Importance of Bilateral series.

[Nintendo]

Hey all,

Was watching this video by Jarrod Kimber about how bilateral series are starting to mean less and less and how they should ideally be viewed as a chance to experiment and develop depth for WC.

.

Was wondering how fans from different countries felt about this perspective and other issues bought up in the vid. I know teams like India have a very different viewpoint on this then Australia or England, so interested to see the discussion.

 

[Ali TT]

I've not given a toss about bilateral series since England played 7 ODIs in India in 2006 and had Ian Blackwell and about five wicketkeepers playing. And that was in the days when ODI series were still part of a full tour with tests. Now we have separate ODI tours, sometimes played simultaneously with test series happening elsewhere. The testing players/experimenting point is correct but that makes them glorified development matches like football friendlies, rather than meaningful internationals.

 

[Howe_zat]

We've been calling them JAMODIs for years

 

[ataraxia]

This deteriorating sucks.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Was watching this video by Jarrod Kimber about how bilateral series are starting to mean less and less and how they should ideally be viewed as a chance to experiment and develop depth for WC.

I've not watched the video, but I feel like the direction of causation is wrong here. "Bilateral series mean less therefore use them to experiment for WCs" may have some truth to it, but I feel like the reverse is stronger, i.e. "Teams just using bilateral series to experiment for WCs makes the bilateral series mean less."

I really like ODIs and I would like to care more about the results of bilateral series than I do. But when it's [Understrength Team] vs [Even More Understrength Team] and [Understrength Team] wins, it's pretty hard to care much about the result. On the occasions where two (near-) full strength teams meet in a bilateral, the results are still meaningful I think, just doesn't happen very often these days.

 

[Ashes81]

I think they have become less important due to the domestic T20 leagues.

These result in white ball cricketers playing significantly more cricket than they used to and therefore aren't always available for international white ball cricket.

Also players that also play test cricket nearly always rest up when the international white ball cricket is played.

Certainly for England, virtually the only time we're at full strength for white ball cricket is for the World Cups.

 

[Howe_zat]

I've not watched the video, but I feel like the direction of causation is wrong here. "Bilateral series mean less therefore use them to experiment for WCs" may have some truth to it, but I feel like the reverse is stronger, i.e. "Teams just using bilateral series to experiment for WCs makes the bilateral series mean less."

I really like ODIs and I would like to care more about the results of bilateral series than I do. But when it's [Understrength Team] vs [Even More Understrength Team] and [Understrength Team] wins, it's pretty hard to care much about the result. On the occasions where two (near-) full strength teams meet in a bilateral, the results are still meaningful I think, just doesn't happen very often these days.

It's also massively skewed towards under-strength bowling attacks which is why there's also a lot of panic about high scoring series before it gets to a world cup and it's suddenly okay again

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I think the idea of a tri-series gives a nice touch to the ODI format.

I remember how legendary the CB series was in Australia.

 

[Nintendo]

It's also massively skewed towards under-strength bowling attacks which is why there's also a lot of panic about high scoring series before it gets to a world cup and it's suddenly okay again

It's also flatter decks, and the 2 new ball making it easier to hit upfront and at the death+killing reverse swung and a ton of other things, but ide say your right in this being a huge factor, particularly for teams like AUS who rest one of/there entire bowling attack most ODI series unless it's just before the WC.

 

[Ali TT]

Well they tried to address the meaningless with the CWC super league format but that's being abandoned as I understand the bigger teams would prefer to play more bilateral series against each other than have to play against the Netherlands or Ireland.

 

[Yeoman]

For me, stand-alone white ball series have always raised the ‘so what’? Question. Back in the 1980s and 90s they served (in England) as a curtain raiser for the test series. Without it, they are exposed and lack context. This, for me, is the downside of the format. A test match or series is a primal test of strength between nations and can stand alone. A limited over match or series feels artificial by nature and requires some wider context to engage beyond the level of ephemeral entertainment.

 

[Yeoman]

To expand on my previous post, I find now that I prefer watching domestic one day games to white ball internationals. The feeling that an international should matter and yet knowing that it doesn’t really, even sometimes to the participants, creates an uncomfortable dissonance.

 

[Daemon]

I kinda enjoy them purely for the cricket if they’re on but really couldn’t care less about the results. I don’t think I could name you 5 series and their respective winners from this year unlike Tests where it sticks in your mind.

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

From what I've gathered , Most nations lose a lot of money on hosting test matches. So if white ball bilateral series can help ease the burden on financial costs I'm all for it , that's all the context I need .

 

[thierry henry]

Bilateral ODIs are the pinnacle of cricket

 

[slowfinger]

do it properly or don’t do it at all. i’m talking about minimum 3 test series, 4 ODIs in a tour and a ****ing good trophy to fight for don’t have the tour at all.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Last year's T20 Banglawash triseries > all bilateral series

 

[andruid]

Me after most JAMODI series

 

[subshakerz]

They have been meaningless for a long time because organisers got greedy to arrange 5/6 match series. More quantity = less people care about each game.

No bilateral should be more than 3 games. Then you will care about each game then.

The last bilateral I cared about was India-Pakistan in 2012. And that was a 3-game series thankfully.

However, I do remember caring more about ODI games in the nineties simply because it was a better match between bat and bowl. So quality matter also.

 

[ataraxia]

I dunno, I feel like in NZ we've been missing something not playing a 5-match ODI series in an age. Seems much more than a 3-match series, esp. when it's ruined by rain as both have been this season.