England vs Australia - an ODI series too far?

[Furball]

Next summer, in a piece of scheduling that I've previously criticised, England and Australia will square off in a 7 game ODI series once the Ashes has concluded.

It's a daft piece of scheduling AFAIC, primarily because in my opinion it's the opposite to the schedule of 2005, where the ODI series whetted the appetite for the Test series which followed. Here, it seems to have been tacked on as an afterthought - not the best marketing for an ODI series I'd have thought.

However, it's also a pointless, and possibly dangerous exercise in my opinion because of the volume of cricket that will be undertaken before.

So far this winter/summer, Australia have been in India for a 4 test series, and hosted New Zealand and South Africa. Over the next month they have 2 more T20Is, 5 match ODI series against South Africa and New Zealand, before hoping on a plane to South Africa and squaring off again in a 3 Test, 1 T20, 5 ODI tour. Those Aussies contracted to the IPL will then jet off there, before hitting England for the World Twenty20, and the Ashes series which is an intense a tour as I've seen for the modern era - 2 tour matches, 2 back to back tests, a further tour game, 2 more back to back tests, another tour game, and the 5th and final test.

It's an immensely intense schedule, and there's the risk that players like Michael Clarke, Mitchell Johnson, Brett Lee (if involved), Ricky Ponting etc. will be at breaking point. So why burden them with a further 7 ODIs, when it is almost inevitable that players will need rest or be unable to perform at 100% due to fatigue and niggles, thus shortchanging themselves, the opposition and the paying public. It's even crazier, because according to the future tours programme on cricinfo, the Aussies are due back in 2010 for 5 more ODIs!

We've already seen something similar happen with the visit of South Africa last summer, when after a tough opening to 2008, the Proteas had little more to give come the ODI series, and were spanked as a result.

So what's the solution? In my opinion, the cricketing world needs more split tours, similar to what we saw between Australia and India. Australia played a 7 ODI series in 2007, before returning this year to play the Test series. They'd surely benefit from doing the same next summer, where the South Africans could have taken their place instead of playing England last summer. This would be of benefit to the players - an ODI tour can be over in a matter of 2-3 weeks, as opposed to the 2 months that the Test leg of the Ashes tour takes up. It could also lead to higher quality cricket between fresher players, something which would both give the paying public value for money, and do wonders to improve the brand image of cricket.

Thoughts?

 

[Uppercut]

It's obviously more of an issue for bowlers, particularly quicks, than batsmen, so it's really only likely to impact on Johnson and Lee, the only two who currently play both tests and ODIs. But it's far better for them to be at breaking point by the end of a 7-match ODI series than to be at breaking point at the end of the Ashes, so in a way your second point contradicts your first.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, valid points for sure. Althoguh Aussies suffering from burnout isn't particularly high on my list of concerns

I think a key point that you made early on was that the build-up in 05 whetted the appetite whereas an ODI series after the Ashes is always going to be an anti-climax (I was made up when we won the CB series, but would have been happier if had come in an ODI-only tour, or before that dismal Ashes). That being said, they did play the same number of games in 05 that they are going to in 09, more or less, just that it was in a different order

 

[Furball]

It's obviously more of an issue for bowlers, particularly quicks, than batsmen, so it's really only likely to impact on Johnson and Lee, the only two who currently play both tests and ODIs. But it's far better for them to be at breaking point by the end of a 7-match ODI series than to be at breaking point at the end of the Ashes, so in a way your second point contradicts your first.

My initial criticism of the scheduling was based on how likely I would be to watch the ODI series.

Having actually looked into how much cricket Australia will play from now to September, it's an even stupider piece of scheduling. An ODI series between the two, particularly considering Australia are scheduled to be in England for an ODI series in 2010, is completely unneccesary.

 

[Simon]

7 match one day series are ridiculous at the best of times, with this sort of workload it just makes it worse. Should be a three match series and thats it.

 

[GIMH]

What's the idea behind the 2010 series anyway? Will we playing three ODI series that summer, or is one of the touring teams not playing any ODIs?

That's the summer Bangaldesh are over IIRC, might be to do with that actually

 

[Magrat Garlick]

What's the idea behind the 2010 series anyway? Will we playing three ODI series that summer, or is one of the touring teams not playing any ODIs?

That's the summer Bangaldesh are over IIRC, might be to do with that actually

Yeah, England play 6 Tests & 13 ODIs instead of 7 Tests & 10 ODIs that summer.

Horrible imbalance, obv.

 

[krkode]

Maybe they realized England doesn't play enough ODI cricket.

Dunno about imbalance, but I think England plays the least amount of ODI cricket among all the test-playing nations? Maybe that's good, maybe not, just saying. That said, 7-ODI series are a bit much, IMO.

Interesting tidbit - England is the only test-playing team (non-minnow) that doesn't have a single player who has played over 200 ODIs. The most is Stewart with 170. Just thought that was odd. :o

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Dunno about imbalance, but I think England plays the least amount of ODI cricket among all the test-playing nations?

ODIs between September 2003 and September 2008 (so the last five full home seasons)

India 157
Australia 143
SL 132
Pakistan 123
WI 119
England 117
NZ 114
SA 114
Bangladesh 110

Up to about 2000 England played fewer ODIs (which is partly why no one has played 200 - also that they haven't had a young talent who was an undisputed fixture for 10 years - Collingwood should make it before the next World Cup), but it's changed in this century. Yes, England still play few compared to the subcontinent, but nearly 25 per year should be more than enough.

 

[Bob Bamber]

Dunno about imbalance, but I think England plays the least amount of ODI cricket among all the test-playing nations? Maybe that's good, maybe not, just saying. That said, 7-ODI series are a bit much, IMO.

There's a good reason for that - we're not very good...

The sheduling issue isn't going to stop unfortunatly. While the rewards keep increasing for hosting more and more games in the calendar year - the more and more games were going to pack into a finite space.

Unfortunatly I fear that until a player dies/becomes seriously ill from the international calendar, then we are going to be on this ever increasing scale.

 

[Furball]

Would split tours work?

eg last summer, instead of playing South Africa, we could possibly have hosted say, Pakistan for an ODI series, then hosted South Africa this summer instead of Australia.

 

[Jono]

Those damn Indians and their 7 match ODI series.

 

[AlanJLegend]

This doesn't look good for our players

On a positive note, in some ways a lot of cricket can be a good thing. No doubt some of the main guys will need to be rested at some stage, and what better opportunity to give some of the younger guys a go.

Obviously with the Ashes it is a very important series and we want to put forward the strongest team we can, but if in some of the ODI series' we play a team consisting of people like Dave Warner, Brett Geeves and Luke Ronchi. Hell, maybe in one of the Twenty20 matches (not in the world cup) they could rest Ponting, Clarke and Hussey and give someone like Cameron White a run as captain. I can't see how it would hurt.

 

[honestbharani]

Those damn Indians and their 7 match ODI series.

rofl...


But seriously... I have always hated 7 match ODI series.. Only way they are good is that they give opportunity for player rotation and we may get to see some guys who have been on the fringes play the real thing..

 

[four_or_six]

Given it's in September, half of them will probably rain off.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Those damn Indians and their 7 match ODI series.

The BCCI are evil. They're bullying world cricket by forcing England and Australia to play a 7 ODI series

 

[social]

If Aus win the Ashes, I'll watch it and not really care about the result

If Oz lose the Ashes, I'll watch it with the sound off

Seriously, I much preferred it when the ODIs were part of the build-up to the test series but this scheduling is something that's forced on the ECB by other commitments.

In any event, I'd much prefer 3 * 20/20 and 3*ODIs - 7 * ODIs is just overkill

In terms of player burnout, this series is really pretty meaningless so they should use it as an opportunity to blood/rotate players

 

[Richard]

Next summer's schedule in its entirity is diabolical - given there's a Twenty20 World thingy being hosted in England, the usual second touring side should be off the agenda. Unfortunately, the Twenty20 World thingy was probably organised too late to alter schedules, with various contracts already having been signed.

If I was told there'd be this Twenty20 World thingy and an Ashes tour in the same summer, my ideal schedule, if I had no pre-arranged TV contract commitments, would be Twenty20 thingy in May and early June, 5 Australia ODIs starting mid-June, Ashes series starting mid-July and finishing right at the start of September.

The fact that they've got an international Twenty20 tournament, seven Tests, ten ODIs (plus a joke game against Ireland) and two other Twenty20 internationals is just beyond belief. WTF was the need for one, never mind two, Australia Twenty20s when there's just been an event a few months ago featuring all the national sides?

In 2000, Matthew Engel criticised the fact that the international summer started in mid-May, and not without justification. Next summer, it will start right at the start of May and pretty much not stop until the end of September. Plain madness. We can only hope such a thing never happens again.

Oh, and yes, I'm always against the last ODI of the English summer being played after the last Test. Works well in Australia; dreadful idea over here. The final act of the summer should be the bigger Test series. But that doesn't mean it should finish in mid-September. And the ODIs should all be played midsummer.

(And yes, ideally Twenty20 shouldn't be played internationally as part of a Test tour. But doubly so when there's a multinational event that same season)

 

[four_or_six]

Given it's in September, half of them will probably rain off.

Bump.

2/9 gone so far.

 

[slippyslip]

Best of seven series would be better. If one team wins 4-0 then thats it.

With a best of series it actually gives you a feeling the games matter. More often than not you get to the 6th and 7th games and the series is decided. Thats what kills the fun.

If England and Australia are locked 3-3 going into the 7th will you be bored and not watch it? Doubt it. Most cricket fans would still be looking forward to the final match.

If England or Australian are 4-1 up going into the final 2 matches what the hell is the point.

I had a lot more interested in the 5th game against NZ in Australia this year than the 5th game against South AFrica after they had already won the series.