ICC Champions Trophy October 6, 2009

Fifty-over cricket will hold its own - Ponting

Cricinfo staff
23

The ICC Champions Trophy has gone a long way to ensuring the continuance of ODIs, the captains of Australia and New Zealand, the two finalists, have said. Since the advent of the Twenty20 game, which has drawn huge crowds around the world, there has been increasing talk of the 50-over format falling away.

But Ricky Ponting and Brendon McCullum, standing in for injured Blacks Caps captain Daniel Vettori, gave their thumbs-up for the 50-over format and the tournament after Australia beat New Zealand by six wickets in Monday's final in Centurion.

"There's been a lot of talk about that since the 20-over game has become as popular as it has," Ponting said. "There's plenty of space for both 20-over cricket and 50-over cricket to fit in alongside the Test game. The Test game is the form of the game I enjoy the most, but 50-over cricket, with tournaments like this, will certainly hold its own.

"I was worried at the time when 20-over cricket became as popular as it did that we might start playing a few less 50-over games, but I think tournaments like this can only help the game.

"I've really enjoyed the tournament and I think the fans around South Africa have enjoyed the tournament, so it's got some endorsement from me, and even a low-scoring game like today can probably be one of the more entertaining games that you can watch and be involved in as a player."

Ponting, who also picked up the Player-of-the-Series and Golden bat awards after his side defended their title, has played in all six editions of the Champions Trophy. But he said the latest edition, which was reduced to only eight teams for the first time, had been the best organised.

"We've only been here a couple of weeks and the tournament's over," Ponting said. "You've got the best eight teams in the world playing for it and you've got a great place to play here in South Africa with two very good grounds to play on."

McCullum endorsed Ponting's views on the tournament, which was postponed by a year after it was moved from Pakistan for security reasons. "I thought this tournament was good," he said. "The top eight teams in the world coming together and playing over a short period of time; I thought it worked well. I guess there weren't too many nail-biting games, but I still think the quality of cricket was fantastic.

"If 50-over cricket is to remain in the calendar, it's a great way to certainly push it with tournaments like the Champions Trophy."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Changez on October 8, 2009, 17:05 GMT

    i think 50 over game has its own charm, the pressure between the 15 n 40 over's is great to watch. the batsmen and bowler captain every1 is tested in those middle over... 20 over is too less.. because any1 whose got a 50 of 20 odd balls the game is 1 sided but in 50 overs even if u score 70 of 35 balls n loosing 4 wickets soon aftr thn u hav to rebiuld and u r not totaly in the game wid couple of small knocks like 50 60.. on a good pitch every1 have to contribute.. the fact of the matter is that 50 over should remain there because you can differentiate the great players like yousuf,kallis,sangakara,yovraj,ponting ,hussy,dravid.sachin... these are all those players who have there own class. on the other hand in 20 overs its all slogging which is good but you cant c the stylish shots of a batsmen. now you cant compare those great players with, afridi,gibbs,dilshan,watson,rana naveed,kohli,etc

  • Itchy on October 8, 2009, 1:39 GMT

    Fireballers: the main reason there were empty seats in the semi-finals and final is because neither SA or India made it past the group stage. Why the final was scheduled for a Monday is beyond me too, but probably to shoehorn in a meaningless domestic T20 competition in India followed by an even more meaningless 7 ODI Aus vs Ind tournament.

    ODIs will survive if the schedule is tight (like the Champions Trophy) and there are not too many othet matches played. Why is the Aus vs India series being played at all?

  • krs_spidey on October 7, 2009, 17:24 GMT

    i found this mini wc as the best since 2000 edition..no meaningless matches,tight,compact,small and fortunately played on pitches of south africa providing even bat ball contest like the two t20 world cups in sa and eng(not the usually flat, slow and dead tracks of subcontinent)..it was very exciting and gripping to see depleted nz side defending a small total with bond and mills especially troubling australian top order with the new ball in final..but sadly icc hasnt taken any cue from compact format of this champions trophy and a disastrous last ODI wc as it has again included 14 teams for wc2011..this means again we'll have too many one sided useless contests(like ind vs netherlands,aus vs canada etc.)..12 teams r enuf in ODI wc like 1996 and 1999 editions..if icc wants to promote cricket in other nations it shud do it with t20 format..have 16 teams in a t20 wc coz it offers more chance for weaker teams to surprise strong ones..and even if contest is one sided it finishes in 3hrs

  • thearianrobben on October 7, 2009, 16:11 GMT

    they say 50 overs boring because there are often times when 60 runs required off 95 balls with 9 wickets remaining or 110 runs requred off 40 balls with 3 wickets remaining. but similar things also happen in T20 in smaller figures. In a sense I see both games of same type, except that wicket fall makes a bigger impact in ODIs than T20 and there comes the need of braking safe single-based partnerships only possible by some fine bowling or in some case with some help of pitch. In T20, bowlers with ability of taking wickets are devalued.

  • 2.14istherunrate on October 7, 2009, 15:53 GMT

    This was a good competition.It was to the point.All games had relevance to the outcome.There was no meander through pointless exercises of thrashing hapless teams like Bermuda or Namibia by huge margins, in the hope of the occasional giant killing.It lasted precisely 2 weeks and one could remember a time before the event. It was,it is reported reasonably priced at the grounds and pitches were fit for more than being dug up-ie interesting.The right team won because it was the best team,and most of the games were good to watch,with some some thrilling passages of play. It scored heavily over the last World Cup,and was a lot better than most World Cups since 1992; I wonder why.It was also better than a series of 7 matches.It's not so much perhaps that 50 over cricket needs a revamp but the way it is formatted does. Though tri-series seem to have disappeared, they are more fun because two out of three sides get to a final. Keeping games relevant and not overdoing it is wisest.

  • zohair02 on October 7, 2009, 15:31 GMT

    Yeah yeah yeah! Ofcourse Ponting is going to say that - he doesn't keep up with the times. The general public does not have time to watch a whole day of meaningless cricket. I don't know of a single normal person who watched the finals of the champions trophy. Give us T20 any day.

  • getrealforreal on October 7, 2009, 14:21 GMT

    I think the tri-series in Sri Lanka followed up by a great multi-national Champions trophy in South Africa proved that people love quick tournaments with more than two sides involved. Cricket boards have gotten greedy over time and does not want to share revenue with a third or a forth team but that ended up hurting the game (see 7 ODI encounter between England and Austrial). I loved the tri nation encounters in Australia every year and people flocked to watch quality cricket.

  • kantipur on October 7, 2009, 12:41 GMT

    Pointless tournament. Either World cup should be removed or champions trophy. We already have one ODI world cup every 4 years and 20-20 world cup every two year (oops sorry 10months). Why play ICC champions trophy and devalue the world cup.

    It is considered second biggest ODI tournament in cricket. But half empty stadium in the final suggest people arn't that interested. Tournament of this magnitude should at least have stadium full for semis and the finals. If anybody says this tournament was a success must be blind.

    Furthermore, this tournament does not represent the spirit with which it started. It started for development of cricket for non test playing country. Forget about development of cricket now it is played merely for the survival of One day cricket. I myself come from a non test playing nation and I feel aggrieved and cheated .

    By the way what is CHAMPIONS trophy? How they became Champions? Did they play any qualifying matches?

  • Cricket_Writer on October 7, 2009, 11:33 GMT

    I reiterate here that 50 over format hold its own charm. It's the format who has helped cricket to produce some wonderful and genius cricketers. We see all the tricks in this format i.e, singles, doubles, partnerships, reverse-swing, slogging. In a nutshell, it provides the entertainment for an entire day, very few sports do that. The points which need to be considered to avoid any wash out of this format are 1) Better pitches, as in champion's trophy it wasn't a strong point 2) There should be tournaments involving many teams rather that colourless bilateral one days series 3) Introduction of challenge system to the umpires decision so that could be verified by 3rd umpire 4) There should be reserved days in case of stoppage of play due to rain or may be introduce the covered stadium as we have in Australia. I hope these points will be considered for the good of the game.

  • JGG32 on October 7, 2009, 9:07 GMT

    Totally agree with Uraniums thoughts, just as the Eng v Aus 7 match serious was arduous and boring (thanks largely to Eng's ineptitude, but thats another story), the Ind/Aus series promises more of the same, dispite the percieved similarity in class. Who wants to watch the same two teams again and again for over 3 weeks, when they have just watched the top 8 teams in the world compete against each other in less than 3 weeks?! Having said that this doesnt mean ODI's are on the way out IF the respective boards, and more importantly ICC, keep tours varied and dont over-focus on one form of the game e.g. 2xT20's, 3-5 ODI's and 3-5 Tests. It would ensure a cycling of the formats, thus hopefully keeping the fans and players fresh

  • Changez on October 8, 2009, 17:05 GMT

    i think 50 over game has its own charm, the pressure between the 15 n 40 over's is great to watch. the batsmen and bowler captain every1 is tested in those middle over... 20 over is too less.. because any1 whose got a 50 of 20 odd balls the game is 1 sided but in 50 overs even if u score 70 of 35 balls n loosing 4 wickets soon aftr thn u hav to rebiuld and u r not totaly in the game wid couple of small knocks like 50 60.. on a good pitch every1 have to contribute.. the fact of the matter is that 50 over should remain there because you can differentiate the great players like yousuf,kallis,sangakara,yovraj,ponting ,hussy,dravid.sachin... these are all those players who have there own class. on the other hand in 20 overs its all slogging which is good but you cant c the stylish shots of a batsmen. now you cant compare those great players with, afridi,gibbs,dilshan,watson,rana naveed,kohli,etc

  • Itchy on October 8, 2009, 1:39 GMT

    Fireballers: the main reason there were empty seats in the semi-finals and final is because neither SA or India made it past the group stage. Why the final was scheduled for a Monday is beyond me too, but probably to shoehorn in a meaningless domestic T20 competition in India followed by an even more meaningless 7 ODI Aus vs Ind tournament.

    ODIs will survive if the schedule is tight (like the Champions Trophy) and there are not too many othet matches played. Why is the Aus vs India series being played at all?

  • krs_spidey on October 7, 2009, 17:24 GMT

    i found this mini wc as the best since 2000 edition..no meaningless matches,tight,compact,small and fortunately played on pitches of south africa providing even bat ball contest like the two t20 world cups in sa and eng(not the usually flat, slow and dead tracks of subcontinent)..it was very exciting and gripping to see depleted nz side defending a small total with bond and mills especially troubling australian top order with the new ball in final..but sadly icc hasnt taken any cue from compact format of this champions trophy and a disastrous last ODI wc as it has again included 14 teams for wc2011..this means again we'll have too many one sided useless contests(like ind vs netherlands,aus vs canada etc.)..12 teams r enuf in ODI wc like 1996 and 1999 editions..if icc wants to promote cricket in other nations it shud do it with t20 format..have 16 teams in a t20 wc coz it offers more chance for weaker teams to surprise strong ones..and even if contest is one sided it finishes in 3hrs

  • thearianrobben on October 7, 2009, 16:11 GMT

    they say 50 overs boring because there are often times when 60 runs required off 95 balls with 9 wickets remaining or 110 runs requred off 40 balls with 3 wickets remaining. but similar things also happen in T20 in smaller figures. In a sense I see both games of same type, except that wicket fall makes a bigger impact in ODIs than T20 and there comes the need of braking safe single-based partnerships only possible by some fine bowling or in some case with some help of pitch. In T20, bowlers with ability of taking wickets are devalued.

  • 2.14istherunrate on October 7, 2009, 15:53 GMT

    This was a good competition.It was to the point.All games had relevance to the outcome.There was no meander through pointless exercises of thrashing hapless teams like Bermuda or Namibia by huge margins, in the hope of the occasional giant killing.It lasted precisely 2 weeks and one could remember a time before the event. It was,it is reported reasonably priced at the grounds and pitches were fit for more than being dug up-ie interesting.The right team won because it was the best team,and most of the games were good to watch,with some some thrilling passages of play. It scored heavily over the last World Cup,and was a lot better than most World Cups since 1992; I wonder why.It was also better than a series of 7 matches.It's not so much perhaps that 50 over cricket needs a revamp but the way it is formatted does. Though tri-series seem to have disappeared, they are more fun because two out of three sides get to a final. Keeping games relevant and not overdoing it is wisest.

  • zohair02 on October 7, 2009, 15:31 GMT

    Yeah yeah yeah! Ofcourse Ponting is going to say that - he doesn't keep up with the times. The general public does not have time to watch a whole day of meaningless cricket. I don't know of a single normal person who watched the finals of the champions trophy. Give us T20 any day.

  • getrealforreal on October 7, 2009, 14:21 GMT

    I think the tri-series in Sri Lanka followed up by a great multi-national Champions trophy in South Africa proved that people love quick tournaments with more than two sides involved. Cricket boards have gotten greedy over time and does not want to share revenue with a third or a forth team but that ended up hurting the game (see 7 ODI encounter between England and Austrial). I loved the tri nation encounters in Australia every year and people flocked to watch quality cricket.

  • kantipur on October 7, 2009, 12:41 GMT

    Pointless tournament. Either World cup should be removed or champions trophy. We already have one ODI world cup every 4 years and 20-20 world cup every two year (oops sorry 10months). Why play ICC champions trophy and devalue the world cup.

    It is considered second biggest ODI tournament in cricket. But half empty stadium in the final suggest people arn't that interested. Tournament of this magnitude should at least have stadium full for semis and the finals. If anybody says this tournament was a success must be blind.

    Furthermore, this tournament does not represent the spirit with which it started. It started for development of cricket for non test playing country. Forget about development of cricket now it is played merely for the survival of One day cricket. I myself come from a non test playing nation and I feel aggrieved and cheated .

    By the way what is CHAMPIONS trophy? How they became Champions? Did they play any qualifying matches?

  • Cricket_Writer on October 7, 2009, 11:33 GMT

    I reiterate here that 50 over format hold its own charm. It's the format who has helped cricket to produce some wonderful and genius cricketers. We see all the tricks in this format i.e, singles, doubles, partnerships, reverse-swing, slogging. In a nutshell, it provides the entertainment for an entire day, very few sports do that. The points which need to be considered to avoid any wash out of this format are 1) Better pitches, as in champion's trophy it wasn't a strong point 2) There should be tournaments involving many teams rather that colourless bilateral one days series 3) Introduction of challenge system to the umpires decision so that could be verified by 3rd umpire 4) There should be reserved days in case of stoppage of play due to rain or may be introduce the covered stadium as we have in Australia. I hope these points will be considered for the good of the game.

  • JGG32 on October 7, 2009, 9:07 GMT

    Totally agree with Uraniums thoughts, just as the Eng v Aus 7 match serious was arduous and boring (thanks largely to Eng's ineptitude, but thats another story), the Ind/Aus series promises more of the same, dispite the percieved similarity in class. Who wants to watch the same two teams again and again for over 3 weeks, when they have just watched the top 8 teams in the world compete against each other in less than 3 weeks?! Having said that this doesnt mean ODI's are on the way out IF the respective boards, and more importantly ICC, keep tours varied and dont over-focus on one form of the game e.g. 2xT20's, 3-5 ODI's and 3-5 Tests. It would ensure a cycling of the formats, thus hopefully keeping the fans and players fresh

  • LeoBD on October 7, 2009, 8:53 GMT

    Personally I prefer ODI than T20. I want ODI to sustain.

  • JGuru on October 7, 2009, 8:48 GMT

    I do not think any format of the game stands to suffer. If T20 maniacs say that 50 Over cricket is adding no value, can they explain why even today a total of 260 in 50 Over game is considered tougher to be chased down? There has been a wide debate about 50 over cricket counting its days but this has substance at all. One should master a format before commenting whether that holds good or not. If there comes a stage when NO total is safe to defend then one can readily accept T20 skills have fully eclipsed other forms of the game. Teams even today are struggling to chase a modest total similarly a target of 400 runs with 125 overs on final days of test match is still a monumental task to be achieved. So all formats of the game have their own charm, let us celebrate and enjoy them rather than comparing one with the other.

  • MalikNadeemAwan on October 7, 2009, 8:26 GMT

    I think 50 over circket should be played as it is no need to change the format of it. Bcoz people like great Wasim, Waqar, Tendulkar, Lara , Murali they all have great records in 5o over circket and people loves them too. So it is a good format which should not b changed.

  • Saim93 on October 7, 2009, 7:57 GMT

    I feel this was definitely the best Champions Trophy yet and yes it has helped to support the 50 over format, the contests were very close and the format of the tournament sharp simple and to the point.

  • popcorn on October 7, 2009, 7:38 GMT

    Stupid of South Africa and England to banish the 50 over format from their domestic season- they will NEVER win the ODI World Cup or Champions Trophy with this attitude.

  • bicyclelegs on October 7, 2009, 7:26 GMT

    Personally I find T20 boring. The games are basically a coin-flip, there is virtually no chance for a team that gets off to a bad start to turn things around. That is the beauty of ODI as a shorter form. There is time in an ODI for momentum shift etc. Of course, IMHO, Test cricket will always be the pinnacle of the game but I hope ODIs survive. I do agree, though, that 7 game series are too long, they should be no longer than 5 games.

  • chandau on October 7, 2009, 7:09 GMT

    This event showed that more ODIs should be played in group / knockout format among best teams (lets leave WI out of it plz). long series between 2 countries like the Eng V Aus tend to bore people especially when it is one sided. The Tri series in Sri Lanka (SL, Ind NZ) was well attended and so was the Champ Trophy. Wonder why Aus scrapped the year end Tri series? It was again well attended and watched on TV. Do not tinker with the format plz. May be make the boundaries a little longer. I mean 58m is usually for U17 cricket in Sri Lanka where from under 19 it is standard 70m in most cases. May be have a weight limit for bats and define the rest of the dimensions (only width now) like edge, depth, type of coating on blade, etc. Also allow a bouncer per batsman per over in ODI (now 1 per over). Also review this stupid backing up law that allows the non striker to be 1/2 way down the pitch when the ball is delivered. also more prudence in leg side wide decisions plz. Cheers Chandana SL

  • Mohammad.Imran.Hyder on October 7, 2009, 6:35 GMT

    thing thing which put bad shadow on ODIs is long bilateral series between two nations. general public lose their interest in when the same two teams remain engaged with each other for long and the series only affects ranking of 2 sides rather involving more than 2 or 3 different playing sides. tournaments such as champions trophy could we very lucrative for the life of ODI existence appeal as in these we found playing tussle which is always great and generate more competitiveness and interest for teams and their supporting nations. so the ICC should review its FTP and convert bilateral long series into tournaments where more than 2 teams participate could well be a real life line for ODI survival issue.

  • timmochambo on October 6, 2009, 22:20 GMT

    50 over cricket is the perfect balance between T20s and Tests. I hope the format survives and thrives for a long time. Great to watch this last tournament and even happier with the result!!

  • The_other_side on October 6, 2009, 20:39 GMT

    Well... Good to hear Ricki Ponting's opinion. But Whether or not ODI will hold their own will be decided by not ICC but profits or in ither words, crowd support. Going by reading of articles not much crowds were present. So I would keep my fingers crossed for ODIs

  • Fireballers on October 6, 2009, 16:25 GMT

    Bogus agenda pushing by cricinfo writers. Why would they push for a dying format is besides me? The sooner we accept the reality the better it will be for us. ODI is not cricket, it is cricket-overload. It is impractical and a major waste of time. It is made redundant and boring by the presence of 20/20. What are the players going to say against it? The players can't say anything against it because they'll play even when there is nobody to watch the game. That is the player's spirit. But the organizers require people to watch it to make some kind of profit. And for that the players' insight isn't equipped for. Only audiences can decide what they deem worthy of their time. By the presence of empty seats on the final, (a Monday final?111) the verdict is clear. People do not like ODI anymore. People cannot afford to waste away entire days on 1 single game. Switch to 20/20s exclusively as soon as possible.

  • Uranium on October 6, 2009, 16:08 GMT

    Just when ODI cricket is looking good again we have an arduous 7 game series between Australia and India looming in the coming weeks. What a great way to ruin the good work done by the champions trophy in rescuing the reputation of ODIs. Just what we don't need - more meaningless ODIs. I mean, imagine if the ICC started scheduling 7 game T20 series'? What a sickening thought. T20s would quickly become boring.

  • Safiya on October 6, 2009, 15:07 GMT

    Even though some may feel that T20 cricket is more entertaining and more enjoying to watch, but the true spirit lies in the 50 over and test format of the game, and this tournerment has proved it.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Safiya on October 6, 2009, 15:07 GMT

    Even though some may feel that T20 cricket is more entertaining and more enjoying to watch, but the true spirit lies in the 50 over and test format of the game, and this tournerment has proved it.

  • Uranium on October 6, 2009, 16:08 GMT

    Just when ODI cricket is looking good again we have an arduous 7 game series between Australia and India looming in the coming weeks. What a great way to ruin the good work done by the champions trophy in rescuing the reputation of ODIs. Just what we don't need - more meaningless ODIs. I mean, imagine if the ICC started scheduling 7 game T20 series'? What a sickening thought. T20s would quickly become boring.

  • Fireballers on October 6, 2009, 16:25 GMT

    Bogus agenda pushing by cricinfo writers. Why would they push for a dying format is besides me? The sooner we accept the reality the better it will be for us. ODI is not cricket, it is cricket-overload. It is impractical and a major waste of time. It is made redundant and boring by the presence of 20/20. What are the players going to say against it? The players can't say anything against it because they'll play even when there is nobody to watch the game. That is the player's spirit. But the organizers require people to watch it to make some kind of profit. And for that the players' insight isn't equipped for. Only audiences can decide what they deem worthy of their time. By the presence of empty seats on the final, (a Monday final?111) the verdict is clear. People do not like ODI anymore. People cannot afford to waste away entire days on 1 single game. Switch to 20/20s exclusively as soon as possible.

  • The_other_side on October 6, 2009, 20:39 GMT

    Well... Good to hear Ricki Ponting's opinion. But Whether or not ODI will hold their own will be decided by not ICC but profits or in ither words, crowd support. Going by reading of articles not much crowds were present. So I would keep my fingers crossed for ODIs

  • timmochambo on October 6, 2009, 22:20 GMT

    50 over cricket is the perfect balance between T20s and Tests. I hope the format survives and thrives for a long time. Great to watch this last tournament and even happier with the result!!

  • Mohammad.Imran.Hyder on October 7, 2009, 6:35 GMT

    thing thing which put bad shadow on ODIs is long bilateral series between two nations. general public lose their interest in when the same two teams remain engaged with each other for long and the series only affects ranking of 2 sides rather involving more than 2 or 3 different playing sides. tournaments such as champions trophy could we very lucrative for the life of ODI existence appeal as in these we found playing tussle which is always great and generate more competitiveness and interest for teams and their supporting nations. so the ICC should review its FTP and convert bilateral long series into tournaments where more than 2 teams participate could well be a real life line for ODI survival issue.

  • chandau on October 7, 2009, 7:09 GMT

    This event showed that more ODIs should be played in group / knockout format among best teams (lets leave WI out of it plz). long series between 2 countries like the Eng V Aus tend to bore people especially when it is one sided. The Tri series in Sri Lanka (SL, Ind NZ) was well attended and so was the Champ Trophy. Wonder why Aus scrapped the year end Tri series? It was again well attended and watched on TV. Do not tinker with the format plz. May be make the boundaries a little longer. I mean 58m is usually for U17 cricket in Sri Lanka where from under 19 it is standard 70m in most cases. May be have a weight limit for bats and define the rest of the dimensions (only width now) like edge, depth, type of coating on blade, etc. Also allow a bouncer per batsman per over in ODI (now 1 per over). Also review this stupid backing up law that allows the non striker to be 1/2 way down the pitch when the ball is delivered. also more prudence in leg side wide decisions plz. Cheers Chandana SL

  • bicyclelegs on October 7, 2009, 7:26 GMT

    Personally I find T20 boring. The games are basically a coin-flip, there is virtually no chance for a team that gets off to a bad start to turn things around. That is the beauty of ODI as a shorter form. There is time in an ODI for momentum shift etc. Of course, IMHO, Test cricket will always be the pinnacle of the game but I hope ODIs survive. I do agree, though, that 7 game series are too long, they should be no longer than 5 games.

  • popcorn on October 7, 2009, 7:38 GMT

    Stupid of South Africa and England to banish the 50 over format from their domestic season- they will NEVER win the ODI World Cup or Champions Trophy with this attitude.

  • Saim93 on October 7, 2009, 7:57 GMT

    I feel this was definitely the best Champions Trophy yet and yes it has helped to support the 50 over format, the contests were very close and the format of the tournament sharp simple and to the point.