India in Australia 2011-12 February 2, 2012

Sutherland mulling longer Twenty20 series

72

Cricket Australia's chief executive James Sutherland has raised the prospect of playing longer Twenty20 series in future after 59,659 spectators turned out to watch Australia's victory over India at Stadium Australia on Wednesday. It was a record crowd for an international cricket match in Sydney, beating the SCG's best of 58,446, set in 1928.

The second and final match in the series could also draw an enormous crowd, at the MCG on Friday night, and the two games follow on from the success of the inaugural Big Bash League. But then the schedule features a near five-week triangular one-day series, and the chances of drawing such large crowds at a drawn-out ODI competition are slim.

"I'm a little bit troubled by the fact we play a two-match Twenty20 series. It doesn't quite make sense," Sutherland told The Daily Telegraph. "I'd like to think that down the track we could change that. It's something that we'll certainly look at. We're not looking to play more international cricket, so there will be a reduction in other forms and that won't be Test cricket."

That would mean a slashing of the one-day international calendar, which has effectively happened in the past few seasons with bilateral contests replacing the tri-series until it was reintroduced this summer. Only once has there been a bilateral Twenty20 series of more than two games, when New Zealand hosted Pakistan in 2010-11.

But the format's popularity is undeniable. David Hussey, who played in front of the record Sydney crowd on Wednesday night, said he would like to see Twenty20 international series played across more games, and he suggested that the tri-series format could easily be transferred from one-day internationals to Twenty20s.

"I think Twenty20 is one of the future formats of the game that can go a long way," Hussey said. "Maybe a triangular series that involves Sri Lanka and you could go right around the country. You've seen the success of the KFC Big Bash this season domestically, everybody in Australia loves the competition and wants more of it. Maybe that's a step in the right direction."

Sutherland has in the past spoken of the possibility of Australia having an entirely separate Twenty20 team with no crossover to the Test side, so they could even be playing simultaneously. That vision could be getting closer, with David Warner the only current Test player who also represented Australia in Wednesday's Twenty20.

Brydon Coverdale is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on February 4, 2012, 4:46 GMT

    What would be better - to get the top 8 IPL (based on group rankings) teams to play against 8 BBL (of same group ranking) teams over two weeks both at home and away.

  • on February 4, 2012, 4:32 GMT

    It's actually the BILATERAL series that is making ODI's boring and irrelevant. It doesn't need to be a 8 game a side tri-series, just a 4 game a side. As for the 20 over games, both were boring and predictable (heck I didn't even watch last night's game and lost no sleep around it). 20 over cricket will be dead soon enough anyway because of overkill at both league and international level.

  • AvidCricFan on February 4, 2012, 2:38 GMT

    Wherever there is big Indian population, there will be bigger crowd when India plays in shorter version. I saw lot of Indian fans in stadium for both ODIs.

  • McGorium on February 4, 2012, 2:06 GMT

    @ TamilIndian: That *might* work, except for a fundamental flaw. It's not T20 itself that draws crowds, it's top-level international players like Tendulkar or Sehwag or Dhoni that do. This is true for INternational T20, or domestic tournaments like IPL. Nobody will pay to watch, say India vs Aus if you had unknown names in both sides. Would anyone want to watch a game with a squad that went like: Robin Uttappa, Ravindra Jadeja, Yusuf Pathan, Abhinav Mukund, Vinay Kumar etc? Hell, even if you threw in Raina, Kohli and Rohit Sharma, you might only get a little more in terms of audience. (And I doubt that Raina, Kohli or Sharma are willing to squander an ODI or Test international career for international T20). I prefer getting rid of T20 at the international level entirely (A lot of ex cricketers are of this view too). It's an abomination, and a retrogression :)

  • on February 4, 2012, 1:40 GMT

    T20 are not for real cricketer. Anyone have body strenth can play .There is no style or technics. A test cricketer can play T20 but a T20 player can not survive in cricket. So sad for cricket. Ex: Ghambir. Do not have to face siddle for 10/15 overs in a raw.

  • johnathonjosephs on February 4, 2012, 1:29 GMT

    Oh god.... 58K fans showing up = a HUGE amount of money. Don't fall to the temptations of money like the BCCI have. The only reason there was a huge showup was because this happened right after the Big Bash.

  • eyballfallenout on February 4, 2012, 0:40 GMT

    DONT DO IT!..................

  • inthebag on February 3, 2012, 22:58 GMT

    T20 is an Indian thing, in both matches most of the crowd were supporting India and Australian supporters want to see India play it because that's all India do now. Don't think the same numbers will turn up next year.

  • TamilIndian on February 3, 2012, 19:02 GMT

    If only BCCI can listen to "having an entirely separate Twenty20 team" and implement a policy of no T20 guys in test team (including from the IPL). That will be ultimate. Only genuine guys will opt for test cricket and everything will fall into place - that would be dreamy...

  • RJHB on February 3, 2012, 15:37 GMT

    No reason at all you couldn't have a five match T20 series in one week or ten days. Its three hours of cricket, they could easily go back to back. The proviso surely would be that there'd be less ODI's and certainly no more triangular series. There'll be the odd good match in the upcoming series but by and large it'll be dull, fomulaic and highly predictable and poor crowds and a general lack of interest from the public will reflect this. If domestic T20 is going to be so big now, raising enormous revenue for administrators, why bother even scheduling ODI's anymore when its struggling to do the same? Keep test cricket on a pedestal, build the T20, and kill off most ODI.

  • on February 4, 2012, 4:46 GMT

    What would be better - to get the top 8 IPL (based on group rankings) teams to play against 8 BBL (of same group ranking) teams over two weeks both at home and away.

  • on February 4, 2012, 4:32 GMT

    It's actually the BILATERAL series that is making ODI's boring and irrelevant. It doesn't need to be a 8 game a side tri-series, just a 4 game a side. As for the 20 over games, both were boring and predictable (heck I didn't even watch last night's game and lost no sleep around it). 20 over cricket will be dead soon enough anyway because of overkill at both league and international level.

  • AvidCricFan on February 4, 2012, 2:38 GMT

    Wherever there is big Indian population, there will be bigger crowd when India plays in shorter version. I saw lot of Indian fans in stadium for both ODIs.

  • McGorium on February 4, 2012, 2:06 GMT

    @ TamilIndian: That *might* work, except for a fundamental flaw. It's not T20 itself that draws crowds, it's top-level international players like Tendulkar or Sehwag or Dhoni that do. This is true for INternational T20, or domestic tournaments like IPL. Nobody will pay to watch, say India vs Aus if you had unknown names in both sides. Would anyone want to watch a game with a squad that went like: Robin Uttappa, Ravindra Jadeja, Yusuf Pathan, Abhinav Mukund, Vinay Kumar etc? Hell, even if you threw in Raina, Kohli and Rohit Sharma, you might only get a little more in terms of audience. (And I doubt that Raina, Kohli or Sharma are willing to squander an ODI or Test international career for international T20). I prefer getting rid of T20 at the international level entirely (A lot of ex cricketers are of this view too). It's an abomination, and a retrogression :)

  • on February 4, 2012, 1:40 GMT

    T20 are not for real cricketer. Anyone have body strenth can play .There is no style or technics. A test cricketer can play T20 but a T20 player can not survive in cricket. So sad for cricket. Ex: Ghambir. Do not have to face siddle for 10/15 overs in a raw.

  • johnathonjosephs on February 4, 2012, 1:29 GMT

    Oh god.... 58K fans showing up = a HUGE amount of money. Don't fall to the temptations of money like the BCCI have. The only reason there was a huge showup was because this happened right after the Big Bash.

  • eyballfallenout on February 4, 2012, 0:40 GMT

    DONT DO IT!..................

  • inthebag on February 3, 2012, 22:58 GMT

    T20 is an Indian thing, in both matches most of the crowd were supporting India and Australian supporters want to see India play it because that's all India do now. Don't think the same numbers will turn up next year.

  • TamilIndian on February 3, 2012, 19:02 GMT

    If only BCCI can listen to "having an entirely separate Twenty20 team" and implement a policy of no T20 guys in test team (including from the IPL). That will be ultimate. Only genuine guys will opt for test cricket and everything will fall into place - that would be dreamy...

  • RJHB on February 3, 2012, 15:37 GMT

    No reason at all you couldn't have a five match T20 series in one week or ten days. Its three hours of cricket, they could easily go back to back. The proviso surely would be that there'd be less ODI's and certainly no more triangular series. There'll be the odd good match in the upcoming series but by and large it'll be dull, fomulaic and highly predictable and poor crowds and a general lack of interest from the public will reflect this. If domestic T20 is going to be so big now, raising enormous revenue for administrators, why bother even scheduling ODI's anymore when its struggling to do the same? Keep test cricket on a pedestal, build the T20, and kill off most ODI.

  • on February 3, 2012, 14:20 GMT

    Sutherland. Overseen all of the "successes" of the last few years. Why wasn't his position dealt with in the recent overhaul?

  • on February 3, 2012, 13:35 GMT

    I am of the opinion that T20 will be the future. We are watching cricket or any game or even movies, only for entertainment. Escept a few, nobody bothered about records made or broken. Go out enjoy the evening and relax...............

  • Gizza on February 3, 2012, 13:35 GMT

    Spot on @Meety. Totally agree with you about the bilateral versus tri-series debate. I wrote similar comments on the main tri-series article. And yeah the Champions Trophy should go. The World Cup would have so much MORE revelance if all the cricketing nations on earth met each other once every four years not 3 times every four. That's how it is in all other major sports (soccer, rugby, many sports in the Olympics). I guess twice every fours is the absolute max: one 50-over World Cup and one 20-over World Cup. And I think the 50-over WC should be more league based while the 20-over more knockout so there is a different feel to each of them.

  • Geeva on February 3, 2012, 12:28 GMT

    @satish619chandar:i suggest uyou look at when West Indies hosted test matches.India used to tour west indies between feb and april!Now india tours not in the cricket season (May to july) and this is the rainy season for some of the historic venues in west indies!

  • christy29 on February 3, 2012, 7:52 GMT

    i love the ODI and think it's as good as test cricket but i know there should never be a 7 match ODI series again. a tour itinerary should be 2-4 t20s and 3-5 ODIs and 2-5 (dependant on probable level of competitiveness) tests. this satisfies everyone.

  • rickyvoncanterbury on February 3, 2012, 7:41 GMT

    thanks, but no thanks.........

  • ausfor4 on February 3, 2012, 7:33 GMT

    I suggest haveing 3 test matches, 3 odi's and 3 t20s. That way it's possible to have a set winner out of the two countries overall( aus wins tests and t20, and india win odi's=Australia will take the tour victory), an all format white wash( aus wins test, t20 and odi series), and if it is really one sided, a complete whitewash in all games( aus wins every game of every format).This could happen with more than three games per series, such as 4 or 5. If we are giving t20 a world cup and ICC ranking, lets give it a proper tour format too. Cheers

  • satish619chandar on February 3, 2012, 7:30 GMT

    @Geeva : IPL never hurted WI cricket.. You can view the dates of the articles when Gayle, Bravo and Pollard refused to sign the contract and it will clash with BBL and not IPL.. IN general if u term it as T20 league, it is fine..

  • zenboomerang on February 3, 2012, 7:10 GMT

    The crazy comments about T20 hurting cricket are a joke - the same was said about OD'ers 35 years ago... What happened?... Well run rates in Test cricket went up, fielding improved & generally watching Test cricket got better - players got real wages for playing & their & their families lives were greatly improved... 2 match Tests & T20 are another joke - play a minimum of 3 as a result is much more likely to eventuate... Nothing worse than drawn series...

  • satish619chandar on February 3, 2012, 6:05 GMT

    @bobagorof : Some ppl blame Sutherland too but Compare the numbers.. There are many hungry ppl waiting to pouch on anything from India.. T20 attracts crowd because it happens off the working hours and is only for 4 hours.. Provides entertainment to new watchers who just like boundaries and wickets.. T20 is time saving and happens in off hours.. But overkill will just make people lose interest on it for sure..

  • Geeva on February 3, 2012, 5:29 GMT

    Y didnt they jus play 3 to 5 ODI in a bilateral series!then you can have 3 T20's.Trianagualrs are not the way!It was fun in the 90's but modern times the neutral matches are empty!Its funny that Cricket Austrailia wants more T20s yet they were the ones that decided on the Tri-angualr its way too long a whole month!Aus should be in west indies bewteen late feb and march!then west indies cricket not affected by IPL!!Guess ppl dont realise how IPL HURTS WEST INDIES CRICKET!!!!!!btw i am from Soouth Africa!!

  • theRule19 on February 3, 2012, 4:51 GMT

    Its seems to be a good idea, there should be at least 5 T20 games and the ODI should be reduced to 5 matches (per team if there are more than 2 teams playing) as well, and ofcourse Test series should be more than 3 matches.

  • Meety on February 3, 2012, 3:40 GMT

    I am much more of an ODI fan than a T20 fan for sure. The thing I like about ODIs, is that it still requires "test-like" skills. You can have a great match where the 1st side only makes 200 ( 4 rpo), or you can have a great game where the first side makes 300 (6 rpo). The skill factor is much higher & more classical. I think all 3 formats can co-exist, I enjoy the old tri-series format, I actually despise bi-lateral ODI series. Its meaningless. IMO - there should be more tri-series events, rather than having a situation where say Oz travel to India for 7 ODIs & fly home after, (or vice versa). I am not against having a T20 tri-series as such, but I would prefer if T20s remain domiantly a provincial/franchise based format. At the end of the day both limited over formats are revenue raising vehicles, the 50 over W/Cup is a massive $ generator for the ICC, so is the stupid ICC Champions Trophy. The Champions Trophy should of been axed long ago.

  • Drew12 on February 3, 2012, 3:30 GMT

    I agree with many of the comments deriding the direction Sutherland is trying to take Australian cricket. In terms of T20, while I don't entirely agree that the result is largely dependent upon 'luck', one moment can shift the momentum of a game too significantly. A dropped catch, an expensive over (often as a result of 'lucky' edges or mis-timed shots that go for 4 or 6) or an untimely wicket can completely derail a side to the detriment of the game. There is no time to recover in T20 cricket - how often is a match all but over within the first 10 overs because the batting side fails. Replacing ODI's with T20's would not only shorten the cricket summer by 60 overs per game but it would also result in less competitive cricket. T20 matches are played and watched more like exhibition matches. Winning is less satisfying and losing much easier to swallow. T20 sixes don't even feel real anymore! While I still watch Australia play T20's on TV (hey, its sort of cricet) I feel empty watching.

  • cricketislovely on February 3, 2012, 3:05 GMT

    If we get rid of ODIs and domestic one day cricket there is plenty of room for test cricket, Sheffield Shield, BBL and an expanded T20 international program. A T20 international series each summer involving 3-4 countries would generate big crowds and big TV audiences.

    T20 is a threat to one-day cricket not test matches. One-day cricket has passed its used-by-date and not many will be sad to see it go. However the TV rights for the 2015 ODI WC have already been sold for big $$ and Australia is the host country. So we're stuck with ODIs for a few more summers yet.

    I suggest that starting from next summer there should a T20 tri-series (six matches and a final) and no more than 3 ODIs. ODIs should be completely phased out by 2016. We need to accept that T20 is the new form of "limited overs" cricket. Three forms of the game is a recipe for scheduling haedaches.

  • on February 3, 2012, 2:59 GMT

    Let's hope T20 doesn't expand into a tri series or into longer international series. Keep it a largely domestic game. I myself cannot remember a 'great' T20 game... but there are plenty of ODI and test games locked firmly in my memory!

  • obstreperous on February 3, 2012, 1:58 GMT

    How is it that Sutherland has a problem with a 2-match T20 series but seems to accept that a 2-match Test series is OK? T20 games can be entertaining if they are close and boring if they're not. The international teams attach little significance to a win or loss, so the games require a great deal of hype (and fireworks) to stop viewers from falling asleep.

  • Gizza on February 3, 2012, 1:39 GMT

    Twenty20 is popular because so few games are played of it. If there are 10 Twenty20's in the international season it will be less popular than 10 ODI's. If there was only one 50-over game in Melbourne or Sydney it will also get a much bigger crowd. To be honest, a 50-over game between Australia and India (if there was only one game in Sydney) would also get 60,000 at Olympic Park. Tests are different because although it is the true form of the game, many people don't want to travel to a ground and not have a result by the end of it. Having said that, with the way India was playing gong to the test on Day 3 was pretty much a guarantee of a result lol.

  • AidanFX on February 3, 2012, 1:17 GMT

    I would like to think 50 over cricket can survive (but I understand why many think the 3 formats can't co-exists). But I think it is time to have an equal no of 20/20 and 50 Over International matches. Given so much focus in the big leagues and Domestic leagues focus on this it makes more sense to me. I think less people will moan about 50 Over cricket if you don't have say 5-7 50 Over matches and 2 20/20 matches which seems to be the norm. It doesn't make sense to me. Why not have say a best of 3 or 4 20/20 and likewise best of 3 or 4 50 over cricket - makes more sense to me.

  • Muzgrob on February 3, 2012, 0:57 GMT

    Someone please fire this guy before he does even more damage to cricket in this country.

  • on February 3, 2012, 0:53 GMT

    Do away with ODI's - the only interesting part of these games is the first 15 overs and the last 5, the rest are just overs full of singles. The format is stuck between test match and T20. Instead, INTRODUCE DOUBLE HEADER T20's (its done in baseball in the US). About the same length as ODI's but less chance of boring periods, more flexible for spectators (they can choose to get tickets to either game or both), more revenue for all stakeholders (caterers, ticket sales, merchandisers). ODI's compete with test cricket but not with T20. T20 is great to attract people to the game, to educate and to provide the grounding required to understand test cricket. With the popularity of T20, ODI's will only cannibalise test cricket and tarnish the cricket brand - by showing a boring product and empty seats.

  • bobagorof on February 3, 2012, 0:32 GMT

    @ satish619chandar: and instead you have people blaming Sutherland. What does this tell you? That many people in these forums don't like the idea.

  • bobagorof on February 3, 2012, 0:31 GMT

    @ Simoc: Twenty20 is not loved by everyone.

  • wilson_chandler on February 3, 2012, 0:28 GMT

    I am against expanding the T20 Internationals, but not against expanding T20 in the Australian summer. First of all, get rid of ODI's completely from the australian summer, both domestic and international series. Secondly, have the shefield shield and test series run from october - january (new years test being the last) and then dedicate the next 6-7 weeks on a revamped BBL, featuring all international players that are available. Incorporate NZ into the plan, expand it to 10 teams feat 8 aussie teams and 2 NZ teams. With the best aussie and NZ players available, and each team having 2 imports, network TV would be mad not to televise it. It's about time cricket came into the 21st century, all other major sports ie: soccer have domestic comps with a handful of internationals, with more emphasis being on the WORLD CUP. Keeps test as is, but T20 is the way forward. 2015 ODI world cup will be the last in that format!

  • bobagorof on February 3, 2012, 0:26 GMT

    It's hardly surprising that Twenty20 is getting a lot of attendance, with Cricket Australia deciding to not promote 50 over cricket anymore. The series starts on Sunday and I've heard almost nothing about it. I used to love watching ODIs in January/February and having the chance to see two neutral teams playing against each other as part of a triangular tournament. I remember a match between South Africa and New Zealand from 10 years ago that had the chance to keep Australia out of its own finals. I also still remember Doug Marillier from Zimbabwe scooping Glenn McGrath for 6 in the latter stages of a tight match. You don't get that with Twenty20 (though I guess Warner's 'switch hit' will stick in the mind). The other thing is that people aren't made of money - there's only so many matches that they can go to. Increased number of matches = less attendance at each one.

  • getaclue on February 3, 2012, 0:10 GMT

    @yevgheny - that is EXACTLY correct. It is all a bit of luck and one ore two overs can literally win a game. Hence, Aus have lost to ZIM, Netherlands beat the Poms etc. Would not and could not happen in a Test

  • whyowhy on February 3, 2012, 0:07 GMT

    If (and it is a very big IF) india wins today, T20 will be the best indicator of world cricket strength, especially when you win the second match after getting white washed in a test series and losing the first match. Long live team india. Rohit Sharma must also hit a six with a switch hit.....O boy...that will be the icing on the chappati.

  • whyowhy on February 2, 2012, 23:47 GMT

    Yevghenny, Luck is there in every sport, remember you are lucky to get up this morning and say you are alive, there are many who have not survived the night. Just enjoy what you want to watch and please, please do not watch what you think is lucky or not good enough for your taste - leave the choice in the hands of the 'chooser' and you might get lucky sometime........Asalamalaykum

  • seand64 on February 2, 2012, 23:18 GMT

    warnerbasher is 100% right. James Sutherland sees nothing but $ signs. He's as bad for Test cricket as the BCCI because Australia is integral to the history of Test matches. To see the Sheffield Shield being treated the way it is for the rubbish that has been on display lately is a shame, but to see an extended T20 competition taking over from ODI's and Shield would be detrimental to the game and it's immediate future in Australia. I must admit that i don't watch or go to ODI's or T20's, but i do go to Shield matches when work commitments afford me the time. I had all of xmas off this year and apart from the MCG Test there was no other 1st class cricket to go and watch in Victoria. Pathetic.

  • anilkp on February 2, 2012, 22:59 GMT

    Yahoo! Sutherland, go buddy! Go drown the ship. The bottom-dwellers will be happy.

  • YNS_GoIndia on February 2, 2012, 22:17 GMT

    OK.... Where are the BCCI and IPL bashers?? You see money speaks. Doesn't matter if its India or Australia......

  • Busie1979 on February 2, 2012, 22:06 GMT

    Triangular tournament used to be 8 games each - playing each team 4 times. Instead, have separate triangular tournaments playing each team 2 times for both ODI and T20. Bingo! Problem solved. Separate teams is a silly idea - it shows the T20 is superficial. It would be another step towards ruining cricket. Administrators want to get rid of ODIs because it is not "entertaining" enough - cricket should stop talking itself down. I was unimpressed with Cricket Australia mucking around with the one day format with split inningsi in the Ryobi cup and am unimpressed with the talk that nobody likes ODIs. When exactly did that happen? Change the opposition from the tests and it will sort itself out. The real problem is too many games against India (10 games across all formats - 12 or 13 if the teams make ODI finals). People are fatigued by the time ODIs come around. This is not a failure of the ODI format but reflects the need for different teams in the triangular series.

  • raks_pace on February 2, 2012, 21:56 GMT

    CB tri-series has 15 ODI matches scheduled. Thats really too much of ODI cricket for five weeks, with each side playing each other 4 times in league stage and best of 3 finals. Instead Australia could have played 2 or 3 T20 matches each against India and Srilanka. They could have reduced the CB tri-series to 9 matches with each side playing each other 2 times in league stage and best of 3 finals. Going forward CA should plan to have 6 tests, 6 T20's and 9 ODI's between Nov to Mar season. That will definitely brings in variety and will draw spectators to the matches.

  • SaneVoice on February 2, 2012, 20:00 GMT

    @Simoc - first things first, the ex-players have a clear conflict of interest with branding one form or the other as 'real' cricket - they are paid to watch while the fans pay to watch. Secondly, if T20s are played more often then who would care about their opinions (even today most fans can't relate to the 70s stories that IC and GB regularly dish out). No wonder they keep calling T20 a joke. The fact is that test cricket is followed (on internet) and commented upon (cricinfo forums) whereas T20 is 'watched'. Cricinfo please publish.

  • warnerbasher on February 2, 2012, 18:54 GMT

    I have allways said that Sutherland is the greatest danger to the future of test cricket in this country than anything else. We need to monitor closely the actions of this character and ensure that the heritage that is test cricket remains the ultimate for players and spectators. My concern is that Sheffield Shield has been cast aside from late December until February it might be that this blokes plans something similar for the longer game. Be vigilant folks,Sutherland is a major concern

  • donda on February 2, 2012, 18:25 GMT

    T2020 cricket is the future of cricket. Instread of 5 odis, teams should play 5 T2020 games because of the entertainment factor.

    Forget about classic cricket , cricket should be played for the fans and fans only like T2020 cricket because it's only 3 hour game like other international sports.

    India and Australia should play 7 T2020 matches per series because of fans reaction. Note it down that T2020 is future of cricket and Test cricket is not.

    Just accept the fact and move on ICC.

  • on February 2, 2012, 16:10 GMT

    3 T-20's, 3 ODI's, 3 Test ... For EVERY tour

  • Yevghenny on February 2, 2012, 15:28 GMT

    the thing I find with t20 is it really does just take one lucky innings that can last no more than 15 deliveries that can completely change the game. You rarely get a lucky ODI winner, and you NEVER get a lucky test match win.

  • whyowhy on February 2, 2012, 15:02 GMT

    Great Idea, if it entertains people (proof is in the attendance) go for it - have separate teams for each format and let those who want to watch T20 watch it. The guys who want to watch 50 overs and drink please do so or the guys who want to watch 5 days of cricket and have the time to do it can drink themselves silly for 5 days. Each man is entitled to his own poison (we are a democratic country mates) and it is up to the administrators to dish out the poison to each one differently. Stop grumbling like old codgers and enjoy what is available on its own merit. Nobody is forcing you to watch anything you do not like to watch. Period.

  • Behind_the_bowlers_arm on February 2, 2012, 14:52 GMT

    Every international series should be (in this order for acclimatisation purposes) 3 t20 matches, 5 ODI's & 5 Test matches.

  • CricFreax on February 2, 2012, 13:21 GMT

    the XI for next game should be Gambhir, Sachin (sehwag can be dropped), Virat, Raina,Rohit,MSD,Ashwin, Umesh, Irfan, Praveen, Rahul

  • Potatis on February 2, 2012, 12:41 GMT

    I think 2 games is enough, if there needs to be more then make it 3. The crowd was huge because it's one of only two games. More games make it boring, it already is a bit, since there's no substance to it. I'm happy to watch one game a series (on TV), it's a pretty meaningless game - Hit & Giggle. I'd rather see good test nations visit Australia for 5 test series, now with T20 we don't have time for that.

  • utshwalaman on February 2, 2012, 12:30 GMT

    I see no reason not to have a best of 3 twenty/20 series, makes sense as some of the players only get a gig in this form of the game. Is a chance to honour some past players with some sort of cup...Like the Hookes/Srikkanth trophy or the like (both would have been excellent T20 players), but the tri series is out of date, 3 against India and 3 vs another country is more than enough and it gives all venues a crack at revenue, which is fair. I a from Tasmania and we want to see Australia play at Bellerive, not India v Sri Lanka which was the case for many, many years.

  • johntycodes on February 2, 2012, 12:26 GMT

    I will watch every format of cricket but 20-20 is still full of luck and sometimes very boring. If you lose 3 early wickets it's game over. Gee that's exciting. One day cricket is better to watch no doubt.

  • boooonnie on February 2, 2012, 11:34 GMT

    Do what you want with the one day series. Totally replace them with 20/20 if you want. Lets face it 20/20 will get played to death and be replaced by another sexier version of the game in 10 years time anyway. Just leave the Tests alone! They are the corner stone of cricket and the purist form of the game.

  • AndyMack on February 2, 2012, 11:18 GMT

    Seems like we Aussies are quick to thrown mud at the Indian approach to Tests/T20 cricket, but then we jump on board and follow suit. If we are all just in it for the money, then we should just say so.

  • Yevghenny on February 2, 2012, 11:11 GMT

    although thinking about it t20 is not an international format of the game, and should be kept to these Domestic Leagues where they genuinely serve a purpose

  • realist1 on February 2, 2012, 11:06 GMT

    IPL has pretty much destroyed Indian Test Cricket now Sutherland wants to destroy ours..... Australian ppl doesn't like T20,Full Stop. Because t20 doesn't give us enough time to get drunk. LOL. Jokes aside, Test cricket is the ultimate, t20 is still hit and giggle....

  • on February 2, 2012, 10:42 GMT

    no comments no comments no comments no comments

  • on February 2, 2012, 10:42 GMT

    no comments no comments no comments no comments

  • satish619chandar on February 2, 2012, 10:39 GMT

    Thanks GOD!! N.Srinivasan didn't say this.. otherwise, we could have seen some 300 comments blaming him.. How come people really so much one sided..

  • satish619chandar on February 2, 2012, 10:35 GMT

    @HatsforBats : VB series is happening for long long time.. For some reason, CA stopped it for some other reason, they again started it now.. And, u blame India for it? Blame India for no life in MARS..

  • Simoc on February 2, 2012, 10:27 GMT

    T20 is loved by everyone except the ex-players, who of course missed the fun and the money, the media ( especially tired old journalists) and the grumpy old men and women who normally snooze at the cricket. T20 is also crickets financial future.

  • dwblurb on February 2, 2012, 10:21 GMT

    Oh great, more fast food cricket at the international level as well. Wasn't there an ICC recommendation/ruling that international teams should play no more than 2 or 3 games per year?

  • rahulcricket007 on February 2, 2012, 10:08 GMT

    i had a solution to it . when india tour in 2014 . reduce the number of test matches from 4 to 2 & play a 5 match t20 series .

  • 9ST9 on February 2, 2012, 9:44 GMT

    The ideal number of games for any Tri Series is 6 matches in the first round and a final or (even 3 finals is ok, since it eliminates the scenario where a team that won all the preliminaries loses out in one game. ) However given the popularity of the t20 format i think, there will be more games in the future for instance this year we have 3 series consisting of 3 T20 I s. Eng v Pak, NZ vs SA and Eng vs SA. Multi nation T20 series are good especially in places where the game needs to be promoted - like the 4 nation T20 in Canada in 2008, or even a quick T20 knockout series in places where cricket needs to be developed are not bad ideas. However the appeal for International T20 lies in its rarity. The ECB expanded their FLT20 and the crowds dwindled. Same might apply if you play too much of T20 Internationals.

  • banter123 on February 2, 2012, 9:38 GMT

    3 T20'S AND 3 ODIS would have been perfect end to the summer of cricket. Scheduling of long tour is ridiculous for everyone in the game,dont expect big crowds when the meaningless odis are being dragged on.

  • on February 2, 2012, 9:22 GMT

    oh man, sure, increase the number of 20/20s, have you learned nothing? overkill!

  • Yevghenny on February 2, 2012, 9:21 GMT

    3 ODI's, 3 T20's. Then after all that - 4-5 tests. Touring teams will have had more time to adapt to the conditions by the time of the test matches, and it just seems right to conclude the tour with the test series as ODI's are anti-climax otherwise

  • on February 2, 2012, 8:53 GMT

    HatsforBats, I agree, we don't need a long drawn out ODI series. We also don't need a long drawn out T20 series, two is fine. Leave T20 to state competitions. A tri-ODI-series is fine, but maybe they should play each other just twice with just one final. We don't need a best of three. I'm not a huge fan of T20, but Sutherlands suggestion of completely separate teams playing simulatenously is not a bad idea.

  • dsig3 on February 2, 2012, 8:42 GMT

    Reduce the number of ODI's? You suggest it but havnt got the fortitude to say it outright. I suspect you will increase the number of 20/20's while somehow playing just as much ODI cricket. I dont trust you James, you are lucky to still have a job mate. The Argus review should of been looking at your job too, instead of you sitting in on the interviews. Now we are doing better it looks like you have got away with it. True Aussie fans see straight through you.

  • HatsforBats on February 2, 2012, 8:36 GMT

    5 weeks of odi's is ridiculous, which is why we stopped the tri series in the first place. But now that the fat cash cow of India is here we're dragging them out again? 3 games is perfect.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • HatsforBats on February 2, 2012, 8:36 GMT

    5 weeks of odi's is ridiculous, which is why we stopped the tri series in the first place. But now that the fat cash cow of India is here we're dragging them out again? 3 games is perfect.

  • dsig3 on February 2, 2012, 8:42 GMT

    Reduce the number of ODI's? You suggest it but havnt got the fortitude to say it outright. I suspect you will increase the number of 20/20's while somehow playing just as much ODI cricket. I dont trust you James, you are lucky to still have a job mate. The Argus review should of been looking at your job too, instead of you sitting in on the interviews. Now we are doing better it looks like you have got away with it. True Aussie fans see straight through you.

  • on February 2, 2012, 8:53 GMT

    HatsforBats, I agree, we don't need a long drawn out ODI series. We also don't need a long drawn out T20 series, two is fine. Leave T20 to state competitions. A tri-ODI-series is fine, but maybe they should play each other just twice with just one final. We don't need a best of three. I'm not a huge fan of T20, but Sutherlands suggestion of completely separate teams playing simulatenously is not a bad idea.

  • Yevghenny on February 2, 2012, 9:21 GMT

    3 ODI's, 3 T20's. Then after all that - 4-5 tests. Touring teams will have had more time to adapt to the conditions by the time of the test matches, and it just seems right to conclude the tour with the test series as ODI's are anti-climax otherwise

  • on February 2, 2012, 9:22 GMT

    oh man, sure, increase the number of 20/20s, have you learned nothing? overkill!

  • banter123 on February 2, 2012, 9:38 GMT

    3 T20'S AND 3 ODIS would have been perfect end to the summer of cricket. Scheduling of long tour is ridiculous for everyone in the game,dont expect big crowds when the meaningless odis are being dragged on.

  • 9ST9 on February 2, 2012, 9:44 GMT

    The ideal number of games for any Tri Series is 6 matches in the first round and a final or (even 3 finals is ok, since it eliminates the scenario where a team that won all the preliminaries loses out in one game. ) However given the popularity of the t20 format i think, there will be more games in the future for instance this year we have 3 series consisting of 3 T20 I s. Eng v Pak, NZ vs SA and Eng vs SA. Multi nation T20 series are good especially in places where the game needs to be promoted - like the 4 nation T20 in Canada in 2008, or even a quick T20 knockout series in places where cricket needs to be developed are not bad ideas. However the appeal for International T20 lies in its rarity. The ECB expanded their FLT20 and the crowds dwindled. Same might apply if you play too much of T20 Internationals.

  • rahulcricket007 on February 2, 2012, 10:08 GMT

    i had a solution to it . when india tour in 2014 . reduce the number of test matches from 4 to 2 & play a 5 match t20 series .

  • dwblurb on February 2, 2012, 10:21 GMT

    Oh great, more fast food cricket at the international level as well. Wasn't there an ICC recommendation/ruling that international teams should play no more than 2 or 3 games per year?

  • Simoc on February 2, 2012, 10:27 GMT

    T20 is loved by everyone except the ex-players, who of course missed the fun and the money, the media ( especially tired old journalists) and the grumpy old men and women who normally snooze at the cricket. T20 is also crickets financial future.