June 2, 2008

The death of the ODI?

The success of the IPL has made it clear that something has to give to accommodate it, and on the current evidence that something will be the 50-over game
84


Glam quotient: the IPL brains trust threw in a dash - or dollops - of Bollywood flavour to spice up the IPL © AFP
 

When you consider how much the Indian Premier League borrowed from World Series Cricket, it¹s quite ironic that its success might lead to the eventual extinction of the pajama cricket that was the cornerstone of the Packer revolution. As much as World Series cricket was about fair pay, improved TV coverage and superior marketing of the sport, it was also about establishing one-day cricket as a distinct entity, played in coloured clothes, under lights, and in front of crowds that came expecting to be entertained.

It was razzmatazz with some substance. Packer¹s focus was on gladiatorial fast bowlers, and the strokeplayers that could take them on. Three decades later, the IPL advertised its players as warriors. When Andy Roberts fractured David Hookes¹ jaw with a vicious bouncer, people knew that the World Series wasn¹t some hit-and-giggle enterprise. The IPL had a similar moment, when Zaheer Khan left Dominic Thornely looking like a young Mike Tyson had seen to him. Packer was a pioneer and an original, and the IPL¹s copycats succeeded because they took his blueprint, adapted it to an Indian context, and threw in a dash of Bollywood for good measure.

This year, after an uninterrupted run of 28 years, Cricket Australia pulled the curtain down on the annual tri-series. It¹s fair to say that its decline had mirrored that of the one-day game. After the spectacular success of the ICC World Twenty20 in South Africa, and the inaugural IPL season, the one-day game is on life-support, and it may only be a matter of time before the plug is pulled. Crowds and television audiences caught in the thrall of the Twenty20 game are unlikely to shed a tear.

It¹s amusing to hear greats of the past talking of how the IPL¹s success could have dire consequences for Test cricket. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Test-cricket constituency is a distinct one, and it generally consists of people who have played the game at some level, whether that¹s back garden, park, first-class or international. More importantly, it¹s a group of people that appreciate what Milan Kundera called Slowness, those not obsessed with instant gratification.

Such fans will never abandon Test cricket for the crash-bang-wallop thrills that Twenty20 offers. He or she may go and watch Dumb and Dumber, but it¹s never going to replace 400 Blows or In the Mood for Love in his affections.

Sadly, one-day cricket has no identity. In that respect, its like your stereotypical Bollywood movie with the hackneyed script that tries to have something for everyone, and ends up having nothing. It says much about the lack of imagination of those that administer the game that the 50-over game has evolved so little since the Packer years.

Compare that with Lalit Modi. You may not like the man or his hubris, but he has taken an existing concept, fine-tuned it, and ensured that the cricket world will never be the same again. After Sunday night¹s final, which could have been scripted by Gregory Howard of Remember the Titans fame, Modi and the IPL hold all the cards, while the ICC and other boards have next to nothing to bargain with.

The last World Cup in the Caribbean was a fiasco, an object lesson in how not to organise an event. Poor crowds, overpriced tickets, a lack of atmosphere and an interminable schedule all combined to make it perhaps the worst of all major competitions. In contrast, the IPL¹s head honchos didn¹t behave like stentorian schoolmasters, and the entertainment package that accompanied the games attracted everyone from five-year-olds with temporary tattoos to middle-aged women who had decided to forego a staple diet of TV soaps.

Where now for the IPL? After what happened on Sunday night, there¹s little doubt that the second season will be huge. Despite the concerns of the ECB and others, every single one of the world¹s top players is likely to take part. If they do try to prevent the likes of Kevin Pietersen from playing, they¹ll only end up being checkmated like the Australian Cricket Board were after Packer¹s bold gambit.

What is likely to happen is this: Both England and Australia, and perhaps South Africa and Pakistan too, will endeavour to jazz up their own T20 events so that they can at least compare to the IPL. A Champions League will surely result from it, because the stupendous response in India has confirmed that people are ready to invest both time and money to watch the best play the best, even if it's only over three hours.

The franchises, none of whom are likely to be too perturbed by the huge amounts invested in the first year, also have a role to play. Manoj Badale, of the Emerging Media group that owns the Rajasthan Royals, reckoned that it would take a couple of years for the club culture to truly take root, but you can rest assured that teams like Rajasthan won¹t be spending the next 10 months idle.

The reality is that no league can prosper if it operates only over six weeks. American Football has the shortest season of any major sport, but even that lasts 16 weeks, and then a month of play-offs. The football [soccer] seasons in Europe, the NBA in North America and Major League Baseball all last much longer, which is why they become such an integral part of fans¹ lives.

What does the Indian cricket fan do now? Next up is a tri-series in Bangladesh, followed by an Asia Cup that features teams like Hong Kong. It¹s the classic champagne-followed-by-flat-beer scenario, and it will be interesting to see what the TV ratings are like. Back when Doordarshan, the national broadcaster was all we had, everyone watched it. Then, with the onset of cable TV, no one bothered.

 
 
Where now for the IPL? After what happened on Sunday night, there's little doubt that the second season will be huge. Despite the concerns of the ECB and others, every single one of the world's top players is likely to take part. If they do try to prevent the likes of Kevin Pietersen from playing, they'll only end up being checkmated like the Australian Cricket Board was after Packer's bold gambit
 

The IPL has created a revolution, especially in the fan demographic, but has now left town. For the moment, the talk is of creating a four-week window, most likely in April. It¹s only a band-aid solution. In the long run, we¹re looking at a three-month season where teams play weekend games and the occasional midweek one as they do in the major football leagues. Those will alternate with Champions League games featuring the top sides.

A six or eight-month period might be set aside for Test cricket and other bilateral contests, but the fact is that cricket needs a 50-overs-a-side game between India and Hong Kong like it needs a hole in the head. After watching McGrath against Jayasuriya and Warne against Ganguly, why would anyone settle for such mediocrity? Unless one-day cricket can reinvent itself, and four innings of 20 overs each is the best suggestion I¹ve heard, it has one foot in the grave, with the fact that the World Cup is the jewel in the ICC crown being the only thing keeping it alive.

It¹s an opinion that even players share. Stephen Fleming was New Zealand¹s finest captain, the one who led them to their only major one-day triumph, the ICC Knockout in 2000. ³I am worried about the amount of one-day cricket, how much appeal one-day cricket is going to have with tournaments like this,² he said. ³I think the majority feels that it could cause a problem for the international calendar.²

The response to the first season of World Series Cricket, with the forces of orthodoxy ranged against it, was so lukewarm that a desperate Packer was reduced to counting the cars in the parking lot. No one saw Modi doing anything similar, and the perfectly scripted final has guaranteed that all the franchises will be counting next year are even bigger gate receipts. As for one-day cricket, the message has been bellowed out through a foghorn. Transform or perish.

Dileep Premachandran is an associate editor at Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • proudkolkatan on June 5, 2008, 14:50 GMT

    haha, if odis do become worthless, imagine what players like Ganguly, Tendulkar, Jayasuriya and Dravid will think about their 10,000 worhtless runs now!

  • krs_spidey on June 5, 2008, 8:35 GMT

    too much odis are killing odi cricket..i think 7 t20,15 tests and 30 odis r the max that icc has set for a country in 1 calendar yr(excluding matches of icc events)..now is icc sleeping??in 2007 india's calendar included 36 odi's excluding matches of world cup(now if india would have reached super 8 stage of wc, they would have played atleast 9 matches in wc)...that means a total of 45 odis in 1yr??..thats way too much..thats what killing odis..t20 is excellent but so is odi..but too much of anything will kill it..12 tests,25 odis and 21-25 t20 shud be max that a team can play in a calendar yr(excluding icc events ofcourse)..icc must make sure that a calendar yr must not have more international matches than the specified limit for each team..a last method to revive odis is to reduce it 40 ovrs a side.80 overs match can start at 4pm and finish within 6 1/2 hrs..Result:less time consuming, lesser burn out of players but almost equal entertainment of 100 ovr odi..else odi days r over

  • ggsg on June 4, 2008, 15:26 GMT

    No doubt 20-20 is sucess but it is more of lottery pick, and it has huge minus that grounds are small hence it is easier than odi and test to hit over the boundaries and maximum batter get out being aggresive. If stat looked bowlers who have earned there wicket compare to batter getting out in chase for quick runs % will be lower. 20-20 does not give time for a team to bounce back in game. When I say that it does not mean teams have not bounced but it is in small numbers. Any way all three forms are going to stay 20-20 for bang bang action and entertainment in short time , Test matches for quality and more gritty and grinding for both bowlers and batters and one days for entertainment with test of batters and bowlers. All three forms require different skills but all the forms of cricket is gonna help cricket for example fielding is going to improve more, mor attacking shots played in test and odi more result oriented test matches gonna be seen. and 20-20 will see more classic shots.

  • Abdulwaheed on June 4, 2008, 8:35 GMT

    I am sure after the grand success of IPL, ODI will loose its popularity except if they change to the following.

    Instead of a 50 over straight inning there should be two 22 overs innings. Some rules of Test and some if ODI may apply. In this way people can enjoy the charm of a TEST and the excitement of ODI. The name to this new event could be ODT ie One day Test.

    Regards A.Shamsi

  • chook83 on June 4, 2008, 8:26 GMT

    Let's not get too carried away with T20 just yet! When ODI started, the game was played like First Class cricket, because that's all that anyone knew. The game evolved, the rules changed and a new form of the game emerged. ODI has been a success because of the changes made. T20 needs an identity with yet different rules and strategies to maximise the concepts already in vogue. For example, who wants to watch the tailenders bat? That's a test match concept! Why not allow each player to bat for a fixed number of overs as indoor cricket allows? They'll be fun times ahead for the game as it embraces three different styles.

  • popcorn on June 4, 2008, 5:00 GMT

    To think that The 50 overs a side game is finished, and that the only two formats that will exist are Test Cricket and Twenty20.Left to himself,he would only have Twenty20.

    Cricket is a game of skill. Both Test Cricket and the 50 overs a side game need skill. Twenty20 is a lottery.

  • Viewpoint on June 4, 2008, 3:46 GMT

    One needs to step back a little and analyze what is being conjectured here. Has 20/20 swayed an existing cricket loving population or merely added to it? Are the purists suddenly going to abandon the game? Exactly where has one seen empty stadiums for ODI's except in the Windies??? - where during the world cup apart from organizational and other fiasco's afford ability was an issue for an already dwindling sport in that country. Lead up games in a long 'tri-series', particularly on week days, often saw fewer spectators but apart from that it's all going fine. In cricket crazed India, Pakistan, SL you could devise 10/10 or 100/100 and spectators will still flock - it's where cricket is valued as much as the heroes, in fact demi gods, playing in it. Make more Warnes and Tendulkars I say...won't matter what version of the game they play!

  • wargizmo on June 4, 2008, 0:31 GMT

    funny how everyone is bagging out 20/20 saying it's a slug fest that doesn't require skill but yet almost all the top performers in the IPL are accomplished international cricketers - if it doesn't require skill then why are the most skilled players rising to the top? And if it's such a slug fest then why is the best batsman, Shaun Marsh, anything but a slugger? Everyone's saying it's just a batsman's game yet the Royals won it primarily on the back of their bowlers (Tanvir and Warne) and all rounders (Watson and Pathan)? People if you're going to criticize something at least get your facts straight.

  • kripra on June 3, 2008, 23:22 GMT

    I think we need to keep in mind that in the Internet age, any global sport that lasts over three hours of "run-time" won't cut it. Look at soccer, basketball, baseball - sports that are played in more than 10 countries and have their own professional leagues. Cricket, given its tenuous financial situation (other than in the Indian market) has to learn from these other sports, because eventually you are competing for the same sponsorship dollars. T20 has the right elements in this regard - a single league targeting a global TV audience and spread out over a longer period of time, so it won't wear on the bodies so much (players and audience!) gives cricket a chance to stake out its own spot vis a vis soccer, basketball and baseball.

  • MandeepGhuman on June 3, 2008, 23:06 GMT

    There can only be 2 measures of performance in cricket,endurance and quick efficient display. Test cricket satisfies the former. A batsman basically has near infinite time to play and the bowler's aim is to break his impenetrable shield. Batsman is mostly not playing attacking shots and the bowler is constantly trying to break the armor. So that's a real test for both. SO I BELIEVE, TEST CRICKET WILL NEVER BE OUT OF FASHION (IT DOESN'T CATER TO WHIMS OF VIEWERS IN THE FIRST PLACE, MOST PEOPLE HATE IT, RIGHT!) ODI is neither a test of endurance nor it is quick and entertaining. Viewers waste a day and mostly find a dud in the end. T20 is quick, entertaining and introduces a new challenge for the batsmen and bowler (complete opposite of the challenge in Tests). Batsman is playing attacking shots. Bowler is not trying to bowl the batsman out (if he tries that, he will get belted mercilessly). SO T20 WILL STAY AND FLOURISH. SO TESTS ARE FOR PURISTS. T20 FOR MASSES. ODI's ARE FOR NEITHER.

  • proudkolkatan on June 5, 2008, 14:50 GMT

    haha, if odis do become worthless, imagine what players like Ganguly, Tendulkar, Jayasuriya and Dravid will think about their 10,000 worhtless runs now!

  • krs_spidey on June 5, 2008, 8:35 GMT

    too much odis are killing odi cricket..i think 7 t20,15 tests and 30 odis r the max that icc has set for a country in 1 calendar yr(excluding matches of icc events)..now is icc sleeping??in 2007 india's calendar included 36 odi's excluding matches of world cup(now if india would have reached super 8 stage of wc, they would have played atleast 9 matches in wc)...that means a total of 45 odis in 1yr??..thats way too much..thats what killing odis..t20 is excellent but so is odi..but too much of anything will kill it..12 tests,25 odis and 21-25 t20 shud be max that a team can play in a calendar yr(excluding icc events ofcourse)..icc must make sure that a calendar yr must not have more international matches than the specified limit for each team..a last method to revive odis is to reduce it 40 ovrs a side.80 overs match can start at 4pm and finish within 6 1/2 hrs..Result:less time consuming, lesser burn out of players but almost equal entertainment of 100 ovr odi..else odi days r over

  • ggsg on June 4, 2008, 15:26 GMT

    No doubt 20-20 is sucess but it is more of lottery pick, and it has huge minus that grounds are small hence it is easier than odi and test to hit over the boundaries and maximum batter get out being aggresive. If stat looked bowlers who have earned there wicket compare to batter getting out in chase for quick runs % will be lower. 20-20 does not give time for a team to bounce back in game. When I say that it does not mean teams have not bounced but it is in small numbers. Any way all three forms are going to stay 20-20 for bang bang action and entertainment in short time , Test matches for quality and more gritty and grinding for both bowlers and batters and one days for entertainment with test of batters and bowlers. All three forms require different skills but all the forms of cricket is gonna help cricket for example fielding is going to improve more, mor attacking shots played in test and odi more result oriented test matches gonna be seen. and 20-20 will see more classic shots.

  • Abdulwaheed on June 4, 2008, 8:35 GMT

    I am sure after the grand success of IPL, ODI will loose its popularity except if they change to the following.

    Instead of a 50 over straight inning there should be two 22 overs innings. Some rules of Test and some if ODI may apply. In this way people can enjoy the charm of a TEST and the excitement of ODI. The name to this new event could be ODT ie One day Test.

    Regards A.Shamsi

  • chook83 on June 4, 2008, 8:26 GMT

    Let's not get too carried away with T20 just yet! When ODI started, the game was played like First Class cricket, because that's all that anyone knew. The game evolved, the rules changed and a new form of the game emerged. ODI has been a success because of the changes made. T20 needs an identity with yet different rules and strategies to maximise the concepts already in vogue. For example, who wants to watch the tailenders bat? That's a test match concept! Why not allow each player to bat for a fixed number of overs as indoor cricket allows? They'll be fun times ahead for the game as it embraces three different styles.

  • popcorn on June 4, 2008, 5:00 GMT

    To think that The 50 overs a side game is finished, and that the only two formats that will exist are Test Cricket and Twenty20.Left to himself,he would only have Twenty20.

    Cricket is a game of skill. Both Test Cricket and the 50 overs a side game need skill. Twenty20 is a lottery.

  • Viewpoint on June 4, 2008, 3:46 GMT

    One needs to step back a little and analyze what is being conjectured here. Has 20/20 swayed an existing cricket loving population or merely added to it? Are the purists suddenly going to abandon the game? Exactly where has one seen empty stadiums for ODI's except in the Windies??? - where during the world cup apart from organizational and other fiasco's afford ability was an issue for an already dwindling sport in that country. Lead up games in a long 'tri-series', particularly on week days, often saw fewer spectators but apart from that it's all going fine. In cricket crazed India, Pakistan, SL you could devise 10/10 or 100/100 and spectators will still flock - it's where cricket is valued as much as the heroes, in fact demi gods, playing in it. Make more Warnes and Tendulkars I say...won't matter what version of the game they play!

  • wargizmo on June 4, 2008, 0:31 GMT

    funny how everyone is bagging out 20/20 saying it's a slug fest that doesn't require skill but yet almost all the top performers in the IPL are accomplished international cricketers - if it doesn't require skill then why are the most skilled players rising to the top? And if it's such a slug fest then why is the best batsman, Shaun Marsh, anything but a slugger? Everyone's saying it's just a batsman's game yet the Royals won it primarily on the back of their bowlers (Tanvir and Warne) and all rounders (Watson and Pathan)? People if you're going to criticize something at least get your facts straight.

  • kripra on June 3, 2008, 23:22 GMT

    I think we need to keep in mind that in the Internet age, any global sport that lasts over three hours of "run-time" won't cut it. Look at soccer, basketball, baseball - sports that are played in more than 10 countries and have their own professional leagues. Cricket, given its tenuous financial situation (other than in the Indian market) has to learn from these other sports, because eventually you are competing for the same sponsorship dollars. T20 has the right elements in this regard - a single league targeting a global TV audience and spread out over a longer period of time, so it won't wear on the bodies so much (players and audience!) gives cricket a chance to stake out its own spot vis a vis soccer, basketball and baseball.

  • MandeepGhuman on June 3, 2008, 23:06 GMT

    There can only be 2 measures of performance in cricket,endurance and quick efficient display. Test cricket satisfies the former. A batsman basically has near infinite time to play and the bowler's aim is to break his impenetrable shield. Batsman is mostly not playing attacking shots and the bowler is constantly trying to break the armor. So that's a real test for both. SO I BELIEVE, TEST CRICKET WILL NEVER BE OUT OF FASHION (IT DOESN'T CATER TO WHIMS OF VIEWERS IN THE FIRST PLACE, MOST PEOPLE HATE IT, RIGHT!) ODI is neither a test of endurance nor it is quick and entertaining. Viewers waste a day and mostly find a dud in the end. T20 is quick, entertaining and introduces a new challenge for the batsmen and bowler (complete opposite of the challenge in Tests). Batsman is playing attacking shots. Bowler is not trying to bowl the batsman out (if he tries that, he will get belted mercilessly). SO T20 WILL STAY AND FLOURISH. SO TESTS ARE FOR PURISTS. T20 FOR MASSES. ODI's ARE FOR NEITHER.

  • plainsillylol on June 3, 2008, 19:59 GMT

    This is what i suggest:

    Make this season longer by a few weeks

    give 2 week break

    do the same thing except, 50 overs

    this will be about 16 weeks.

    for 4 weeks they can have country play among those in ipl.

    then integrate tests outside of this time

  • Perfect_11 on June 3, 2008, 18:58 GMT

    In a Nutshell 20-20 is a FANTASY while One Day and Tests are EVERGREEN, 20-20 is just HIT OUT OR GET OUT while ODI and Tests are TECHNIC & KNOWLEDGE. Any one can shine in a 20 -20 while only Players with knowledge shine in others. Its weird comparing them both however though grooming the youngsters will be crucial to cultivate the interest. Though this fantasy is interesting, it stays for that instance and vanishes as the tournament gets over. ODI and Tests can't be replaced by these 20 - 20 and they will (should) stay evergreen.

  • 9ST9 on June 3, 2008, 17:52 GMT

    It is true that T20 doesn't reward the finer aspects of the game as in ODI's. But it is a very effective way to popularize the game around the world. Then what about the ODI's? simple. Reduce the number of ODI's. People would have grown tired of ODI's due to the huge number of ODI played annually. Make ODI's something rare. People would simply love it then. Use the T20 format to get an income and to spread the game.Make sure all test playing countries have a regular,well organized local T20 league, involving foreign players,glamor,etc...this should keep the game alive in those countries. Play a limited no of ODI's and Tests. I don't think month-long triangular or 7 match ODI series are the order of the day, they would bore spectators. And make the World cups shorter. The last two were so long that by the time of the finals spectators were sick of it...

  • krs_spidey on June 3, 2008, 16:35 GMT

    i agree 1005 with avianwing...who can forget that magic of warne against WI and SA in semi finals of wc 96 and 99?...or that magical 434+ chase by sa against aus in Johannesburg?..a less than 220 score defended successfully on one day and other days 300+ even 400+ totals r chased successfully..thats the beauty of odi's..too much odi cricket and too many one sided contests are the main thing thats killing odi's..all because of incompetent teams like uae,netherlanda,bermuda(in wc 2007)..even the old ones kenya,zimbabawe,bangladesh can spring a surprise win only once..i think the 1992 wc was best one...featuring only 9 teams..except zimbabwe all were contenders for winning the cup...odi playing countries and odi wc should not have more than 10 teams..the top 8 teams select themselves..the remaining 2 positions should be fought between remaining nations..instead of a boring Asia cup thats coming(featuring ind-pak-sl vs uae,hongkong) there should be matches between stronger and equal opponents..

  • sorty on June 3, 2008, 14:40 GMT

    I think India missed the point, the point of the IPL by screaming for the death of the Test and 50 over game. Yes, there were rising young Indian players that put there foot forward but was it not the products of modern test and ODI players that actually took the game to a different level? Warne, Smith, Bravo, Jaysuriya to name a few? I wonder if the young Indians can rise up and take the TEST and ODI top spots - that would mean IPL successful to me because I don't profit from cricket through money but the experience.Great tournament India but you not number 1 yet :)

  • mcheckley on June 3, 2008, 14:34 GMT

    I must take exception to this sentence.The Test-cricket constituency is a distinct one, and it generally consists of people who have played the game at some level, whether that's back garden, park, first-class or international. Yes, Test Cricket appeals primarily to people who have PLAYED cricket, but there are plenty - I suggest the majority - whose cricket is / was neither back garden, park, first-class nor international! We are / were CLUB Cricketers, accustomed to a one day match at the weekend, differing from Test Cricket only in that there is only one innings per side, and retaining the VITAL ingredient that makes cricket what it is - TO WIN THE GAME YOU MUST BOWL THE OPPOSITION OUT. Much Club cricket is of a very high standard, and including many who are not professionals only because they choose another weekday vocation. The corollary, by the way, that to promote Test Cricket as a spectator sport is to promote the PLAYING of the sport in Schools and Clubs.

  • C_Unit on June 3, 2008, 13:18 GMT

    The death of the ODI? Hardly. I'm a huge cricket fan from NZ, and while I'm no purist (I closely follow tests but watch more ODIs live), people like me would never pay to see a 20/20. I went to watch one, and felt like I'd wasted my money. The games are very short, not allowing much atmosphere to build up - yet the ticket price remains the same.

    20/20 just doesn't feel like real cricket, and so no one really cares who wins. I don't feel any real disappointment if NZ loses a 20/20. This causes a real lack of suspense. Even bowl-offs are more something to laugh at than something to gasp at. The scoring rate is not actually very much faster than in ODIs. The average in 20/20 is around 8 runs per over as opposed to 5.5 or so in ODIs. You're still going to see more big hits in the average ODI, as well as some actual cricket. The 20/20 World Cup was good fun - that's what 20/20 should be (like Rugby Sevens), along with the token warm up game before each series. That is where it should stay.

  • ErnestHemingway on June 3, 2008, 13:04 GMT

    Something that every person who loves test cricket and ODIs forgot is that cricket players have family and have life. They can't be playing outside their country for 4 months a 5 test match just because people like it.

    Old days are gone, cricketers want to spend time with their family, I don't say end test cricket but sooner or later it will happen, test cricket will not be a big deal people will get enough of it.

    20/20 has it all in it. Short and Sweet. You have 20 hours and you play your best from the word go. The important thing is everyone is enjoying it and money is there.

    To me life is changing, people have better things to do than wasting 10 hours in front of TV watching a 50 over game.

    20/20 will eventually take over and we will have few ODIs here and there, we have to go with the trend, either like it or not. People will go with short version for many reasons..

  • Muqs on June 3, 2008, 12:26 GMT

    Cricket is going global, and that is simply because of T20 or more specifically due to IPL. Now I believe world cricket don't need to rely much on the international matches for revenue.If ECB, CA, PCB can come up with their own premier league of T20 and south Africa can modify n make its standard bank T20 more glamorous then it will be better for ICC to sit with all cricket boards and restructure the entire cricket from 2010.There must be 5months for t20 leagues n a champ league.7months of international cricket with t20 replacing ODI.ODI must only be played during world cup n icc champ trophy.T20 reduces the gap between the teams so here hongkong may cause an upset in a given day against India.I think an alternative of 4 innings of 20overs can be a good solution for world cup n icc champ trophy instead of 50over.If 5months is dedicated to t20leagues then countries like nzl,ban,srl may suffer.so they can charge 10% of income of their players participating in lucrative leagues.

  • peeeeet on June 3, 2008, 11:52 GMT

    T20 is more predictable and stale than ODIs. Score over 180 and you win, under 160 you lose, in between and its 50/50. Sure there are sixes hit but how many of them are actually good cricket shots. How much better is a six in test cricket, the batsman under immense pressure all day finally opens up and they still look like normal cricket shots. And how often will you see an innings like that of Chanderpaul's against Aus in the current test in a T20. I was sick of the IPL after one week of it. There is no real contest between bat and ball. It is stupid and ridiculous. The more T20 played, the worse its going to be for cricket, as every youngster will be watching wanting to hit sixes; who would idolize the poor guy who charges in bowls a ball on a good length and gets swatted for six, and in about 10 to 20 years test teams will be struggling to find four bowlers to make up their teams.

  • sray23 on June 3, 2008, 11:44 GMT

    The only desires of the true cricket are four things: 1. That every single game of cricket played around the world is meaningful, 2. That Test cricket eternally retains its iconic status, 3. That the best players play against each other all the time and 4. The game flourishes financially and in terms of support. The IPL format achieves objectives 1., 3. and 4. without a doubt. And it's even completely conceivable that Test cricket may actually change for the better if the T20 league concept and club culture replaces cricket's current international model globally. The current international calendar consists of one-dayers which have about as much meaning as football international friendlies (ie. none) and Test matches which may as well be played as Test mis-matches a lot of the time, what with Aus taking on teams like SL and Pak and WI. It's not good enough. If Premier League seasons eventually replaces these fixtures then well and good.

  • Krishna2007 on June 3, 2008, 11:43 GMT

    So sorry that at the end of it all, one cannot remember a single match, a single performance or savor a single moment. Contrast that with the moment when Dravid kissed his India cap when hitting the winning run in Adelaide or Laxman hammering Aussies around in Kolkotta in 2001. Really T20 is the forgettable part of cricket whatever one might say in its defense.

  • GribblesBeermasters on June 3, 2008, 11:27 GMT

    Test cricket will always be the king and bye bye ODIs - hello Twenty20...long may you prosper. ODI have that boring 30 over period whilst 20/20 has no lag period...it is fun, skillful and alive. RIP ODI!

  • dmuzaf on June 3, 2008, 11:03 GMT

    Test cricket and ODI's will always have a place for serious minded cricketers perhaps not as appealing to the media as they would much prefer selling adverts for a three hour game or for the cricketing boards around the world who sorry to say look for nothing more than to make an easy buck or two these days.

  • SixOrANix on June 3, 2008, 10:27 GMT

    Compare the value of an openings partnership wicket in an important Test or ODI with that of one taken in a 20/20 match. That is the equivalent of importance the different type of games holds for me. There is no way you can compare 20/20 cricket with either ODI's or a big test match. It's like comparing a cup of instant soup with homemade cooking. That is what 20/20 cricket is to me - Instant. Its quick and easy, but it lacks substance and it lacks skill, and it lacks suspense. The reason many of us like or rather love cricket is the suspense it creates. The suspense of a long awaited wicket in a big test match is worth far more than the wicket of a guy swinging at every ball. I've watched a couple of IPL games but still don't have a team I support and I don't really care. Congratulations to the Indians for starting a super league of this nature, but don't assume the rest of the world is automatically in awe.

  • rtom on June 3, 2008, 9:01 GMT

    There is no comparison between the Test match and 50 overs match with the 20-20 matches. 20-20 matches are just boom boom style.. there is no technique needed. most of the matches get decided in an over where a batsman hits 2-3 sixes or 4-5 fours. this is crazy !! but the batsman's technique, patience, bowler bowling bouncers in the Tests, the leg spinners having a silly point, short leg..etc etc.. thats the fun in the cricket match.. a true contest between the ball and bat !! The 20-20 match is just a money game !!

  • Sekhar_S on June 3, 2008, 8:55 GMT

    We just need an ODI match that goes down to the wire i.e lasts till the sixth ball of the 50th over and the focus will shift to ODI cricket again,as long as no T20 is played simultaneously.ODI cricket and Test cricket will continue to exist.

  • crickbrain on June 3, 2008, 8:26 GMT

    Indeed T/20 is a more popular form of cricket at this stage. It can be said that we have entered a new era or revolutionized the game of cricket. However, ODI matches have been around for so long and will continue for a long time simply because this is the way the shorter form of the game has established itself,50 overs an innings. People have accustomed to the way the game is played and those who partake or have partaken in the game aim to follow the way cricket has been played for so long. If u think about being entertained every time a ball is bowled in twenty overs wouldn't it be more entertaining to watch 50 overs ; 300 balls bowled for each side rather than 120. as a player wouldn't you want to make the most of your training.You train and train to bowl only 24 deliveries and thats all the fans see of you. As a batsmen your forced to play a cameo innings every time your fans come and see you perform. whether its entertaining or not 50 overs is the go thanks

  • AbhijitK on June 3, 2008, 8:09 GMT

    The 50 day IPL carnival stretched too far. 3 Months of IPL season would be best as it would give breather to players as well as spectators. It would give only weekend and mid week games.

    Because of monsoon, till date domestic cricket was impossible during Jun to Sep period. Then why not build indoor stadiums? It has been proven in Australia so if BCCI can use their infinite pool of money to build 8 / 10 covered venues, then the IPL can be conducted during monsoon time.

    This will make sure that the international calendar is not disturbed except England home games. But since we get 3 months of IPL season, few players can travel to England and come back.

    During monsoon time, Indian economy flourishes. Students do not have exams. It brings festival season and people try to reach a bit deeper into their pockets. This will ensure that more people get hooked up to the cricket mania. All those IPL owners would love to Harvest this money crop at the end of Monsoon season.

  • Bagrat on June 3, 2008, 7:42 GMT

    One day cricket, along with Test cricket, still, form the heart and soul of cricket. Only these two forms can show the purity of the game, more so in Tests. Like, you don't see ball-swatting, blindly swinging batsmen ever in tests, do you. I'd rather appreciate if IPL shifts more to One-Day format than organizing T20 parties every year. The only good thing that propped up this IPL - Purple cap, without which, I would imagine no bowlers will ever sign up for the league, where rules are pretty much lopsided in batsman's favor. All in all, these performances shouldn't be directly considered for national selection. ODI teams should be better than these(getting bowled out within 20 overs sounds rubbish, doesn't it?). Like Kirsten prompted a few weeks ago, a league of test-matches between nations will be nice. I hope, proper cricket fans will still anticipate ODIs and Tests, no matter where. Days of ODIs are not over. It should be polished better.

  • baldster on June 3, 2008, 6:41 GMT

    I watched some of the IPL competition. some games were good and i enjoyed it. but the 50 over game cannot be killed. how can a team go from 20-20 to test status. no one will have a real idea on who the best teams are and no one will be able to get better.

    ODI's are great games. they have become stale and the world cup failed but the next world cup is in India. they have another world cup set for 2015. they cant cancel these tournaments. ODI's will have to change but they wont leave. 20-20's will get stale, slog, wow, slog, wow boring after a while.

    maybe 40 over a side maybe even split but not 2 innings, not 20 wicket, hmm

    anyway don't kill odi's. DONT KILL ODI'S

  • Prats6 on June 3, 2008, 6:36 GMT

    i think IPL has been a revolution in the field of sports and it needs to be embraced by the world body as well, yes mediocre cricket will have to suffer. like a India, Bangladesh or Honk Kong but its an incentive to make their sides more competitive,, Survival of the fittest , thats how it should work !!!

  • avianwing on June 3, 2008, 6:23 GMT

    While there is no dispute that Test cricket is the highest class of cricket, ODI's too provide top quality cricket which can seldom be matched by tests/20-20. But this is more of an exception than a rule and most often occurs during a World cup. The super six and semifinals matches of the 1999 & 1996 world cup involving Australia (opponent-SA/WI) were among the greatest games of cricket ever.But a typical triangular series played every year, particularly those in Australia are extremely boring and predictable.The solution for ODI cricket to survive the onslaught of 20-20 is to freeze the number of countries playing ODI's to 10. Instead of having bogus triangular series, we should have a couple of 5-nation tournaments every year spaced at different times of the year. Each team plays the other four opponents twice and the top two teams play a best of 3 finals to decide the winner.Besides this we can have the regular 5/7 match ODI series involving 2 teams along with the test series.

  • cass10au on June 3, 2008, 4:48 GMT

    Don`t Kill the ODIs future for the sake of a few money merchants as T20 when handled rightly can be a massive revenue to the game itself & not just the greedy . Also anytime you shorten the length of a game of cricket From Test Cricket to ODI to 40 Over`s 30 `& T20 The shorter the match - The more it becomes a uneven competition between bat & ball , which is what brings teams closer together Hard work & a good technique will also look much delightful on the cricket field then some cross bat slog .

  • sap1979 on June 3, 2008, 4:32 GMT

    Thanks IPL and Lalit Modi for organizing the IPL. It was telecasted late night in Australia but was still better than watching six month long street fight competitions (Aussie rules football and Rugby league). Both of which are the most ugliest sports. might as well watch Monday night fights on ESPN. Just am waiting for EURO 2008 to start now. This year is getting exciting since I don't have to watch those dog fights.

  • Art_Vandalay on June 3, 2008, 4:12 GMT

    If they want an extended season of T20 cricket, it will need to be in the cricket 'off season'. Which, for all teams except England (and the touring party) is July to Nov. My thinking is that there should be two tournaments. The first should encompass the top two first class sides in the regional T20 tournaments. It also should be played once a year in a one region. In the West Indies, that would be Trinidad & Jamaica. World wide that might be 24 teams give or take. This way we can play an enthralling & high standard T20 tournament. This tournament could be held in one region every year lasting at least 6 weeks as well. However, this tournament will play second fiddle to the big boy which will be an annual international T20 Cup. This tournament will replace the boring and infrequent ICC ODI World Cup. The second T20 tournament should be held every year in a different regions and encompass at least 16 teams. This may be an overload of T20, but thats where cricket is heading.

  • Kustom on June 3, 2008, 4:05 GMT

    I'd still rather a good old Test Match or A Thrilling 50 over game before a T20 match. The IPL had it's moments but i found it went too long. The whole concept of 20/20 before a series works well and the T20 Championship is good fun to watch as well. But for me, it's test matches and ODI's before a game of 20/20 any day!!

  • crn28 on June 3, 2008, 2:55 GMT

    Even Romans allowed time for their gladiators! Gladiators spent hours honing their skills. The Twenty Twenty game is not Cricket. Why have six ball overs? Just have two balls per over! This is like Grand slam tennis with only tie breaks! Damage, irreparable damage has been done to the game. Even now when I hear the "patrons" in the best seats in a Test match in India, I am surprised at their ignorance of the game. It is the spectacle and not the game, the picnic in the park is all the motivation and display of their wealth. The ashes of cricket are scattered! Long live Cricket in the memory of those who have played and enjoyed the game! c r natarajan

  • Mooses on June 3, 2008, 1:50 GMT

    While I think there is still a role for the ODI, a few posters seem to misplace that importance. It is not the best preparation for Test cricket - that mantle belong to a strong First Class cricket culture. Australia have not excelled in Tests by promoting the best ODI players. They have consistently promoted the best first class performers to the Test team and the best domestic One Day players to the ODI team. ODI may be a bridge for players from 20-20 to Tests, but is not by itself adequate preparation, especially for bowlers. To argue that ODIs need more slant towards batsmen will only make it less attractive to those who prefer an even competition between bat and ball. The best ODIs are those where both teams have a chance throughout the match and all players have a fair go.

  • redneck on June 3, 2008, 1:13 GMT

    its all well and good to say that the ipl was a big success and that there should be a window created for it, but for 3-6 months??? come on be realistic! if you think that the 9 other cricket boards are going to be comletely happy and sit idely by and let one nation take all the glory and rewards along with the services of their best players while the rest of the cricket world has nothing to do except stage B grade tournaments with only fringe players at best??? and when would you stage this 3-6 month long ipl? you would be infringing either on the australian/south afican/new zealand summer or the english/west indian summer. no one outside of india is going to buy that! and whilst the author tries to compair the INDIAN premier league to WORLD series cricket let me point of one main deffierence. packer took WSC around the world whilst the indian premier league is played only in india!

  • S_Sen on June 3, 2008, 1:13 GMT

    There probably isn't enough time in the calendar for all three formats, and trying to pack it in will result in a ridiculous level of injuries and burnouts. Cricket was never meant to be played in India in April and May - it's just inhuman. Also, the burnout rate of Indian quick bowlers is already a joke. They steam in, bowl at 140+ kph for a season or two, then become gentle medium pacers. And that's from playing mainly ODIs with a few Tests in between. Throw T20 into the mix, and Ishant Sharma will soon join the ranks of Irfan Pathan and Munaf Patel. Something has to give, and the ODI is the most dispensable. The 50-over game has its benefits, of course, as several posters have pointed out, but that can be preserved by restructuring Ranji Trophy matches into two innings of 50 overs per side. That would have the added advantage of ensuring a result in every game.

  • kripra on June 3, 2008, 0:43 GMT

    Absolutely logical to expect the demise of one-day cricket - in the final analysis, its neither here nor there, compared to T20 and test cricket. The only changes I would ask for in T20 is to let the bowlers bowl up to 10 overs per bowler (as in one day), and play around a little bit with player substitutions that were introduced for a short time in one-day cricket some time back. This introduces an extra variable that can favorably swing a game one way or another, make it more exciting. Also makes sense to have a single T20 global franchise with 8 teams in India, 5 in Australia, Colombo, Dacca, Lahore, Karachi, Dubai, Lord's and Old Trafford, and eventually NYC and LA. Let the season go for 6 months.

  • abhi_jacko on June 3, 2008, 0:28 GMT

    I totally disagree with this article. Just like you argue about Test Matches having their fair share of hardcore fans, I think it will hold true for the ODIs. I have a huge group of die-hard cricketfans as my friends, and honestly speaking they are more eager than ever to get the ODIs going on now. Because after a long time "INDIA" will be playing and wil be testing new fresh talent like Yusuf Pathan.

    If anything, T20 is going to complement ODIs superbly. The WestIndies world cup might have been a fiasco, because of the lack of funds etc etc. But trust me when I say, the 2011 World Cup to be held in the subcontinent will be nothing short of spectacular. And with the big guns of australian cricket starting to retire, ODI is just going to get a lot more competitive.

    I think this article is just looking at the situation from a very narrow minded angle.

    Broaden the Horizons, and you will see the positives weighing out the negatives in a big way

    :)

  • Betting on June 3, 2008, 0:05 GMT

    I think Vkarthik summed it quite well by saying hitting sixes should be a memorable thing and not routine. And I think the debate is not quite finished regardless of what some people might think. The skills of test and T20 are very different and it seems very difficult to change over. Anyway, we need a little more time to pass and see what the greater majority will decide (pity I just couldn't decide it by myself ...).

  • muneeb161 on June 2, 2008, 23:43 GMT

    I agree with your comments about the length of the IPL season.

    I think the best thing to do is set a side at least a 4 month window where club sides compete in a T20, One day and First Class competition. I think it would be ideal to stage First Class games on weekdays and then stage one day matches on say a Friday night and leave T20 for weekends. I think the emphasis also has to be on quality and not quantity, especially in terms of First Class matches.

    This to me seems to be the ideal structure because you can impose conditions on teams to field certain players. For example the IPL allowed franchises to play up to 4 international players in each fixture. Likewise, a further requirement could be to play 1 player from an associate or affiliate nation each match. This way players from weaker countries will gain further exposure and have a chance to learn from the best which should ultimately lead to increased performances from their national sides.

  • CricketPissek on June 2, 2008, 23:03 GMT

    my take is this. The way the franchises can continually build the brand name + team bonding/gelling can grow is by expanding the IPL to be more than just T20 cricket! Foe example the Rajastan Royals should play the Deccan Charges in a 4 day match and be granted First Class Status. If this is played throughout a season of say 15-20 weeks, it can be an independent and high budget domestic competition right up there with the NBA, NFL etc potentially. And maybe the T20 format having a Champions League format with the best teams around the world. The only problem of course would be the clashes with the Duleep and Ranji trophies which are the domestic competitions at the moment. Maybe those would become just a different tier but still be granted first class status?!

  • kingofspain on June 2, 2008, 21:50 GMT

    As long as 20/20 crowds out 50-over cricket, rather than tests, that's fine with me. Both of the shorter versions are contrived and unsatisfying. As long as we can still watch test/first-class cricket, I'm happy.

  • paul_dinsdale on June 2, 2008, 21:20 GMT

    As a neutral in the recent IPL (I supported different players, but no particular team) I found myself getting bored after the first dozen or so matches, and I don't think I watched more than a few over of the rest. Short, exciting matches are a lot of fun, but when you have a match every day for 45 days (and sometimes more than one a day) it's like an all you can eat buffy - sure you gorge yourself in the beginning and it's great, but after 3 plates, 6 drinks and 2 puddings all you feel is sick. Personally I would prefer the ODI's to be spiced up (two innings sounds interesting) and the T20 to be used as the cherry on the top.

  • r1m2 on June 2, 2008, 20:56 GMT

    Ever since the farcical World Cup of last year, I'd been hoping for immediate death of ODI cricket. The current demise of ODI has more to do with countries over-loading their calendar with 30-50 ODIs and less with IPL. Even then, exactly as you mentioned, it tries to serve two distinct worlds and fails at both. Hardcore test cricket fans never appreciated or cared too much about ODI. Hardcore ODI fans followed it only because it was shorter and nothing shorter and more fun was available. Now with T20, there's option, and ODI will in my opinion die a slow death. I have no interest in the upcoming ODI series or any other bilateral ODI series of 3+ matches. Tournaments should be like the IPL, fun, entertaining, short-lived but repeating, NOT a damn bilateral series after bilateral series with a general dose of silly mediocre tournaments scattered in between. I think this is a great article and truly speaks my mind. Test cricket and T20 should be the only forms of cricket alive in 5 years.

  • legolas_lotr on June 2, 2008, 20:48 GMT

    the problem with ODI are 1) mostly one-sided 2) too long (almost 8 hrs) 3) 3-4 centuries per side, 400+ runs etc.

    but they can be made interesting by reducing the overs to 40, 35 or even 30 overs a side.

    T20 seems good at this point but if you ask me, i don't want to see hitting 4s and 6s all the time. I would like to see some balance between bat and ball. I think in 30-35 overs, you will get to see everything...good partnership, inning buildups (still match not over if 2-3 wickets are lost early), good bowling, 1 or 2 good innings, good fielding etc..

    T20 might be left for clubs, county culture and 30-35 ODI for internationals should be the way to go

  • itzmie on June 2, 2008, 19:56 GMT

    In my view it is not the format of T20 or ODI or Tests that will attract fans. I believe it is the competition that creates interest in any game. If you remember the Australian Series, both the test and ODI's were quite entertaining because of the tough competition. If we start beating Australians by 10 wickets or by an innings, then cricket will die soon.

  • crescendo_1981 on June 2, 2008, 19:39 GMT

    The line between Cricket and MLB is getting thinner by the decade. Let us think on how to make 50-50 cricket and test cricket more interesting with out reducing the duration. Otherwise the future generation will need a lot of explanation on a Bradman, Tendulkar or a Lara!!

  • julric on June 2, 2008, 19:25 GMT

    The best solution is to leave windows open for series like the IPL and other T20 tournaments around the world so that every nation can see the best of the best. For that to work, ODI should be cut down on the calendar. For ODIs to survive, it must become 2x25 over games just to make it more intriguing. This could be a huge benefit for the Association teams in World Cricket League. The Association teams should also get more exposure against 2nd XI sides from the Test Nations. I'm sure if the ICC put their heads together (god forbid), a solution will come out of this. Test cricket will always be the number 1 and remain that way

  • Lennon_Marx on June 2, 2008, 19:20 GMT

    Not a very good article- one thing to learn from American leagues is in actual fact the seasons are generally (NFL excepted) too long, especially without a promotion-relegation system, meaning that fan interest tapers off significantly when the home team is effectively eliminated from playoff contention (excluding when large teams or a major milestone approaches). If you knew anything about American sports you'd realize that fan loyalty has a lot more to with a teams historical significance (eg the two Florida baseball teams playing well & attracting terrible crowds) than the local appeal of the team, the number of teams is important games between 30 teams are more interesting than between 8."A 6 or 8-month period might be set aside for Test cricket and other bilateral contests," Absolutely awful idea- what about the countries whose seasons fall outside? You like most journalists so often do, are blowing the significance of the current way out of proportion. See where we are next year!

  • Abilash on June 2, 2008, 19:04 GMT

    IPL(T20) has certainly destroyed the actual game of cricket.... well cricket is known as a more intellectual game than any other. here in t20 the game is more batsmen oriented and the bowlers have got no room to settle because they hardly have got 4 over to bowl and by the time they actually get settled the batsmen start firing them... all over the parks..this is certainly killing the beauty of the game. Moreover ODI is more interesting to see than a T20 because it is of course a shorter version of TEST CRICKET..... where u have got 50 overs.. and lot of skill of a player come under the scanner... in fact IPL should think over taking UP 50-50.. than T20.... well T20 is certainly a crowd puller but the ICC should use this as an advantage.. to advertise for 50-50 and test cricket i hope this mail reaches lalit modi.........!!!!! and his think tank!!! CHEEERZ!!! ODI..........!!!

  • MaxC on June 2, 2008, 19:00 GMT

    And As for as ODI is concern my suggestion

    1) National team should ONLY play 2-3 match Test Series.

    2) ODI World Cup and 2020 Champion Trophy with two years gap between them.

    3) NO ODI 3 or 5 matches series

    4) Every cricket nation should create 2020 premier league in their domestic cricket

    5) every year one cricket nation host club 2020 champion league, 2-3 team qualify from one country.

  • Kunal4 on June 2, 2008, 18:59 GMT

    Really nice article. I do think that Sanjay Majrekar was right when he said that the two testing forms of cricket now are Test cricket and T20. There is no place to hide in either of them.

    If that is the case then why not stick with this T20 in league format, having different leagues in different countries and then a champions league. Having playoff and an off season and then after a gap of a few months only playing test cricket.

    And every four year we hold a world cup with 50 over ODIs. So ODIs become a novelty and not the norm. That too though would have to be a shorter world cup. So we have Test Cricket played in a block, T20 cricket played in a block. With off seasons and then a ODI world cup every 4 years. There is no reason to have a T20 world cup with all this T20 league and champions league. Also allows the fan to get away from the game and pick and choose what to watch or not.

  • suhas79 on June 2, 2008, 18:46 GMT

    Not really.I don't think it's the death of ODIs.I mostly like watching the first 20 overs & the last 10 overs.But I also want to see my favorite batsmen like Sachin & Yuvraj batting for 30-40 overs & scoring big hundreds.It's much better than watching them for just 3-4 overs & anyways they end up scoring just 20-25 runs.Any batsmen can slog it around in T20.But ODIs will test the skills & temperament levels of these so called big hitters.To be honest I am tired of these long & boring Test matches.I have had enough of them.But being a true cricket fan I still watch the highlights package which I do enjoy.If someone has to die then I hope it's the death of Test cricket.No one has the time & patience to watch these boring Test matches for 5 days in this modern world.Maybe they could change the rules.Reduce the no.of days,introduce free hit rule & can even bring in cheerleaders if needed for those sleepy fans HA HA HA...I doubt if it's ever going to happen.Well it's for the ICC to decide.

  • MaxC on June 2, 2008, 18:41 GMT

    even before 20/20 cricket introduced I always thought if cricket want to be a global sport ICC must follow FIFA, English Football Premier League and European Football Leagues example to industrialized/commercialized cricket world, otherwise like West Indies and New Zealand sooner or later young generations of South Asian cricket follower will be convert to football and whenever its happened slowly but firmly cricket sport will become sports of seniors and only 40+ years old retire people will play this sports in their private sports grounds.

    now 20/20 new cricket format emerged and I strongly believe that it is a gift from god to all die hard cricket fans who breath and live cricket, and it is also another huge opportunity for ICC to establish cricket as global sports and follow FIFA and UEFA from A to Z to Govern and administrate 20/20 world cricket.

    NOW not only national players but everyone can play cricket and support and give their family good life at the same time.

  • Nampally on June 2, 2008, 18:35 GMT

    Test Cricket represents the best form of Cricket as intended. Accelerated versions of the game as ODI and 20/20 are mainly for entertainment value for the present fast paced society who have no time for a 5 day test match. As the game gets more accelerated it deviates from Cricket in true format leading to slog/paddle and improvised shots. Hence ODI with 50 overs is more representative of Cricket in its original format than 20/20. The Winning team in 20/20 is not necessarily the best team while the ODI winning team is the best -no luck involved.The IPL 20/20 format had an associated entertainment such as bollywood glitz and cheer leading girls thus sacrificing Cricket for some entertainment. Hence for someone who wants some sport + entertainment, the 20/20 is the way. For someone who wants to see pure Cricket, ODI is far superior. By including a similar entertainment in ODI as for 20/20 one more format is added - creating best of both the worlds. This may be the best choice.

  • amicus on June 2, 2008, 18:26 GMT

    What international cricket needs is a sense of direction. Instead of having random test/ODI series between cricketing nations, all that they need to do is to have a structured annual "Inter-National" tournament, played over say 7 months. They can have 2 groups of 4-5 national teams each. Then package each series to have 2 tests, 4 ODI's and 2 T20's; each such series can last about 4 weeks. Each national team in a group plays every other team in the same group. At the end of it, the top 2 teams in each category (test/ODI/T20) play their respective finals. At the end of every season, shuffle the teams into the 2 groups based on some ranking. To commercialize the games, bring in corporate sponsorship for individual players (and not entire teams). So, Dwayne Bravo and M.S. Dhoni could both be sponsored by Nokia, without Nokia having to worry about how it'll be perceived in its most lucrative markets.

  • Vkarthik on June 2, 2008, 18:05 GMT

    Agree with Cricket fan. Test team will have completely different set of players. T20 will have completely different set of players. One dayers are ideal currently. I think it is over-reaction from the press after one T20 success.

  • DineshIyer on June 2, 2008, 17:37 GMT

    I really dont see the One-Day game surviving long after the 2011 WC. One way to look at Twenty20 is that its like the Fifty over game but taking out overs 20-40, the middle overs, where players build partnerships for the final onslaught. In twenty20, u have power plays, 6-7 overs of consolidation and the final onslaught and people like that! I know I do!

  • guesswhat555 on June 2, 2008, 17:33 GMT

    I am sure when one day cricket was first played and people went bazooka over it, same thing was probably said for test cricket as well, that its not going to last long, blah blah and guess what its still here. One day cricket is not going anywhere, at least for a decade or two. But yeah playing against teams like hk, zim, bangla etc certainly makes it boring

  • KishoreSharma on June 2, 2008, 17:25 GMT

    There is a factual error at the beginning of the article. The Packer revolution was not focused on establishing one-day cricket as a distinct entity. It was as much, if not more, about test cricket - the 'super tests' was an integral part of the Packer itinerary and the one taken most seriously by players and fans alike. What it did do was bring on white balls, colored clothing etc, which were then adapted for one-day cricket by the authorities once peace was made with Packer. Cheers Kishore Sharma

  • geyser on June 2, 2008, 17:21 GMT

    T20 also brings into play top players who had retired from Test cricket and ODI'S. Now, they don't need stamina to last out 5 days of intense test cricket or 7 hours of a 100 over game. That's what is exciting about T20. Let's hope we see more of the likes of Shane Warne, Jayasuriya and other seniors who can adapt to T20. It will add to the fun and excitement!

  • Jimmy.Conway on June 2, 2008, 17:05 GMT

    I couldn't agree more with you Dileep.I really think one day cricket has any future.Its just making the cricket schedule a lot more hectic for the players.T20 is the compressed form of one-dayers.The basic difference between the two forms is the no. of overs.Similar sort of skills are required in both t20 and odi's.So i think both can't survive together.One should be scrapped and that without even an iota of doubt should be the odi form.I also agree with you on the fact that a league can't prosper if it lasts only 6 weeks.A proper fan base can't build if we go that way.So it should be more like the football leagues.It should be at least 3 months long.In that way it will keep the people involved with their respective teams.And also the matches should be played only during the weekends.I think that helps maintain the interest and we tend to enjoy those things more for which we have to wait a little.

  • larrythegun on June 2, 2008, 16:57 GMT

    I disagree with Dileep about the IPL. Modern Cricket is keenly followed at the international level and not at the first class level. The main thrust of the IPL will be the television markets and expanding the competition. However, what real interest would there be in a country like New Zealand or outside the India in watching months and months of domestic cricket from India? Of course the players are going to be 100% behind the IPL, but there needs to be a rationalization of the Cricket calendar. It is not a great leap to think in a couple of year's time international cricket becoming much like International Football matches friendless, meaningless encounters, more so then today. Smaller test playing countries will become a feeding ground for the IPL, taking the best players away from Test cricket. 20/20 has its plus but is it a sustainable alternative for cricket? If International Cricket is diluted, cricket will fade away in countries outside the Subcontinent, Australia and England

  • pranav_damle on June 2, 2008, 16:54 GMT

    Yeah probably T20 will affect the way One day cricket is planned now. But we should not forget that Soccer leagues in Europe or American Football Leagues or even Baseball Leagues are the only domestic leagues that are played which can afford long seasons. Soccer doesn't see as much international competitions as cricket does. The only 2 major soccer competitions played on an international scale is Euro and the World Cup. You would rarely see a Germany VS Portugal soccer match anywhere else. While international competition in cricket is what the fans want! We want to see a Sachin vs Lee, or a Ponting VS Flintoff taking place. I think the best way is to follow things like in the Champions League... all countries have their own leagues and the top 2 or 4 face each other in a knockout stage. But some time definitely needs to be set aside for T20. If in April each year all teams have their competitions and then they face off the following month it should be an exciting event! My 5 cents...

  • crikketfan on June 2, 2008, 16:44 GMT

    (con) 3) Slightly contrary it may seem, but I believe ODI cricket is better for developing fielding skills. Fielding can make a difference in 2020, but matches can equally be won by big hitting batsmen hitting sixes. The quality of fielding in the 2020 final (very poor) is some evidence of this (although it is true the poorest fielders lost).

    4) Finally with no ODI cricket there will be too big a gap between 2020 and test cricket. This can only encourage the two codes to go their separate ways. Players like Dravid and Kallis have shown that they have a major role in ODI cricket. Their abilities in 2020 are limited. Also ODI cricket creates a potential path for 2020 specialists into the test game if they so desire. Also the gap between what is required by bowlers in 2020 and Tests is huge. ODI bowling is a good bridge between the two.

    So in conclusion, keep ODI cricket-don't get rid of it just because some sides aren't good at it. But reduce it so that matches are meaningful.

  • Vkarthik on June 2, 2008, 16:40 GMT

    I am not sure it will be a death of ODIs. You can really make ODIs interesting with 2 innings. T20 is an entertaining cricket. But not real cricket. Let us admit it. Some Asnodkar comes and wildly swings at everything, he gets top edge and the ball goes over the rope for six and the crowd goes delirious. Cricket is a patient game. So it is not right to compare it with Soccer or NBA. So it is pointless to keep on shrinking it for cheap thrills. After sometime some will say, between 7th over and 15th over it is boring in T20 so let us remove it and make it T10 cricket. It is just not right. These guys are immensely talented players. You want them to be there for just 20 overs? Modi's comparison of Cricket to an average bollywood flick is in really bad taste. It is really insulting. Instead of giving overdose of T20 in the name of making ODIs extinct they should concentrate on revamping one dayers. Hitting sixes should be a memorable thing not a routine thing.

  • LordGaurav on June 2, 2008, 16:39 GMT

    I don't think that ODIs are gonna get over.Even if T20 is a big success,the ODIs will still have their pride because even the 50 over format is as interesting as the T20s are.

  • crikketfan on June 2, 2008, 16:37 GMT

    This is a common argument that has been put over the last few years, but i think it would be very bad if it would come to pass. There is no doubt that ODI cricket has suffered from overkill, and there will be no great loss if it is cut back to accommodate 2020 cricket. But it's destruction would be a great loss for a great number of reasons.

    1) there is undoubtedly still a market for it, especially as a spectator sport. 2) there are many skills in ODI cricket that you won't get in 2020, skills that add greatly to test cricket. Managing a long run chase being predominant among them. Also when England lost an effective one-day match to Australia at Adelaide in 2006/7 how many could dismiss that this partly reflected the difference in the two teams at ODI cricket.

  • futurecaptainofindia on June 2, 2008, 16:28 GMT

    It sure has. Sachin can safely retire with the distinction of having figured in the most number of ODIs. With T20 here the stay, the 50-over game is on the back burner.

    T20 & tests wil thrive since they require entirely different skill sets. While speed, athlecticism, alacrity & power are the watchwords in one, the other entails tenacity, persistence & strategy. ODI falls into no man's land

  • abhishekt on June 2, 2008, 16:21 GMT

    Exactly ! The future of One Day format lies in the Transformation of the game. Key to Survive is to change the PACKAGING of the whole 50-50 format.Transform the whole look,whole packaging. Transform it into 40-40 overs, instead of 50 overs each.Introduce some more rules in favour of batsmen by which they can just Unleash Hell. More Field restrictions, more PowerPlays, could help. And where the HELL is the SUPER SUB rule? Some more minor changes would create MAGIC, like Slashing down the ticket prices may help, who knows introduction of CHEERLEADERS,Team Anthems, Brand Ambassdors may attract crowds.

    But deep inside my heart, I feel optimistic.If we get better, interesting Test Cricket, because of 50-50 format, if bowlers survive and get successful in T20. Who knows! T20 makes 50-50 more interesting.

    I am still HOPEFUL. Are you listening Mr. Mali & Mr. Morgan???

    Abhishek Telang CNBC Awaaz

  • Mina_Anand on June 2, 2008, 16:09 GMT

    This is one 'middle-aged' woman who decided to forego her staple diet of 'test cricket'(that's 'my' soap ) and look in on the IPL. Much as I want to follow the 'Aussies v the West Indies' test series, I fail as a 'night-watchman' (unless India is playing ).

    As for the one-day format - come September, once the Champion's Trophy starts - and the 'National' Teams lock horns - interest will bounce back. Check it out !

  • 9ST9 on June 2, 2008, 16:02 GMT

    I agree with Dileep. Test cricket is totally different from ODI and T20. ODI's were the crowd puller in the 80's and even more in the 90's. The fact is that T20 has all the essence of the ODI : Colored clothing, flood lights and white balls,the only difference being time. The average cricket fan has to decide whether he would spend 3 hours or 7-8 hours watching a game. Not a hard decision to make. Sadly this spells death for ODI's, though test cricket would survive. Tests are for the true connoisseurs of Cricket. It is a fine art, and it will go on despite low crowd attendances.ODI is the format that lies between an art and a sport,and is endangered . The death wont be quick, it will be slow and painful. Those who watched the World cups of 92,96,99,03,07 would agree the intensity of the ODI WC's decreased. The last 2 worldcups (2003and 2007) attracted very little interest.The signs look ominous for ODI's. However T20 too might have a similar fate...what next then? 5 Over cricket??

  • aditya87 on June 2, 2008, 16:00 GMT

    I'm not a big fan of ODI cricket either but you can't have a situation where the game exists in two formats that are the complete opposite of each other - on the one end Test cricket, which lasts for 5 days, and on the other T20, which lasts barely 3 hours. ODI cricket is the stepping stone between T20 and Test cricket, and you can actually pick Test-quality players from their performances in ODI cricket...I'm not sure you can do that on the basis of T20 performance.

  • tarunluthra on June 2, 2008, 15:53 GMT

    the odis can survive just only if we put value to the teams winning the match like a year round odi league based system n according to the rank we can continue with the world cups i believe if we play less of odis then they wdnt lose their charm bcci people were insistent on playing odis before as it was there cash cow now they have laid the golden goose the ipl they dont need odis anymore so the future does seem uncertain

    but still ODI cricket does have some history to it we might still make it work only if we try to

  • ShortMemory on June 2, 2008, 15:53 GMT

    No threat to test cricket ? You are right in saying that test cricket still has it own followers and relevance in todays context. But ODI format never threatened test cricket because it did not give the players instant gratification financially(as it was mostly a national sport and not club sport). Now why would someone play in Ranji and sweat their energy when they can make millions in few years of Twenty 20 League. I am just now talking only about indian context. I knew that ICL offered around 90 lakhs for 3 years of contract for a ranji player. IPL would triple that and much more ! With these realities, Test cricket might be threatened in a way that we have not perceived till today.

  • TheProphet on June 2, 2008, 15:35 GMT

    Fair analysis Dileep, I think for the moment the one day game is going to survive considering its already on the calendar. It will be interesting to see what will the franchises do for the next 10 months. It will also depend on the BCCI of how they involve the franchises in the future. This is something I wrote about how the BCCI should proceed from here. Have a read and leave your comments http://thethoughtcentre.blogspot.com/2008/05/ipl-is-here-to-stay-what-about.html

  • checkIndia on June 2, 2008, 15:28 GMT

    I think twenty20 will definitely affect the ODI cricket,but guess icc will be reluctant to admit that.so i dont see any change in the ODI format atleast in the near future

  • choohi on June 2, 2008, 15:20 GMT

    Where now for the IPL? After what happened on Sunday night, there's little doubt that the second season will be huge. Despite the concerns of the ECB and others, every single one of the world's top players is likely to take part. If they do try to prevent the likes of Kevin Pietersen from playing, they'll only end up being checkmated like the Australian Cricket Board was after Packer's bold gambit

  • Farce-Follower on June 2, 2008, 15:17 GMT

    Nice analysis Dileep. I agree that the ODI will soon be on life support. But I foresee a Championship style series that would have Indian sub-continent, Aus-NZ, England and SA.

    I also fear the longevity of players as well as genuineness of classic Test match contests. Will we ever have a player like 'The Wall' or an Eden Gardens Classic from VVS over the next few years. Already this generation thinks that India's MVP (in tests) comes in at 2 drop, when it has for long been the The Wall at # 3.

    The worst case scenario would be to have icon players like Yuvraj who hang up their boots without having proved their worth in Whites. Already in the hubris, it is guys like Sreesanth who command mind space. The Indian fan also needs to mature.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Farce-Follower on June 2, 2008, 15:17 GMT

    Nice analysis Dileep. I agree that the ODI will soon be on life support. But I foresee a Championship style series that would have Indian sub-continent, Aus-NZ, England and SA.

    I also fear the longevity of players as well as genuineness of classic Test match contests. Will we ever have a player like 'The Wall' or an Eden Gardens Classic from VVS over the next few years. Already this generation thinks that India's MVP (in tests) comes in at 2 drop, when it has for long been the The Wall at # 3.

    The worst case scenario would be to have icon players like Yuvraj who hang up their boots without having proved their worth in Whites. Already in the hubris, it is guys like Sreesanth who command mind space. The Indian fan also needs to mature.

  • choohi on June 2, 2008, 15:20 GMT

    Where now for the IPL? After what happened on Sunday night, there's little doubt that the second season will be huge. Despite the concerns of the ECB and others, every single one of the world's top players is likely to take part. If they do try to prevent the likes of Kevin Pietersen from playing, they'll only end up being checkmated like the Australian Cricket Board was after Packer's bold gambit

  • checkIndia on June 2, 2008, 15:28 GMT

    I think twenty20 will definitely affect the ODI cricket,but guess icc will be reluctant to admit that.so i dont see any change in the ODI format atleast in the near future

  • TheProphet on June 2, 2008, 15:35 GMT

    Fair analysis Dileep, I think for the moment the one day game is going to survive considering its already on the calendar. It will be interesting to see what will the franchises do for the next 10 months. It will also depend on the BCCI of how they involve the franchises in the future. This is something I wrote about how the BCCI should proceed from here. Have a read and leave your comments http://thethoughtcentre.blogspot.com/2008/05/ipl-is-here-to-stay-what-about.html

  • ShortMemory on June 2, 2008, 15:53 GMT

    No threat to test cricket ? You are right in saying that test cricket still has it own followers and relevance in todays context. But ODI format never threatened test cricket because it did not give the players instant gratification financially(as it was mostly a national sport and not club sport). Now why would someone play in Ranji and sweat their energy when they can make millions in few years of Twenty 20 League. I am just now talking only about indian context. I knew that ICL offered around 90 lakhs for 3 years of contract for a ranji player. IPL would triple that and much more ! With these realities, Test cricket might be threatened in a way that we have not perceived till today.

  • tarunluthra on June 2, 2008, 15:53 GMT

    the odis can survive just only if we put value to the teams winning the match like a year round odi league based system n according to the rank we can continue with the world cups i believe if we play less of odis then they wdnt lose their charm bcci people were insistent on playing odis before as it was there cash cow now they have laid the golden goose the ipl they dont need odis anymore so the future does seem uncertain

    but still ODI cricket does have some history to it we might still make it work only if we try to

  • aditya87 on June 2, 2008, 16:00 GMT

    I'm not a big fan of ODI cricket either but you can't have a situation where the game exists in two formats that are the complete opposite of each other - on the one end Test cricket, which lasts for 5 days, and on the other T20, which lasts barely 3 hours. ODI cricket is the stepping stone between T20 and Test cricket, and you can actually pick Test-quality players from their performances in ODI cricket...I'm not sure you can do that on the basis of T20 performance.

  • 9ST9 on June 2, 2008, 16:02 GMT

    I agree with Dileep. Test cricket is totally different from ODI and T20. ODI's were the crowd puller in the 80's and even more in the 90's. The fact is that T20 has all the essence of the ODI : Colored clothing, flood lights and white balls,the only difference being time. The average cricket fan has to decide whether he would spend 3 hours or 7-8 hours watching a game. Not a hard decision to make. Sadly this spells death for ODI's, though test cricket would survive. Tests are for the true connoisseurs of Cricket. It is a fine art, and it will go on despite low crowd attendances.ODI is the format that lies between an art and a sport,and is endangered . The death wont be quick, it will be slow and painful. Those who watched the World cups of 92,96,99,03,07 would agree the intensity of the ODI WC's decreased. The last 2 worldcups (2003and 2007) attracted very little interest.The signs look ominous for ODI's. However T20 too might have a similar fate...what next then? 5 Over cricket??

  • Mina_Anand on June 2, 2008, 16:09 GMT

    This is one 'middle-aged' woman who decided to forego her staple diet of 'test cricket'(that's 'my' soap ) and look in on the IPL. Much as I want to follow the 'Aussies v the West Indies' test series, I fail as a 'night-watchman' (unless India is playing ).

    As for the one-day format - come September, once the Champion's Trophy starts - and the 'National' Teams lock horns - interest will bounce back. Check it out !

  • abhishekt on June 2, 2008, 16:21 GMT

    Exactly ! The future of One Day format lies in the Transformation of the game. Key to Survive is to change the PACKAGING of the whole 50-50 format.Transform the whole look,whole packaging. Transform it into 40-40 overs, instead of 50 overs each.Introduce some more rules in favour of batsmen by which they can just Unleash Hell. More Field restrictions, more PowerPlays, could help. And where the HELL is the SUPER SUB rule? Some more minor changes would create MAGIC, like Slashing down the ticket prices may help, who knows introduction of CHEERLEADERS,Team Anthems, Brand Ambassdors may attract crowds.

    But deep inside my heart, I feel optimistic.If we get better, interesting Test Cricket, because of 50-50 format, if bowlers survive and get successful in T20. Who knows! T20 makes 50-50 more interesting.

    I am still HOPEFUL. Are you listening Mr. Mali & Mr. Morgan???

    Abhishek Telang CNBC Awaaz