Actually most days of test cricket are generally sold out in England but thats not my point here.
Kudos to you for including the operative 'most' here.
ODIs are entertainment and for that they are popular.
I agree.
However, just because something is popular doesn't mean it has depth, meaning or significance.
Quite true, as is viceversa. The thing about 'depth' is that it is highly subjective critertion. I can readily accept that you find ODI's to be out of depth, but trying to make it seem that this sort of reaction is a universal phenomenon is both wrong and untrue.
Their significance lies in their entertainment value and the bucketload of cash they provide to the cricket-boards and players. You just have to look at people who come to the ODI's dressed up in fancy constumes and with their faces painted the colours of their teams to see whether or not ODI's have any meaning in their minds.
Look at the popularity of Kelly Clarkson, Backstreet Boys, Girls Aloud. Pop Music so called because its popular. Does that mean they are more important musically than bands with depth and purpose.
Whilst I am not a fan of all the bands/singers mentioned above, I know many people who feel really deeply about their stuff. Whilst you and I may consider them crap and deviod of any merits whatsoever, those people have obviously discovered some sort of empathy and connection in their tunes. I am just saying that we have to respect that.
Robert Ludlam, Wilbur Smith sell boatloads of books. Why because they are entertaing not because they hold literary merit.
Again, literary merit too is subjective. It's parameter's are arbitary, based on gut instinct and intuition. Does Tolkien hold any merit? Half of the 'critics' and 'experts' in the world seem to think so whilst the other half negate it vehemently. The jury is still out. On the other hand, readers the world over have embraced his books openheartedly and his effects on popular culture and individuals, not to mention literature itself, are visible for all to see.
Perhaps the literary merit of Robert Ludlam and Wilbur Smith lies in the fact that they are able to tell complling stories?
My opinions concerning literature usually don't sit too well with literary snobs though - this is a general observation and not aimed at you, by the way.
American Idol got 3 times the viewers the Winter Olympics did. Watching people embarass themselves in auditions and seeing people compete that you wouldn't walk down the street to listen to is more popular than watching a countryman/woman winning Olympic gold.
While this isn't related to the topic at all, not all people are raging patriots. In any case, I do not see how the above example compares to the situation between test and ODI cricket.
Popularity = Profit not meaning or significance.
The crux of the matter, and here's where I think you are wrong. Quality (arbitary at that) over quanity doesn't often win in real life.
Why? because people want lighthearted entertainment. It doesn't mean there is anything important going on.
I have never watched Eastenders but why do you think desiring entertainment is wrong? After all, everything we do is related in one way or the other with the desire to satify ourselves. Folks just find different outlets of doing so.
I never said ODIs were not entertaing, I said they were meaningless. They are as meaningfull as a Kelly Clarkson CD or a Bernard Cornwell book.
I loved the Winter King! It's the best Arthur myth retelling ever, IMO - after Malory that is.
