Swann - scrap ODIs

[icyman]

When they hit #1 in the Test rankings they started scheduling random Test series against SA and Aus. And now they've won the World Cup, I guess the assumption is that BCCI will focus on ODI scheduling. Any coincidence that after India got smashed in the England Tests that the Test Championship idea got replaced quickly by another Champions Trophy? No, because it's all about ratings on Indian TV and of course Indians want to watch Indians win. That's why they wanted 4 Indian teams to make the Champions League this year. It's the reason for most things in cricket. That's just what the BCCI does, they like money. It's the cards world cricket has to play with.

Agreed we started scheduling more series, but do you see anything wrong in that ? Atleast you got to see some quality cricket being played then. If the game ran the way the BCCI wanted it to, you would never have had a game of ODI cricket after the 2007 WC,where we crashed out in round 1.

As for the co-incidence that you point out between the cancellation of the Test championship and India's drubbing, the decision was mainly taken due to reservations made by ESS, the ICC 's broadcast partner.

 

[swacker]

Leaving aside the fact that Swann needs the one form of the International game that England are worst at conveyed out, he's got a point. Something will have to give, and without we just turn our backs on Test Cricket, it'll have to be one of the shorter forms.

 

[Haarithan]

Just so Swann knows, the 2013 Champions Trophy is to be scheduled in England, and England last lost an ODI series at home way back in August 2009. Every other side has lost atleast one 'home' ODI series from that period until now, everyone but for England.

 

[Adarsh]

Graeme Swann has called for ODI cricket to be scrapped. Whilst his view is probably coloured by the 5-0 drubbing England just experienced in India he has a very good point. Test cricket and T20 is quite enough to be going on with. 50 over games are more often than not dull, predictable and over by the change in innings.
Of course it won't happen as long as the BCCI hold sway but I'd be interested to know if it's just English cricket fans who agree with Swann or whether he'd get support in other countries too.

Source.

Whether he'd have said it if England were winning or not is moot. The point is he's come out with it after England's just had an awful year at ODI cricket, losing 6-1 (?) against Australia, a poor World Cup losing to Ireland and Bangladesh, (a consolatory win in between, in what was a close series with a deceptive scoreline to be honest), and another drubbing in India.

You sound like a prat when you complain after you lose.

 

[Owzat]

ODIs I think is in fact the best format that tests the skill of a player after Test cricket. In ODIs, all type of players like those who can play long innings as well as as those who can hit a long way can be a part of it. Its much better than the usual slam bang T20 at least for the players to work on their technique and skill.

I agree for similar reasons. For one the ODIs aren't a quick bash and designed to be runfests at 8+ rpo, and no real time to play a proper innings. For second they aren't long and drawn out, well the matches aren't even if some series are.

It's an excellent format, I'd even extend it to one innings matches with 100 overs per side. Why? Because you need to get the balance right, in Tests you can have 1,2 or 3 top bowlers and not need to use a 4th or 5th much, in T20s you can get away with bit-part bowlers who are going to be slogged anyway and can be harder to hit when trying to hit everything.

In ODIs you get a fixed allocation per bowler, the same number of overs per side and it CAN produce a very good match if the pitch isn't flat and the sides aren't mismatched. It's a good format for a World Cup, the better side generally wins but there is scope for upsets if the underdog plays well.

I think a 100 over a side match would truly test the sides, long enough that you have to pace the innings just right and that you need to have a good enough 4th and 5th bowler. No need for fielding restrictions other than perhaps to stop sides putting all their fielders on the boundary. Make the pitch interesting, both sides should have to bat at some point in the morning but ideally it would be one innings one day and the other the next.

Oh and Swann should STFU, a lot of cricketers and ex-cricketers talk sh1te

----------

Oh and it's irrelevant whether England are any good in ODIs or not, we reached the final three times out of the first five and Flower has already stated a desire to win it.

We sucked at Test cricket for a fair while, but didn't call for that to be scrapped. I know a lot of English fans rank the Ashes as more important than the World Cup, doesn't mean it is and doesn't mean anyone will listen to Swann. They won't scrap the World Cup so I doubt they will ODIs, it is a $$$$ for TV whereas Tests will never be a suitable format for a proper championship and TV will have limited interest.

 

[VC the slogger]

Graeme Swann has gone nuts.No way should ODIs be scrapped.ODIs have made players better in tests.If there were no ODIs,no one would've even thought of T20s!!

 

[Haarithan]

I think a 100 over a side match would truly test the sides, long enough that you have to pace the innings just right and that you need to have a good enough 4th and 5th bowler.

Pfft, even an average TEST side fails to bat out 100 overs...

 

[sami ullah khan]

Odis are fun. That is what should matter. With the two new balls rule, balance between bat and ball has been reestablished somewhat. The recently concluded series between Pak and Lankans is a proof to that fact. ODI cricket is a hell lot better than T20 cricket. I do agree that seven match series are least interesting and must be reduced to five at most.

 

[Themer]

Yes. But then I'd like to see Twenty20s go as well.

 

[aayush93]

To give ODI cricket a new life, More Tri-series tournament should be held. In 90's and early 2000, there used to be atleast 4-6 tri series.
In Tri-series, even if one team dominates then there is third team to give challenge to that team.

India Vs Pakistan Vs Australia in UAE will be an amazing series.

 

[sifter132]

Agreed we started scheduling more series, but do you see anything wrong in that ? Atleast you got to see some quality cricket being played then. If the game ran the way the BCCI wanted it to, you would never have had a game of ODI cricket after the 2007 WC,where we crashed out in round 1.

As for the co-incidence that you point out between the cancellation of the Test championship and India's drubbing, the decision was mainly taken due to reservations made by ESS, the ICC 's broadcast partner.

Look I can understand why BCCI schedules things that will make them money - I think every board does that. Look at the Big Bash here in Australia, smack bang in the middle of the India Test series. Look at South Africa who preferred to put in 2 T20Is instead of a 3rd Test match against Australia. I guess I'm just annoyed that boards make decisions with dollar signs in mind rather than the long term benefit of cricket.

And yeah ESPN was the one balking at the deal not BCCI, but I imagine a bit of that still has to do with India's potential performance. If India does well in a Test Championship then their TV rights look a lot more lucrative. Of course the other much larger bit is about money in general, and ESPN would be thinking they'll make more out of a Champions Trophy.

 

[icyman]

ESS or for that matter any broadcaster would have done the same. I am not saying that Tests aren't lucrative for them,but given that the format is not yet fixed,it certainly would have ended up in them losing quite a sum of money.

Secondly, I completely agree with you when you talk about India's performance having an impact on the broadcaster's decision. If India does well, the advertising rates go up immensely and they can thus be in a position to dictate terms.

To give ODI cricket a new life, More Tri-series tournament should be held. In 90's and early 2000, there used to be atleast 4-6 tri series.

Yeah,I do miss the tri-series. Sharjah used to host at least 2 tournaments every year. Additionally, there used to be tri-series in Australia, South Africa and also the West Indies. The English joined in a bit later.

Also, given Swann's opinion about ODIs,what do you people think about scrapping of T20s ? Or at least getting them under control,i.e, capping them in a particular calendar year.

 

[sifter132]

Well the Aussie tri-series is coming back this summer - huzzah

As for T20Is - I would scrap them. There aren't enough of them played to actually mean anything. A random win here or there is usually not memorable and doesn't change crickets power base as all.

Long term, I'd leave T20 for states and franchises, and merge T20Is with ODIs into a 40 over game, split into 2 - not separate innings, but one continuing innnings - like Aus tried last summer in their state games - I think I was one of the very few that liked it . That is all...

 

[BKB1991]

I dont understand how you can put the blame on BCCI here.

ODIs should stay, possibly if players feel they play too much cricket you can reduce the overall amount of cricket, not one format.

Possibly 7 match series should be scraped unless its icon series (Ind v Pak etc) or something.

 

[Sedition]

Yeah I'd be scrapping T20s long before ODIs. Ideally for me, a series would be 3-5 Tests, 3-5 ODIs and 1 T20 at the end, basically so the losing side in the series can have a bit of a bash without consequence.