Does anyone wish, odi cricket was back?

[Gob]

Get a room you too

And have sectual intercourse

 

[TheJediBrah]

Whether he played or not doesn't make a difference. Aus still had an extra specialist bat available to them which cost them nothing. England had to swap their's for a bowler who hadn't yet bowled.

Also, you could argue that having that extra bat in the line up allows the top order to play with more freedom.

You're stating the obvious here. Of course if 2 teams both chose a specialist bat then the team batting 2nd should have the advantage. I just pointed out an example, at your request, where in practice the opposite ended up being the case due to the state of the game. Even if theoretically it shouldn't have been

 

[straw man]

Dear OP

The difference between the numerous T20 tournaments, tours and leagues that exist now, and the numerous ODI tournaments and tours that were played in the 90s, has little to do with the quality of the cricket or any idea that the latter had more context and meaning.

The difference is that you are now old and jaded.

Kind Regards,
straw man

 

[TheJediBrah]

Nah that's definitely not true. There's a massive difference. A 90s or early 00s tri series were generally full strength international sides at their peak. T20 tournaments and series these days are clearly not that. Also 50 over cricket is just better

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah the first tri series not taken seriously was the one immediately before the 07 world cup, and John Bracewell copped massive heat for it. He was always on the pulse of changes in the landscape, and he starting rotating players while bluntly stating he was all in on finding the best team for the world cup.

Aus and England did the same thing, though I don't remember the reaction of their fans.

 

[Yeoman]

England had not always been playing the best ODI team for a few years at that point, often resting players for test series. It was this rotation which was significant in the decline in interest on the format (as well as England not being that good at it).
The coaches were being logical in rotating players as the schedule, even then, was over-loaded. It was this overkill that began the decline of the format. We may well be approaching a similar point with T20 leagues which mostly employ the same overlapping groups of players.

 

[Molehill]

Yeah the first tri series not taken seriously was the one immediately before the 07 world cup, and John Bracewell copped massive heat for it. He was always on the pulse of changes in the landscape, and he starting rotating players while bluntly stating he was all in on finding the best team for the world cup.

Aus and England did the same thing, though I don't remember the reaction of their fans.

Eng had just come off the Ashes hiding, they had injuries (no KP for example) and were totally broken. The first part of that series was just a continuation of the Ashes. But Vaughan returned offering some leadership qualities Flintoff clearly didn't have, Mal Loye caused confusion with his sweeps off McGrath etc, Colly turned into Bradman and Fleming blew the final knockout game when playing for his ton rather than the team.

I still consider that one of England's finest ODI efforts. They went from a team so utterly broken to somehow winning that series. Of course things returned to normal by the World Cup, but it was still fun.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Eng had just come off the Ashes hiding, they had injuries (no KP for example) and were totally broken. The first part of that series was just a continuation of the Ashes. But Vaughan returned offering some leadership qualities Flintoff clearly didn't have, Mal Loye caused confusion with his sweeps off McGrath etc, Colly turned into Bradman and Fleming blew the final knockout game when playing for his ton rather than the team.

I still consider that one of England's finest ODI efforts. They went from a team so utterly broken to somehow winning that series. Of course things returned to normal by the World Cup, but it was still fun.

Ed Joyce made a ton one game that was pretty important from memory, probably got them through.

Me memory of Mal Loye's sweeps was getting hit in the face by McGrath. Don't recall him having a great success rate. Reckon he was dropped from the team by the end of the series, could be wrong though

 

[Molehill]

Ed Joyce made a ton one game that was pretty important from memory, probably got them through.

Me memory of Mal Loye's sweeps was getting hit in the face by McGrath. Don't recall him having a great success rate. Reckon he was dropped from the team by the end of the series, could be wrong though

Loye actually came into the team when KP got injured, Vaughan dropped down to 3. He got a useful 45 in the second Final. I think what Loye managed was to get people talking about that ridiculous shot and somehow taking the pressure off the others.

That same game Joyce got his ton, Symonds did his arm muscle, and then first ball of the Aussie innings Plunkett produced an unplayable inswinging yorker to Gilchrist.....best ball he ever bowled I reckon, really sticks out in the memory.

There was a lot going on in that series and it should highlight the good stuff you could get from those tri-nations tournaments. I guess there were also a few boring ones where Aus just dominated.

 

[Adders]

Imo I think ODI's after a big series like the Ashes often felt a bit flat. Not sure Aus after steam rolling us in 06/07 Ashes gave 2 shits about the tri series that followed and Eng were playing to salvage something from the tour and I guess that showed in the results.

The best ODI series I can recall between Eng and Aus was 05, felt like it meant more as a lead up to the main event. But maybe that's just me.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Imo I think ODI's after a big series like the Ashes often felt a bit flat. Not sure Aus after steam rolling us in 06/07 Ashes gave 2 ****s about the tri series that followed and Eng were playing to salvage something from the tour and I guess that showed in the results.

The best ODI series I can recall between Eng and Aus was 05, felt like it meant more as a lead up to the main event. But maybe that's just me.

I agree maybe when it comes to the Ashes, but otherwise the Tri-Series after the Tests every year felt perfect.

 

[Dick Rockett]

For me, the interesting question is why tri series ceased to be as financially successful as they were in the 80s and 90s. Were the non-host matches better attended in the early years? If so, was this because there was a greater scarcity of cricket so people were more likely to turn up or watch even if their team wasn’t playing, or declining interest in the ODI format generally?

Initially it was matches disappearing behind TV paywalls, increased prices for tickets and concessions, teams not sending or playing their best sides, Australia being too damn good, proliferation of copycat tournaments elsewhere, competition from other entertainment options.

Then T20 came along.

I love ODIs; I grew up watching the NZ team in beige playing the WSC. Those days are gone. The suits don't seem to want my old man dollars anymore.