ODI cricket isnt useless. I cant find people bashing it, just people prefering test cricket. unless you class that as bashing.Not playing ODIs would damage englands overall revenue, and while winning a world cup isnt a priority for me personally it would be nice. I also agree with Rob, while ODI isnt the main thing for me, we should be better at it than we are have a beeter plan for it than we do at the mement which pretty much consists of deciding a batting order by drawing names out of hat !

__________________
Nothing says "Obey Me" like a bloody head on a fence post!

But that is just it.

It is only your opinion.

My point was not to say that amongst those who understand and love/like the game no excitement can be had.

ODIs have more going for it to attract bums on seats and coax what little money people have out of their pockets.

Across the world, people who are not attracted to or raised in a cricketing country, cannot understand the idea of a game that lasts for 5 days.

At a push they can understand one that lasts 1 day.

It should be glaringly obvious why ODIs are better attended:

Barring a tie there will be a result
Everything is over in that one day.
Both teams will be seen batting and fielding/bowling in the same day.

Thus, anyone who has saved their shekels to see the one game they can see all season is far more likely to have his cricket spectator itch scratched in that one game.

Funnily enough, the two of the more exhiliarating moments of the last Ashes series were when people were on tenterhooks wondering if Australia could hold out for the draw or England could take the last few wickets as the number of balls ran out AND when Australia got to 2 runs of winning another Test.

These sort of climaxes "X runs needed off Y balls remaining with Z wickets in hand" etc... are more likely to occur in ODi cricket.

They ARE undoubtedly spectator/TV moments.

I understand they happen in Test cricket too and millions love and adore the intricacies of Test cricket but the adjective I'd use for that is intrguing where ODIs earn the exciting tag.

As for saying ODIs are soon forgotten. So are many Test matches too.

If England had won all the World Cup finals it played in, they would be remembered in England

Once again, you are countering a point I never made. Couldn't care less about how the games were attended. Not my point.

The point was the players did not have to be in England from May to September.

That's a third of the year!!!

Total waste of time.

Whenever England are asked to go to the Indian sub-continent, the moans are incessant. I wonder what the reaction would be if they had to have a nigh on 4 month tour?

So why are people advocating long tours for England, why does anyone have to be in any one place for so long to play just 5 Tests and 3-5 ODIs.

The answer is, there is no reason.

With all due respect, Olly never addressed my issue at all. Like him, you've totally got the wrong idea of what I am saying.

I fully appreciate that Test cricket can give you moments that rank with the best in ANY sport.

So can ODIs too anyway.

West Indies' win in the ICC Champions Trophy in Sept 2004 was a recent one that I will never forget.

Lara's century vs SA in the 1st game of World Cup 2003 was another for me.

I could go on but that's not the point.

The point is to fully appreciate those moments you would need to be someone with the time and money to invest in the length of Test matches and be able to put up with the dour moments to see the high moments.

Well you've answered my point for me.

Admittedly in this analogy 20/20 would be the 100m, Tests the marathon and ODIs maybe the 400m.

Now, if you are a connoisseur you will like all but ask the people who have a passing and general interest in Athletics and they will prefer the shorter two events.

Why??

They are more exciting, instantly satisfy whatever fix they needed and allow them to get on with the rest of their lives.

Why is 20/20 being pushed so much??

Because they readily admit it is more exciting and will put "bums" on seats even more so than ODIs.

And for the same criteria ODIs are more"exciting" than Tests.

I myself don't like the way one day cricket is used Rich at the end of a Test series, although I am not keen myself, I can see a use for it.

Being that very little warm up games are played these day, ODIs could be used before the Test series like when England played Australia in 2005, at least the players will be fresh.

But when a team (England or any other) are expected to play a 7 or 9 one day series after a Test series (twice in a winter) then I think that's a little over the top.

Some players are sent home, while other have to stay on and play a longish one day series, and this is not good for a players well being.

This could be overcome by having a specialist one day team, with players who did not play in the Test side, this would not weaken the side, because a fresh set of players would be taking over, I would be a lot more sympathetic to ODIs if this was the case.

Look at Trescothick, why did he have to go home?, probably he was just plain knackered and fed up with cricket, and wanted to spend some time with his family.

If any profession in ordinary street were presented with such conditions, then you can bet the employers would be dogged by strikes.

While it is true that India and Pakistan play the same ammount of one day cricket as England, I really am of the opinion that the circumstances are not the same.

What I mean by that is when players from a temperate climate like England tour two tropical countries like Pakistan and India back to back in the same winter, it must IMHO be harder to adjust to the heat for months on end, than the other way round playing in a pleasant tempature in the 70sF.

This is no excuse I think it's a fact, but I think this can be overcome by useing fresh players, and moving the ODIs to before the Test series.
That's just my opinion, only the players know the truth of what I say, but you can see weariness on players faces on the TV, that says heaps IMHO.

__________________
Ern

It would probably also help everyone Ernest if for a start the ICC ban 7 match series for good. 5 games are more then enough.

It would also help everyone if the ICC ban 2 test match series (which is the main reason why you see so many short, cramped tours with no proper warm ups); the minimum amount of tests in a series should be set at 3.

And they should also make it a law that you have to have at least 3 days gap in between successive tests with only the Boxing Day-New Year's test remaining an exception to this rule.

It would also help if less important one-day tournaments, like the ICC Champions Trophy, Asia Cup, Afro Asia Cup, and god knows what not, were either removed from the international calendar altogther or alternatively their schedules be streamlined.

Perhaps countries like England and Australia ought to look at their own home schedules too.

What's the point (except of money generation) of Australia playing a best of 3 finals in the VB series each year? This could be easily cut down to one knock out game. What's the point of a round robin phase where each side plays the other a grand total of 4 times? 2 times is more then enough.

What's the point of England playing two seperate Nat West Tournaments each year, a 3 match series and the other a many game 3 country event? Why can't this be just one tournament with either 5 games against one side or with three sides and round robin stage of 2 games against each opponent before a final? Why not ...because it would make less money. And Nat West and the ECB would absolutely hate that.

The problem is not with one-day cricket it self. The problem is with the powers to be. Its with the boards, every single one of the from the BCCI, to the PCB, to the ECB, to Cricket Australia, even the Bangladesh Board is driven by making money. And to supervize all this we have our very own grand mother of all money making activities in the ICC.

Every where the authorities are so bloody driven and obsessed about making maximum amount of money possible they don't give two hoots to how such madenning schedules could affect the players in the long and short term or indeed how it is affecting the game it self.

That's the problem. And the sad part is, apart from wide spread brain transplanting across the cricket authorities in all parts of the world (quite a radical and difficult task you'd agree) there are not many other ways I can see how this money obsession can be cured. Sigh.

In that case you should be pleased to hear that the ECB have come round to your opinion on that, from this year on there will be a separate 5 match one-day series against each touring side.

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

In that case, that's much better.

England last year played five ODI's in the Natwest series. They then played three more ODI's against Australia. This gives in total eight games.

This year England will be playing 10 ODI's. That's worse than last year, and ECB will make more money. That is not better, still trying to spin money.

I thought they played more then 5 aginst Bangladesh/Australia, before the 3 against Australia again...but I'm willing to take your word on it Vrock, in which case, shame on the ECB.

3 games against Pakistan and 3 against Sri Lanka each would have been a better idea. Or a single 3 way series between Sri Lanka, Pakistan and England could have done too.