That's when any sense of competition is demeaned, because the structure of that competition seems ridiculous. I think the aversion to ODI cricket expressed by some people, myself included, is partly due to the perception that there is too much of it. Of course, the same thing could be said of test cricket - every English summer now has 7 test matches, where in the past it was 5 or 6. For some reason, I don't get fed up with so many tests, but the ODIs don't seem to matter so much after a while.

What is undeniable, and which has been stated continuously here, is that ODIs bring in revenue, and attract new fans. I much prefer tests to ODIs, but the shorter form of the game is the main route into cricket for most new fans. Limited overs cricket has revolutionised the game, and is the form of cricket that most people begin playing. I suppose a Sunday dinner analogy is the best explanation for non-fans of ODIs. If the tests are the dessert, and ODIs the greens, you can't have the dessert unless you eat your greens.

It's getting late ... I'm starting to talk rubbish ...

__________________
Just what is going off out there?

I do apologise, I was wrong!

There were 10 games, although one of them was washed out so technically it was nine.

I do agree though, two sets of three games against Sri Lanka and Pakistan would be a much better idea.

__________________
Watch this for a perfect about.
James May

Too right Mongoose, totally agree on the revenue idea, way more than tests definitely.

New fans is a good one, most youngsters getting into the game live lives which are time demanding, they don't have time to watch test matches so ODI's are the more excitable and shorter games so they win in all aspects. This means that more youngsters tend to prefer ODI's to test cricket.

Also, with so much choice for people now-a-days people's attention span's are getting shorter. The ability to watch a five day game is just too much for some and change the channel to watch something funny or more entertaining in their opinion.

The modern era of fast paced life and all the choice "other than" Test cricket mean that ODI's are far easier to watch and live with.

__________________
Watch this for a perfect about.
James May

I imagine it is something to do with the climate, and possibly the food.

For me it is always amusing that whenever England tour the subcontinent, there is always a section of the touring party that assumes just because they've practically eaten in every possible curry house in Bradford, the local cuisine is not going to be frightfully challenging. And like the immensely stupid and not to say irresponsible Chris Lewis (a man of afro-Caribbean heritage) shaving his head before going out into the noon-day Caribbean sun - and getting sun-stroke; it always ends in tears. Several England players are always laid low, one Bangalore Phal too many.

"I can eat 'em in Bradford" you just know they've said it.

The English invented cricket (probably) as a nice summer game to play all day (for several days) in a temperate summer climate. Sometimes we even wear jerseys. I certainly will be in two weeks time. Maybe even two jerseys. By our nature we are frightfully light skinned, and don't react well to very hot weather. Here is an anachronism.

One of our favourite sports is very tough to play when it is very hot. IT is even harder to play when our pathetic English digestive systems have rejected large quantities of local food AND it is very hot.

I imagine, this is one of the reasons the English complain like mad about long tours to the subcontinent.

In England we are constantly having the joy of "multi-culturalism" shoved done our throats by the splendid Tony Blair (or Tony B-Liar - as somebody suggested last year). A partial result of this current splendid state of affairs is that most cultures that come here can find something (probably a rather tamer version) similar to what they are used to eating at home.

Obviously it won't be any good, because food you eat anywhere is never as good as it is at home, but there it is.

Aside from this frivolous food thing... the weather here does mean that touring sides will NOT be broiled alive in the burning sun, quite the reverse... in Manchester (not just Manchester) they are quite likely to be drowned. Either way - I suppose it's because we invented it - the general temperature of the place helpfully supports the game (it's not TOO hot) and we think (possibly/probably incorrectly) that overseas players actually want to come here to play at Trent Bridge (second home of Richard Hadlee) Lords (cricket HQ!) Old Trafford (spiritual home of Clive Lloyd) Edgbaston (home from home for Allan Donald and Shaun Pollock) and Headingly (eerrmmm lots of Yorkshire folk) and the Vauxhall Oval (occasional home for Saqlain Mushtaq among others).

Obviously we're wrong.

Aside from all that nonsense (I mean that which I've just written) I completely agree that seven match Test series are RIDICULOUS. But I think five is a very good contest.

I understand COMPLETELY that ODIs put more bums on seats than Test matches. OF COURSE.

I just like Test matches more.

And I can remember watching some one day internationals. Even some of the ones you don't think I should, like the one in the World Cup final of 1979 when England were annihilated by the West Indies. It was all going swimmingly well until Collis King came in and he and Viv Richards were destructive on England's fifth bowler - who was a mixture of (don't laugh) Wayne (I'm not very good at cricket) Larkins, Geoff (I only bowl with my cap on) Boycott and (Oh my gosh) somebody else.

And then setting off to chase an (for then) unfeasably large total, England opened the batting with Mike Brearley and Geoff Boycott; and reached something amazing (for England) like 79 for no wicket, before the wickets began to tumble.
I remember Gooch coming in at four or five and Randall (possibly, I'm working on fumes now) England needed eight an over, with lots of overs to go, but no earthly chance of winning.

Perhaps one day cricket is a game for younger watchers. I was eighteen then. I haven't seen much of the last two World Cups... and I was a bit cross about that Zimbabwe thing in the last tournament. The ICC did not come out of that tournament smelling of roses.

Yup, I just like Test cricket more... perhaps it is an age thing.

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

I thought the reason for the long windies tours was because they wanted their players to play in england for longer to get experience as no counties were wanting to take them on, the idea being for the windies board to show their players off to the clubs more and get in plenty of games as a team? Surely they agreed with the tour or they wouldn't have come over in the first place?, it's not like they don't have a history of throwing their toys out of the pram when they don't agree with something their board has organised and so just going on strike.

I actually think tours should be longer and with more practice games. I can't believe players moan about being away from home, they get paid a fair whack and only have work for maybe 8 months of the year, sounds great to me.

As an aside, just because people like test matchs doesn't mean they're obsessed with only the ashes. The ashes is a big thing simply because we're always so shockingly bad when we play australia, we always play really well up until the ashes, then half our team gets injured and the rest lose all their ability. I look forward to all the sub-continent tours and actually value a win there far more than an ashes win in terms of ability (although the fact we have to put up with aussies constantly reminding us of how rubbish we are makes it very nice when we do beat them, hence the euphoria). I take a great interest in the pakistan v india series because of the rivalry there, I watched several of the oz v sa tests and always look out for bangladesh's progress.

I wonder if Afridi is happy with his decision.

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