I'm just slightly sick of some people constantly down playing the significance of ODI cricket.



I am just wondering if they realise that



1)In the subcontinent, which if people have forgotten constitutes about 60% of the total ICC full members, one day cricket is still the MOST popular format of the game.

2) It is most probably also the format of the game that brings in most of the money (in Pakistan and Sri Lanka at least this seems to be the case as attendances at ODI cricket have always been far better then at test cricket)

3) The rest of the world is not perpetually pre occupied with the Ashes, the World Cup, for the majority of the subcontinent, it is probably safe to assume, is the biggest prize. It might not feature in the priority list for England, but it is probably the biggest priority for sides like India, Pakistan, Sri Lankna and even Bangladesh I might say.

c) 20 20 which is being billed up by England as the apparent heir to One-Day cricket has not gathered all that momentum here. At the domestic level it has only hit off in Pakistan, but despite its popularity even then the Pakistan Cricket Board it self is not in favor of a 20Twenty World Cup and neither is the BCCI (Sri Lanka and B'desh are yet to make their positions clear on this).

d) If people like it or not, the BCCI does have a lot of influence in the game (to put it mildly). If they along with the PCB continue to show this level of skepticism about the future of the 20-overs-a-side format it is very well possible there might not be that many 20 20 World Cups and more 50 overs a side cricket instead.



In other words I do not see that many threats to the one-day game in the subcontinent at least for a significant period of time. England might have real massive issue with it, but it's going strong here (and given the amount of say India have recently had in shaping the future tours program that would be quite an important factor I would think).



If England are so averse to the idea of One-day cricket no one is stopping them from giving it up altogether and only feature a test side (that will be much more pleasant for both sets of fans seemingly ). But no need to presume that English dislike of this format is shared by the rest of the world, or that because that format doesn't seem all that popular in England it will probably diminish world wide in future.

I guess if England suddenly found a winning formula a lot of fans would take greater interest in the one day game but having seen an interview in the press this weekend with Matthew Hoggard who regards one day matches as a bit of a jolly and nowhere near as important as test cricket i think that is unlikely to happen.

You can't blame us fans for having a mindset that one day cricket is not as important as test cricket if the players are thinking that way can you?

Evening Zainub

1. It is the most popular format of the game out there, and all power to those who support it.
2. Very probably. Again - great if they want to watch it.
3. The world cup might be the biggest prize for the rest of the world, again great. I'd argue that beating the number 1s ie the aussies is the greatest prize in cricket rather than any political point scoring ie pakistan beating india and vice versa.
4. 20/20 isnt being billed in england as heir apparent to anything in england. We're just not as crap as it. The ecb might have suggested a 2020 world cup but not a replacement as far as I can see.
5. Again whether they do or not is neither here nor there for me.

OK, the last bit. WHy would it be more pleasant for both sets of fans ? If we lose we dont smash up the place, we trudge to the local watering hole and increase their profits. To think we'd just bow out of the ODI areana is at best fool hardy and never going to happen. can you imagine the fine we'd get ? No keep on playing them, we'll get it right eveanutally just dont expect me and alot of other england supporters to be bothered. So ask me if I'm bovvered ? No, cause I ant bovvered.

I cant find ANYONE who thinks the rst of the world shouldnt be bothered because england arent - thats just silly ! 20/20 will probably be an add on because it will make the ICC more money.

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

I don't disagree with any of the points you make, Zainub: the fact that the ODI is the leading format of the game in your part of the world is well known, and in fact is acknowledged by many of the people posting here. However, for good or bad, many of the people who post here are England supporters, and in this part of the world the ODI is the poorer relation. Just one of those things! I don't complain about the ODI at all - but I don't enjoy it anywhere as much as I do the test format, and I'd hazard a guess (no more) that many England fans - and hence many posters here - feel the same way. Each to his own, I guess. You're surely right that the ODI is safe in the subcontinent, and regardless of my opinion I'd say you can reckon on seeing England turning up for the ODIs (and losing) for many years to come.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

20 20 is NOT going to make the ICC more money Richie, it is going to make the ICC (read BCCI) less money if anything.

A one-day game lasts the better part of 7 hours, compared to this a 20 - 20 game finishes in what, two and half hours or something ? Which do you think will earn you more ? Which will have the people in the stadium consuming food and drink for longer ? Which will have fans hooked to the tv for longer ? Which will have more ads during more overs break and hence more money earned via sponsorship deals ? The one that lasts longer ....

To put it in one word ... the BCCI is going to be one ugly big bad boy in this ...it doesn't like 20 20 and its going to have its way ...one way or the other

To everyone else, I am not suggesting England give up their dislike of one-day cricket, I am just suggesting that their presumptions of it diminishing world wide are misplaced.

But you can fit more than one 20/20 in a day. But if they do, as I suggested, do both, they will make more money.

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

I am sure these people do realise all the facts you elegantly summarise Zainub. However, they are still well within their rights not to be too keen on ODI cricket; just because a large number of people on the other side of the world fancy something, does not mean everyone else has to as well. It is only when such sentiments lead to bizarre and arrogant generalisations that I tend to take issue with them - for instance, an England supporter is being perfectly sensible when he says that the Eng v Aus Test series in 2005 was one of the better England series of recent times; however, for him to claim (as so many England supporters have done) that it was "one of the best series of all time" or "a contest that had the attention of all cricket followers" etc etc, is plain nonsense. The "Ashes", interesting though it may to be a small minority of cricket followers, is a non-issue for the vast majority, and though the 2005 edition was more interesting than most others over the last 20 years, it was not half as interesting as any World Cup would ever be. I am sure sensible England cricket fans do realise that this is how many in the rest of the world perceives and follows cricket; England chooses to prioritise other things, and is perfectly entitled to do so. True. In fact, ODI cricket, though a poor relation to Test matches in England, is still a genuine spectator sport; all England ODIs are very well attended and even one-dayers involving county sides are well-followed, something that is absent in many so-called bastions of ODI cricket! England will not be so bad at ODIs for long - in fact, they are not poor per se even now, just playing below their potential and suffering due to some rather mediocre management. After all, the same England team competed so well with the Aussies in ODIs last summer, and reached the final of the ICC Champions' Trophy the year before that. They do after all have the best grass roots cricket set-up anywhere in the world, one of the best first-class cricket arrangements (with a solid one-day cricket tradition) and a well-funded and professionally organised structure at the senior team level; hence no reason to believe they will struggle at ODIs for long. Till recently, England's Test results were often shambolic; they were able to turn that around and should be able to do the same in ODIs too. After all, England were one of the better ODI teams through the 1980s and the early part of the 1990s, so there is a precedent for England dominating the shorter form of the game.

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

Now you're making it my business.

And I'm normally so mild mannered.

I've got pretty upset in the last twenty years that this English game, invented for grass pitches in a temperate climate, is now governed by the ICC. Whatever happened to the MCC? The MCC rules of cricket.
I've got a copy of that somewhere. Probably two or three actually.


One might assume that this is whingeing. Those four nations do not set the world alight away from home in the Test arena. Without Muralitharan (who for various whingey reasons - well actually, one - does not get my vote as the greatest spinner of all time) Sri Lanka would not compete with most nations. Pakistan are coming again after an overlong hiatus, India do have formidable and exciting batting but Bangladesh are minnows. Thank God for the destruction of Zimbabwe, without whom Bangladesh wouldn't've won a Test match.

It is true that without one day internationals Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh would not have made it to the "top" table of Test cricket, and for that reason alone, I suppose, they (ODIs) are a good thing. But hey, if you don't want to play Test cricket, let's have a two division system. We've been arguing for one for long enough.

The ODI-centric sides can play fifteen matches in a six week tour, with the occasional Test match thrown in to keep SKY sports amused. And the Test-centric sides can play old style twelve to sixteen week tours with five Tests and three ODIs. Sounds perfect to me.

You guys'll win all the ODIs and we'll fare better in the Tests. But with the beauty of Tests, of course, every now and then we'll lose one, and have a damn good whinge about it.

Trouble with that is, we'll get frighteningly close to the dreadful divide that the ICC is so terrified of.

We all need each other, for money's sake. Not God, or Allah!

England is now so multi-cultural that we can guarantee sell out crowds for almost every Test nation. So we'll carry on playing ODIs and I'll carry on being bored by them.

Zainub tell me, without looking it up did Australia or England win the first ODI series of last summer?
I'm fairly sure there were two. Why? What on earth was the point of that?

I know you're not bothered with Ashes cricket, but I feel sure you can have a stab at this question.

I actually don't know the answer.

I do know that England are currently four down from five matches with one cancelled against India. I haven't the faintest idea what happened against Pakistan before Christmas. We lost the Tests one-nil and must've lost the ODIs. Did we win one? Probably not.

I think we beat Bangladesh last year. Certainly in the Test series. I think we beat Australia in the Tests last summer. Two-one I reckon. And did England draw or lose two-one in the Tests in South Africa, can't remember that I admit.
We beat West Indies home and away in Tests. No idea what happened in the ODIs.

So Pakistan, drew one each with India in Tests after a long break. What happened in the ODIs?

Do they stay in the memory? Can you remember a match where your greatest allrounder scored a hundred and fifty odd runs to dig Pakistan out of a hole against bitter rivals and then his fast bowling mate took eight wickets to win the match, after following on?

IT's horses for course Zainub.

My greatest memories come from Test cricket. That's what I like, that's what I remember.

I'm not saying it's wrong to like ODIs. It's just not for me.
Its not because we lose every time we step over the thirty yard circle, it's because I don't like them.

To me. Its not cricket. You like it, and that's fine.

Its just not to my taste.

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

Just to be clear, Ollie, are you saying you don't like ODIs and they make no impact on your memory? 'Cos if so, I'm with you.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

I think that's what I said.

But I can ramble a bit when I try.

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