T20's, as I touched on in my last blog post, have become a prominent part of the tour structure between international teams. In the past there would typically be one international T20, merely playing the role of a curtain raiser or afterthought. Now however, you will rarely see fewer than two being played, and what has become more common is three between two international sides, as we are currently witnessing between New Zealand and South Africa.
Something else I touched on in the last post is the ominous future of ODI cricket. What role does it have to play in this day and age, when you have the excitement of the T20's, and the enduring theatrics of test cricket? Again, this is a question for another time, but for the time being, it is still integral to the triumverate of international stages.
What I will say in this regard, is that the structure of the three stages is certainly not doing the future of ODI's any favours. By structure, I mean the order in which T20's, ODI's and tests and played. England's current tour of the UAE against Pakistan has seen tests played first, followed by ODI's, and finishing with T20's. New Zealand v South Africa has seen a rather more blistering start to the series, with the T20's coming first, then ODI's, then the test series. The upcoming fixture between Australia and West Indies curiously begins with ODI's, followed by T20's and again climaxing with tests.
Now I'd be jumping the gun if I was to say that there wasn't some order to the apparent chaos in the ICC's logic, but as an outsider, I find it very odd. It almost seems like they're experimenting in what is, to be fair, still a relatively new triumverate of the cricketing calender. However, there is an order that I can't help but feel would not only make sense, but would sustain the future of the 50 over game.
Take the two current series in New Zealand and UAE as more than competent case studies. England have come back brilliantly from the test series whitewash, as they go into the final ODI looking to complete a whitewash themselves. One can't help but feel that the damage has been done though. It reminds me of when England beat South Africa 4-0 in the ODI series following the test series defeat in 2008, and when Australia beat England 6-1 after losing the Ashes in 2009. It's a hammering, it's a good feeling, and the team consequently surges up the ODI rankings. It doesn't change the fact that they have lost on the ultimate platform of the tests though. The last laugh doesn't trump the biggest laugh. In New Zealand, the T20's have so far provided a thrilling opener to the tour. Martin Guptill and Richard Levi have set up a deciding T20 on Tuesday which prompts a really intriguing ODI and test series. The two T20 matches between Pakistan and England, will at best be a chance for England to continue their salvaging in pride, and I would be surprised if Pakistan take it with anything more heartier than a pinch of salt.
So by now you've probably caught onto my drift. I believe it makes sense- common sense, that a series should open with T20's, follow with ODI's and finish with the 5 day format.
Now onto my next question. How does this increase the longevity of the one day format? One has to come to terms now with the fact that the ODI stage isn't quite what it was. It's no longer the primary source of entertainment in cricket. However, I believe it can take on the role of prepping players, conditions and management for the test series that should follow. Why would Alistair Cook and Kevin Pietersen suddenly be scoring runs in the ODI series after a miserable test series? Granted, ODI's are treated with a completely different mindset. But imagine if England had scored with ease in the test series as they have done now. The outcomes would be significantly different. Accustoming to the conditions of the pitch, ironing out any rustiness, and just getting some time out there in the middle are all more than useful in preparing for the tests, and why not use the ODI's for this? The tests are after all, the ultimate test. And for the players who won't use this platform for the test series, it's a great oportunity to nurture T20 skills into the slightly longer form of the game. (I hope Levi for instance, gets more than just a T20 run around). This is not to say that ODI's should merely be treated as practice games. Alistair Cook for instance, relsihes the competitiveness as he is being weaned on to captaincy for the test format.
With the birth of a third competitive series in the T20's, the ICC need to adapt to an ever-changing cricketing environment. I believe the structuring of the T20's, the ODI's and the tests are vital for the sake of the interest of the game (not just for the fans but for the players) and for the future of ODI cricket.
Do you also feel this is the right order? Am I being too harsh on the future of ODI cricket?
Something else I touched on in the last post is the ominous future of ODI cricket. What role does it have to play in this day and age, when you have the excitement of the T20's, and the enduring theatrics of test cricket? Again, this is a question for another time, but for the time being, it is still integral to the triumverate of international stages.
What I will say in this regard, is that the structure of the three stages is certainly not doing the future of ODI's any favours. By structure, I mean the order in which T20's, ODI's and tests and played. England's current tour of the UAE against Pakistan has seen tests played first, followed by ODI's, and finishing with T20's. New Zealand v South Africa has seen a rather more blistering start to the series, with the T20's coming first, then ODI's, then the test series. The upcoming fixture between Australia and West Indies curiously begins with ODI's, followed by T20's and again climaxing with tests.
Now I'd be jumping the gun if I was to say that there wasn't some order to the apparent chaos in the ICC's logic, but as an outsider, I find it very odd. It almost seems like they're experimenting in what is, to be fair, still a relatively new triumverate of the cricketing calender. However, there is an order that I can't help but feel would not only make sense, but would sustain the future of the 50 over game.
Take the two current series in New Zealand and UAE as more than competent case studies. England have come back brilliantly from the test series whitewash, as they go into the final ODI looking to complete a whitewash themselves. One can't help but feel that the damage has been done though. It reminds me of when England beat South Africa 4-0 in the ODI series following the test series defeat in 2008, and when Australia beat England 6-1 after losing the Ashes in 2009. It's a hammering, it's a good feeling, and the team consequently surges up the ODI rankings. It doesn't change the fact that they have lost on the ultimate platform of the tests though. The last laugh doesn't trump the biggest laugh. In New Zealand, the T20's have so far provided a thrilling opener to the tour. Martin Guptill and Richard Levi have set up a deciding T20 on Tuesday which prompts a really intriguing ODI and test series. The two T20 matches between Pakistan and England, will at best be a chance for England to continue their salvaging in pride, and I would be surprised if Pakistan take it with anything more heartier than a pinch of salt.
So by now you've probably caught onto my drift. I believe it makes sense- common sense, that a series should open with T20's, follow with ODI's and finish with the 5 day format.
Now onto my next question. How does this increase the longevity of the one day format? One has to come to terms now with the fact that the ODI stage isn't quite what it was. It's no longer the primary source of entertainment in cricket. However, I believe it can take on the role of prepping players, conditions and management for the test series that should follow. Why would Alistair Cook and Kevin Pietersen suddenly be scoring runs in the ODI series after a miserable test series? Granted, ODI's are treated with a completely different mindset. But imagine if England had scored with ease in the test series as they have done now. The outcomes would be significantly different. Accustoming to the conditions of the pitch, ironing out any rustiness, and just getting some time out there in the middle are all more than useful in preparing for the tests, and why not use the ODI's for this? The tests are after all, the ultimate test. And for the players who won't use this platform for the test series, it's a great oportunity to nurture T20 skills into the slightly longer form of the game. (I hope Levi for instance, gets more than just a T20 run around). This is not to say that ODI's should merely be treated as practice games. Alistair Cook for instance, relsihes the competitiveness as he is being weaned on to captaincy for the test format.
With the birth of a third competitive series in the T20's, the ICC need to adapt to an ever-changing cricketing environment. I believe the structuring of the T20's, the ODI's and the tests are vital for the sake of the interest of the game (not just for the fans but for the players) and for the future of ODI cricket.
Do you also feel this is the right order? Am I being too harsh on the future of ODI cricket?
No comments:
Post a Comment