Pakistan ); if BCCI, or BCCSL etc were concerned with the crowd reactions, they would never organise a home ODI against Pakistan! Crowds are much more passionate about ODIs; in fact Tests are poorly attended (at least in Pakistan or Sri Lanka) so the question of "crowd trouble" seldom arises.

There were many drawn Tests in the sub-continent in the 1970s and 80s, but the teams were weaker at that time too; of late, almost all series have more than Test with a result, and in fact, most Test series in Pak, Ind and SL have more Tests with results than without; the recent Pak v Ind was an exception, where the pitches for the first two Tests were horribly one-sided. There is now, not specifically for Tests, but for international cricket in general. We discussed the ICC's proposals in this thread a while ago, not sure if there was another subsequent thread?

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

Just a thought Maranello.

You never know, if results became more likely, maybe the game would have more fans down that-a-way.

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

Yes, I am sure that would happen.

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

Sadly, as with every major sport, commercial rather than sporting reasons rule. So instead of doing what will promote the best level of contest, the powers that be do whatever will promote the most financial gain. Sport shouldn't be a business in my opinion, but I'm sure many people in sporting positions of power will disagree. Anyway, I'm in the 'not bothered about ODIs' camp, and would like to see less of them being played. But they do excite many people, as well as the revenue thing, so I guess they'll be played more and more.

__________________
Just what is going off out there?

Well, i have always believed that in a tour, the big goal was to always try n defeat the home side in a test series. the test series is always been the main reason for a tour. however, i think that we are seeing a demise of test cricket. yesterday, afridi, arguably the most entertaining cricketer out there, just announced his retirement from test cricket to prepare himself for the world cup. The main reason for this is that there is simply too much cricket being played for the players to cope with. The ICC have to recognise this and do something that will save test matches. Too many innovations in the game will result in the demise of the traditional game. Twenty20 for example. There are many many more people out there that would love to watch a meagre slog fest rather then a nice competetion between bat and ball. The ICC could for example group the world cup in terms of the outcome of the test table, or in tours only make a trophy cup available for the test series and not the ODI's. Or something between each two teams like how england and australia have the ashes.

I'm not a fan of odi cricket, but conversely i am a fan of 20/20 cricket (i always like to be a contradiction ).

The reason i don't like odi's is they always seem to follow the same pattern, 15 overs of slogging or wickets clattering, then 25 overs of reduced intensity, then 10 overs of slogging or clattering again. I know there are lots that don't, but to me the majority of them do, maybe that's because the majority of odi's i watch are with england and as we're so poor and unimaginative as a odi side i don't see anything exciting.

20/20 to me has the excitement of the begining and end of a odi without the boring bit inbetween. I still see Test cricket as the ultimate though, ODI's and 20/20 are for entertaining the crowd and bringing new people to the game, but Test cricket is where the real cricket is played, a sustained endurance challange for the players over 5 days, no set time frame and unrestrained (within reason) possibilities for tactics and strategy.

I don't see why people aren't allowed to like one or the other though, some people see odi's as nothing more than luck and little to do with talent, others see test matchs as slow dull and boring and take too long to play. There's no law that says we have to like the same things

I'd like it if England were good at odi's, and i still listen/watch them all with interest, but i'm not overly bothered if we lose one whereas i get very annoyed when we lose a test match or series and it personally means far more to me, and i judge other sides by their test record not their odi record, although i do respect that as an achievement none the less.

I do judge on world cup wins though, it would be impossible to have a fair world cup of test cricket so the odi is the next best thing and anyone that wins it is worthy of respect, i think i'd even rate it over being ranked number 1 in tests simply because the rating system is flawed, but whether i'd take being world cup champions and being ranked last in tests or ranked no.1 in tests but going out in the first round of the cup i don't know, after all england don't win many cups in any sports so being a world champion at anything is always nice

I personally think far more of a player who has a test batting average of 45 than a player with a odi average of 45, or even 55, someone who has both is even better though