Stokes retiring from ODI cricket

[thierry henry]

The biggest issue with ODIs is that boards saw fit to simply roll out their second or third XIs all the time

Yeah it seems like this and "people just don't care about them anymore" are the arguments, but that's sort of missing the point. The question is why. People don't just stop caring about things for no reason. ODIs used to be popular and high profile.

The simple (and logical, and true?) explanation is that there ended up being a huge number of ODIs and an over-saturation of context and meaning-less bilateral series. This of course encouraged teams to roll out understrength teams. JAMODIs were the logical consequence of scheduling a huge number of meaningless ODIs - so surely the logical response would be less ODIs, not "we scheduled too many ODIs because they were so popular, so I guess ODIs now inevitably suck forever"? The leap in logic is bizarre.

Or maybe it's just that T20Is are more financially viable and always will be and the actual or potential quality of ODI cricket is irrelevant - in which case we've all just accepted a pretty good variant of cricket being replaced by a terrible one with a shrug of the shoulders. I mean it's probably that, but we should at least be able to point out that it's bad and ODIs are capable of being good on a cricket forum without too much dissent, right?

 

[TheJediBrah]

The simple (and logical, and true?) explanation is that there ended up being a huge number of ODIs and an over-saturation of context and meaning-less bilateral series. This of course encouraged teams to roll out understrength teams. JAMODIs were the logical consequence of scheduling a huge number of meaningless ODIs - so surely the logical response would be less ODIs, not "we scheduled too many ODIs because they were so popular, so I guess ODIs now inevitably suck forever"?

Nah, when ODIs were at their peak appeal in the late 90s, early 00s with Sharjah tournaments and Tri-series all the time most teams fielded were about as full strength as they could be, with the exception of a rested game here or there. It wasn't until much later that 2nd XI teams, or 3rd XI bowling attacks started being named with regularity, and it coincided with T20 franchise peaking. So the issue wasn't too many ODIs, it was too many T20s competing in the same niche as the ODIs

 

[thierry henry]

Nah, when ODIs were at their peak appeal in the late 90s, early 00s with Sharjah tournaments and Tri-series all the time most teams fielded were about as full strength as they could be, with the exception of a rested game here or there. It wasn't until much later that 2nd XI teams, or 3rd XI bowling attacks started being named with regularity, and it coincided with T20 franchise peaking. So the issue wasn't too many ODIs, it was too many T20s competing in the same niche as the ODIs

Yeah clearly having 3 formats instead of 2 is a fundamental change and we were never going to maintain the pre-T20 ODI schedule. I'm just questioning from a cricket fan perspective why we are cool with the "international limited overs allocation" being lopsided towards T20Is. As PEWS said, T20Is are also full of second string players and are even more meaningless and throwaway than ODIs. If meaningful contests are important to people it would make more sense to focus on a more compact ODI schedule. It also makes sense for nations to pick reasonably strong teams given the significance still afforded the ODI WC and the reality of a limited ODI schedule meaning there are relatively few games to waste in preparing for each WC.

I reiterate again that the reality is probably as simple as there still being money in JAMT20Is, and this whole discussion about what's "meaningful" is purely academic, I'm just surprised as cricket fans how little we care about something that stinks.

 

[honestbharani]

An ideal calendar would be 10 tests, 20 ODIs and 20 T20Is for every international team per year. This would mean about 3-4 test series and maybe 5-6 LO series.

 

[SteveNZ]

Yeah clearly having 3 formats instead of 2 is a fundamental change and we were never going to maintain the pre-T20 ODI schedule. I'm just questioning from a cricket fan perspective why we are cool with the "international limited overs allocation" being lopsided towards T20Is. As PEWS said, T20Is are also full of second string players and are even more meaningless and throwaway than ODIs. If meaningful contests are important to people it would make more sense to focus on a more compact ODI schedule. It also makes sense for nations to pick reasonably strong teams given the significance still afforded the ODI WC and the reality of a limited ODI schedule meaning there are relatively few games to waste in preparing for each WC.

I reiterate again that the reality is probably as simple as there still being money in JAMT20Is, and this whole discussion about what's "meaningful" is purely academic, I'm just surprised as cricket fans how little we care about something that stinks.

The issue being, national cricket boards don't make the majority of their money from Cricketweb members. So yeah, we care deeply about meaningful contests. Joe and Josephine Public, who form the major part of the hideous 'eyeballs' that marketers talk about, aren't the same. They don't know contests. All they know, to coin the late great Martin Crowe, is 'wackedy doo'. And yes, the reality is largely that there's more money in T20Is, even if they're utter trash and there's no relevance to them. They screen at ideal times for local markets - ie night time or mid afternoon on weekends - and you can squeeze 2-3 in a row back-to-back if you're a particularly greedy board.

 

[NZTailender]

An ideal calendar would be 10 tests, 20 ODIs and 20 T20Is for every international team per year. This would mean about 3-4 test series and maybe 5-6 LO series.

At a minimum, all series should be 3 tests, 3 ODIs and 3 T20Is. It won't be financially viable for all sides as Australia would probably never give Bangladesh, let alone Zimbabwe, Ireland or Afghanistan, anything like that anytime soon.

I think longer tours (plenty of warmups, etc) would be better for the quality of the cricket played - but to make it financially viable they'd probably run, say, the T20I series while the FC warm ups for tests go on. Boards like NZC seem happy with a million T20Is and 3 ODIs and 1 test, if they can get away with it.

I also absolutely miss the various ODI Tri-Series that used to take place. I know the neutral games were always a gate and tv rating loser, hence why they've fallen by the wayside.

 

[SteveNZ]

But yeah, T20Is are trash. Utter junk. Unfortunately I'm part of the problem - if I'm home, I'll watch them. It's convenient, which is why they work. And hell, I'll probably take my young girls knowing it's the most likely they are to sit and watch with me. I wish they didn't exist, but I'm a bit of a hypocrite if I still watch them.

I'd like to see the ICC create clear windows for international and franchise cricket, and clear guidelines for when the different formats should be played (ie a Test window around end of Dec/Jan, a T20I window to coincide with the IPL in April etc). And value the fact that ODIs are a thing, because they're going to be dead very soon. And I realise international sides have contributed to that by picking 2nd string sides, but if the calendar was streamlined and built around player welfare etc, it may not have to be the case.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I can understand the logic: play tests and be coached by a fellow Kiwi, or play ODIs and be coached by an Aussie. Easy choice

 

[thierry henry]

The issue being, national cricket boards don't make the majority of their money from Cricketweb members. So yeah, we care deeply about meaningful contests. Joe and Josephine Public, who form the major part of the hideous 'eyeballs' that marketers talk about, aren't the same. They don't know contests. All they know, to coin the late great Martin Crowe, is 'wackedy doo'. And yes, the reality is largely that there's more money in T20Is, even if they're utter trash and there's no relevance to them. They screen at ideal times for local markets - ie night time or mid afternoon on weekends - and you can squeeze 2-3 in a row back-to-back if you're a particularly greedy board.

Exactly, which is why I tend to focus on the "why doesn't CW care" argument more than the "why doesn't Joe Public care" bit. It's tough for me to face the reality that T20Is have probably replaced ODIs not because of any meaningful sporting reason but just because the games are shorter and sloggier and easier for people to spend their money on - but it is what it is and I'm not an accountant.

What confuses me, I guess, is that we CW nerds also seem to not care about the demise of ODIs, for reasons that seem illogical to me. Perhaps this forum is just so heavily hipster/traditionalist that it really is only tests that matter? As an older millennial, I struggle to comprehend that other cricket fans never cared about ODIs or their survival. They've always been a key part of the international calendar/my cricket fan diet and, bean counting aside, I've never heard a good explanation for why we shouldn't care about them.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Yeah I've liked ODIs - much more complexity than T20s and allow for teams to slowly fight back in matches

 

[GotSpin]

Exactly, which is why I tend to focus on the "why doesn't CW care" argument more than the "why doesn't Joe Public care" bit. It's tough for me to face the reality that T20Is have probably replaced ODIs not because of any meaningful sporting reason but just because the games are shorter and sloggier and easier for people to spend their money on - but it is what it is and I'm not an accountant.

What confuses me, I guess, is that we CW nerds also seem to not care about the demise of ODIs, for reasons that seem illogical to me. Perhaps this forum is just so heavily hipster/traditionalist that it really is only tests that matter? As an older millennial, I struggle to comprehend that other cricket fans never cared about ODIs or their survival. They've always been a key part of the international calendar/my cricket fan diet and, bean counting aside, I've never heard a good explanation for why we shouldn't care about them.

I cared for ODIs when teams rolled out their best XI. I reckon it’s as simple as that

 

[thierry henry]

The "second-string team" thing also feels a bit overblown to me - not a red herring, but exaggerated. A busy (but not overly busy) international schedule is a good thing, but it's always going to lead to a level of rest and rotation and a tendency to rest more players against weaker opposition.

Look at international rugby - rest, rotation and picking from a huge wider squad are commonplace. Guys who are clearly not first string will get picked even in high profile tests, because they need to be tried in that environment (because just like with ODIs, there's a WC as an ultimate goal every 4 years). None of this leads people to decry the whole thing as meaningless, just because every international isn't played for all the spoils. Surely it's a spectrum, not black and white "they're trying a couple of new guys so the game no longer counts".

 

[Prince EWS]

I cared for ODIs when teams rolled out their best XI. I reckon it’s as simple as that

Yeah this for me too. I still like the format, I still watch a lot of the games, but I don't care about the results in any way because the lineups are so far removed from their best as to mean the results don't really prove anything particularly interesting.

 

[Daemon]

I don't buy that modern cricketers play more cricket these days. Barrington played 30+ FC matches a year for the majority of his career. In 1999, Dravid played 43 ODIs and 10 tests. That's over a match per week. Not even like ODIs don't draw viewers anymore. The constant pussification of players by resting them from less important ODI series and the plague of T20 leagues have led to this. It's a damn shame too. Right now Babar Azam is batting at a level that has only been matched by the absolute greats but not surpassed and he's only played 6 ****ing ODIs this year. Cricketers these days are pampered divas who would rather bowl 24 balls a day then go home. Can't wait for the oversaturation of LO cricket to bleed the golden goose dry. Who knew moronic rules (2 new balls), terrible teams and myopic vision could kill something good? Pretty sure not one person thought of Finch's highest T20 score today but Anwar's 194 and Tendulkar's double still inspire boners years later. This is all going to wreck the sport.

People train harder these days. Barrington probably just rocked up to his games after a night of drinking and took cigar breaks every now and then when he was bored of standing at slip all day. Maybe he did a lap or two for cardio once a week as well or replaced that with a shag.

There was also **** all else to do back then, he didn’t have netflix, the ability to fly all over the world at a moment’s notice, ps5 etc. So no issue of burnout.

 

[GotSpin]

The "second-string team" thing also feels a bit overblown to me - not a red herring, but exaggerated. A busy (but not overly busy) international schedule is a good thing, but it's always going to lead to a level of rest and rotation and a tendency to rest more players against weaker opposition.

Look at international rugby - rest, rotation and picking from a huge wider squad are commonplace. Guys who are clearly not first string will get picked even in high profile tests, because they need to be tried in that environment (because just like with ODIs, there's a WC as an ultimate goal every 4 years). None of this leads people to decry the whole thing as meaningless, just because every international isn't played for all the spoils. Surely it's a spectrum, not black and white "they're trying a couple of new guys so the game no longer counts".

International Rugby and cricket are different though

When an entire third string XI is strutted out every match you know the results just don’t matter anymore. Completely different to trying out a new opens combination or the like

If Daniel Sams started opening the bowling in tests while starc and whowood just put their feet up I probably wouldn’t care about that either

 

[Burgey]

Bigger profit margin

I read a few years ago that ODIs actually bring in more revenue than T20s owing to the advert after every over thing. Likely changed a fair bit I suppose with streaming services and changes in rights deals etc.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I read a few years ago that ODIs actually bring in more revenue than T20s owing to the advert after every over thing. Likely changed a fair bit I suppose with streaming services and changes in rights deals etc.

More revenue total though? Or more profit? ODIs also take so much longer and hence I'd assume more expensive to run.

 

[thierry henry]

International Rugby and cricket are different though

When an entire third string XI is strutted out every match you know the results just don’t matter anymore. Completely different to trying out a new opens combination or the like

I guess as an NZ fan I can't relate because we were never really putting out 3rd string sides and in particular we always tried hard to win against strong opposition (or at least strong cricketing countries, irrespective of whether they had their best XI). So I blame all you other **** countries, I guess,

If Daniel Sams started opening the bowling in tests while starc and whowood just put their feet up I probably wouldn’t care about that either

I would think the more common response would be not to give up on test cricket (test cricket ffs!) but to say "hang on, why aren't teams trying hard to win tests anymore? Who decided they don't matter" - and then try to fix it. Which is what I'm talking about.

 

[GotSpin]

I would think the more common response would be not to give up on test cricket (test cricket ffs!) but to say "hang on, why aren't teams trying hard to win tests anymore? Who decided they don't matter" - and then try to fix it. Which is what I'm talking about.

What do you mean try to fix it?

As a viewer or as an administrator?

 

[thierry henry]

What do you mean try to fix it?

As a viewer or as an administrator?

As an administrator who cares about cricket being good (such a person may not exist) - try to fix it

As a viewer - bemoan the state of things

The response I don't understand is allowing ODI cricket to disappear without even complaining about it. ODI cricket doesn't suck, the teams/boards made it suck because they decided it doesn't matter. The fans didn't decide it didn't matter and tell their teams to ruin the product. And they've replaced it with T20Is which are worse and which also don't matter. We should at least be bitching about this even if it's futile - it's a cricket forum ffs, all of our bitching is futile.