England tour of Australia ODIs

[SteveNZ]

Unless they change something in the World Cup, you need this bilaterals to qualify (some teams do at least). So trying to be hip and edgy doesnt change the fact one needs these tours

Yeah, is that what this is? You get treated to a proper contest between bat and ball, one guy scores a run a ball 130 then three Australian guys put together innings' of substance, yet apparently ODIs are the equivalent of the yo-yo - fun for a while in the 90s but no longer 'cool'.

Better to blame the scheduling less than a week after the T20 World Cup than the format. I reckon people need to be very careful with looking to kill off 50-over cricket. You've got a format where proper skills are still exhibited, one where you can plan a whole day out around, and if you get rid of that...administrators are going to fill the space, and they ain't going to fill it with Test matches. Then your T20 sweet tooth becomes a bag of lollies every day, and that's going to make everyone feel real sick.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Yeah, is that what this is? You get treated to a proper contest between bat and ball, one guy scores a run a ball 130 then three Australian guys put together innings' of substance, yet apparently ODIs are the equivalent of the yo-yo - fun for a while in the 90s but no longer 'cool'.

Better to blame the scheduling less than a week after the T20 World Cup than the format. I reckon people need to be very careful with looking to kill off 50-over cricket. You've got a format where proper skills are still exhibited, one where you can plan a whole day out around, and if you get rid of that...administrators are going to fill the space, and they ain't going to fill it with Test matches. Then your T20 sweet tooth becomes a bag of lollies every day, and that's going to make everyone feel real sick.

Yeah I still like the 50 over game a lot.

This particular series is hard to get excited for though with it squished into a tiny gap between a World Cup and a Test series and us sending a B team.

 

[Ashes81]

I prefer 50 over games to T20 but the trend is very much to reduce the number of overs per game.

The early world cups were 60 overs a side, which is unimaginable now.

There's been talk of reducing the ODIs to 40 overs a side and whilst I wouldn't be in favour, it wouldn't surprise me if it happened.

Apart from World Cups there doesn't seem to be all that much appetite for the 50 over game.

 

[Burgey]

And you had a crack at me for hudu.

?

autocrrect a terrible thing at times

 

[andruid]

Should just have a World Cup every 4 years and that's it. **** off all these bilateral series

How will the ICC fake India vs. Pakistan qualifying in a manner that guarantees a high stakes match at the World Cup?

 

[thierry henry]

Just seems like CWers hate cricket tbh

 

[SteveNZ]

Yeah I still like the 50 over game a lot.

This particular series is hard to get excited for though with it squished into a tiny gap between a World Cup and a Test series and us sending a B team.

Yeah. The issue isn't the format. OK, the middle overs can be tiresome, but all formats have their flaws. The issue is Boards and their scheduling, and sides sending 'B' outfits based on the ever-increasing squeeze from T20 franchise tournaments and JAMT20 to milk revenue.

Only need to look at the parlous state of professional golf in the US right now to see how increased commodification can turn ugly.

 

[thierry henry]

Almost all international cricket throughout history has had no real "context" and we used to play way more ODIs than we do now. Complaints about "too much meaningless cricket" are down to a change in attitude from punters more than a change in cricket (well, the change has been a proliferation of meaningless T20, international or otherwise - yet that doesn't seem to be what people primarily complain about).

When it comes to CW I wonder if all your BAD ATTITUDES are a combination of the older demographic having less time on their hands and becoming generally more curmudgeonly, combining with a younger demographic who have grown up with and inherently accept T20 (because they are stupid and evil).

 

[GIMH]

Almost all international cricket throughout history has had no real "context" and we used to play way more ODIs than we do now. Complaints about "too much meaningless cricket" are down to a change in attitude from punters more than a change in cricket (well, the change has been a proliferation of meaningless T20, international or otherwise - yet that doesn't seem to be what people primarily complain about).

When it comes to CW I wonder if all your BAD ATTITUDES are a combination of the older demographic having less time on their hands and becoming generally more curmudgeonly, combining with a younger demographic who have grown up with and inherently accept T20 (because they are stupid and evil).

So I sort of agree with this, the first paragraph etc. But I think the second ignores reality a bit.

Of course, ODI series in between WCs were always used to trial players and a bit of rotation, it’s not a brand new concept. Certainly, it was easier to get an ODI cap than a Test one. But it would be trying a young fast bowler and giving another one a rest, or whatever. (England did also have a horrific habit of using it as a trial for the Test squad, so far behind were we in the white ball game back then)

But these days it feels like it’s very rare to get an ODI series of two sides going hell for leather against each other with the best they’ve got. And that I feel is what breeds apathy moreso than apathy towards ODIs. I don’t think people on this forum don’t want to watch ODIs; but they don’t have a great interest in England Reserves V Australia. Or whatever. And I think that’s fair enough. In fact it’s not even that they don’t want to watch it; I’d have certainly watched if it was the weekend. But it’s that the result is hard to care about. Whereas a decade or so ago beating Australia (or anyone!) in an ODI series meant something, because it generally meant your best had beaten theirs. As things stand I’ve told work I may be called up for the England ODI squad before the winter is out so may need emergency leave.

 

[Spark]

Almost all international cricket throughout history has had no real "context" and we used to play way more ODIs than we do now. Complaints about "too much meaningless cricket" are down to a change in attitude from punters more than a change in cricket (well, the change has been a proliferation of meaningless T20, international or otherwise - yet that doesn't seem to be what people primarily complain about).

When it comes to CW I wonder if all your BAD ATTITUDES are a combination of the older demographic having less time on their hands and becoming generally more curmudgeonly, combining with a younger demographic who have grown up with and inherently accept T20 (because they are stupid and evil).

If the powers that be want us to take ODI cricket seriously then they could start by taking it seriously themselves.

Like, it sounded like it was a pretty decent game yesterday, a lot of variety on offer. But if the administrators don't want us to take it as a cash grab that isn't worth getting emotionally invested in, then they could make it less blatantly obvious that that's what it is.

 

[the big bambino]

Agree with SteveNZ’s post entirely. 50 over cricket has been the best innovation for the game except for the concept of test matches. It has improved play and skills, given cricket access to other customers and the instigator of other formats like T20. Jamodis are a problem but I think the scheduling for this series is pretty good. There’s a space between the t20 wc and first test and I’m keen for these games. It’s been the first chance to see Smith, Marnus and Cummins play in a format more respectful of their skills and against the worlds no 1 white ball team. Pity we couldn’t invite NZ over for a ménage a trois. Just a little peeved it’s not on the tv as well.

 

[thierry henry]

But these days it feels like it’s very rare to get an ODI series of two sides going hell for leather against each other with the best they’ve got.

I'm acutely aware I've made these same points a million times over so sorry in advance for having the same boring argument again, but: I guess part of why this doesn't ring true to me is cos NZC have really focused on T20Is in the last few years, so there's a much more obvious over-saturation of meaningless T20Is than meaningless ODIs. Like when I think "meaningless games between understrength sides" I think T20Is, whereas ODIs have become so rare they're more like an exciting novelty. I think there's an element of this in cricket generally but it may be more heightened in NZ.

ODIs to me have almost come full circle because they've become so rare, however this trend may not quite have been replicated elsewhere.

Like, NZ are about to start an equally (even more imo) "meaningless" T20I series today, but it feels like the accusations of meaninglessness always focus on ODIs.

 

[Spark]

Yeah like on merit, if it's a choice between T20s at their best and ODIs at their best, ODIs are so vastly superior IMO that it's a non-contest. But the patent lack of seriousness with which international sides treat ODIs these days is kind of galling, and has been for quite a while now.

Australia is by far the worst offender in this regard IMO, in that many series will have teams so weak that the team's results are actually quite poor and deservedly so, but no one really seems to be bothered. If the format is so devalued in the eyes of the most important parties - the players - that winning and losing is itself no longer important, then that's a problem.

Agree with SteveNZ’s post entirely. 50 over cricket has been the best innovation for the game except for the concept of test matches. It has improved play and skills, given cricket access to other customers and the instigator of other formats like T20. Jamodis are a problem but I think the scheduling for this series is pretty good. There’s a space between the t20 wc and first test and I’m keen for these games. It’s been the first chance to see Smith, Marnus and Cummins play in a format more respectful of their skills and against the worlds no 1 white ball team. Pity we couldn’t invite NZ over for a ménage a trois. Just a little peeved it’s not on the tv as well.

This is actually the biggest problem of them all, and another reminder of the quality selection of dog turds left to us by the "mining executives for all" era CA board of 2016-18 or so and the utter disaster that they were.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah, is that what this is? You get treated to a proper contest between bat and ball, one guy scores a run a ball 130 then three Australian guys put together innings' of substance, yet apparently ODIs are the equivalent of the yo-yo - fun for a while in the 90s but no longer 'cool'.

Better to blame the scheduling less than a week after the T20 World Cup than the format. I reckon people need to be very careful with looking to kill off 50-over cricket. You've got a format where proper skills are still exhibited, one where you can plan a whole day out around, and if you get rid of that...administrators are going to fill the space, and they ain't going to fill it with Test matches. Then your T20 sweet tooth becomes a bag of lollies every day, and that's going to make everyone feel real sick.

Ok here's what it is for me. I would much prefer ODIs over T20Is. I'd rather T20Is be relegated to franchise cricket and the occasional World T20, and then ODIs go back to how they were in the early-00s with meaningful Tri-series, tournaments and bilaterals with full-strength teams or as close to it as possible.

However, that's not going to happen. 3 formats going at full steam is unsustainable and the way it's looking, ODIs are the one getting the short shrift. Right now they are a shadow of what they used to be, half strength teams everywhere and 3 match series most of the time. They seem to be everyone's last priority after Test cricket, IPL & other franchises, and T20Is.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

This series is meaningless, unless we come back and win it.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah like on merit, if it's a choice between T20s at their best and ODIs at their best, ODIs are so vastly superior IMO that it's a non-contest. But the patent lack of seriousness with which international sides treat ODIs these days is kind of galling, and has been for quite a while now.

You’ve got the time factor too. Of course, Tests last five days but the extra time actually makes them more accessible around life, whereas an ODI you have to dedicate a fair amount of time too. T20 on the other hand not much longer than a lot of other sports and so even if you prefer ODIs, T20 likely to be preferences by fans for reasons of not having infinite time.

 

[thierry henry]

ODIs being a full day on the piss with a result at the end is key to what makes them great tbh

 

[Burgey]

If the powers that be want us to take ODI cricket seriously then they could start by taking it seriously themselves.

Like, it sounded like it was a pretty decent game yesterday, a lot of variety on offer. But if the administrators don't want us to take it as a cash grab that isn't worth getting emotionally invested in, then they could make it less blatantly obvious that that's what it is.

Having them on FTA TV would help too.

 

[GIMH]

ODIs being a full day on the piss with a result at the end is key to what makes them great tbh

If you’re at the game I 100% agree

 

[Spark]

You’ve got the time factor too. Of course, Tests last five days but the extra time actually makes them more accessible around life, whereas an ODI you have to dedicate a fair amount of time too. T20 on the other hand not much longer than a lot of other sports and so even if you prefer ODIs, T20 likely to be preferences by fans for reasons of not having infinite time.

Yeah, the thing about ODIs is that you have to miss a few hours of them then you've basically missed a massive chunk of the game and you've lost most of the experience. But you can skip two full sessions of a Test match, come back and still get into the flow of things. The fact that they move slowly actually makes them more accessible for sure.