June 21, 2012

Is it time to bury the ODI?

As far as the limited-overs formats go, the 50-overs game has showed it has probably outlived its usefulness
  shares 158

The success of Twenty20 cricket, in the form of the mushrooming of domestic leagues around the world, is accompanied by concern about the future of Test and ODI cricket. Some of us have already signed a death warrant on these two more traditional forms of the game; that is obviously a hasty and dramatic conclusion. Cricket is actually at a very interesting stage in its evolution and it's too early to say where this game will be in 20 years' time; what we see today are only trends.

One sight that shook me last year, though, was that of a half-full stadium when India played England on a Sunday afternoon in an official ODI. This year the same stadium, the Wankhede, was packed to capacity for a domestic IPL game featuring Mumbai Indians and Kolkata Knight Riders.

Going forward I think it is 50-overs cricket, not Test cricket, that is more vulnerable as a format with the arrival of T20 in general and the IPL in particular. The main reason being that Test cricket is so completely different from T20 cricket that it will never be in competition with it. That will remain Test cricket's great strength.

T20 is the new, faster-paced version of 50-overs cricket, like a new processor in a computer, which mostly does the same things but quicker.

As I said earlier, recognising trends is important. The need for the constant tweaking of one-day rules is telling us something about one-day cricket. In today's world it is just not exciting the masses as much as it used to. T20 seems to have whetted the appetite for shorter, faster-paced cricket.

It would be a mistake to assume that the success of the last World Cup was a success of 50-overs cricket. That tournament was a hit because it was a World Cup, where nearly every match had relevance, unlike with most ODIs held every year. Also, the fact that many of the games were played in India added to the thrill and festivity. India doing well and reaching the final also assured a large fan following for the event right through.

Outside of that, I have had a problem with one-day cricket for a while now. Like its name suggests, it is cricket with limits - a format that never fully extended itself. A lot of cricketers with limited talents - bits-and-pieces cricketers, in-betweeners, neither very good batsmen nor very good bowlers - made long careers out of it. Neither this nor that, that is what 50-overs cricket is now, and that is its big weakness, which makes it the most dispensable form of the game today.

One-day cricket did some real good when it arrived on the scene, but we don't realise how much damage it has also done to cricket as we knew it. I remember the great Kapil Dev once telling me how one-day cricket had almost killed his outswinger. Kapil was forced to bowl a lot straighter than he would normally do, just to be economical in ODIs and also to make sure that he wasn't wided by the umpire every time that beautiful outswinger swung a little more. It was with great effort that Kapil finally got his outswinger back - which, he said, was by training himself to think like a Test bowler even when playing one-dayers.

Take a hard, critical look at it and you will see that ODI cricket has slowly but surely helped rid the game of pace, swing, spin, and harmed the techniques of batsmen and bowlers, and negatively affected the basic cricketing skills that made the game worth watching

Bowlers in one-day cricket stopped thinking in terms of taking wickets long ago and started thinking instead of stopping runs being scored. Bowlers in ODIs became like men pulling out water pistols in a wild-west gunfight. Think of how much harm this basic change in mindset has done to the sport as a spectacle.

For a large chunk of a 50-overs innings - from the 15th to the 40th - we have a situation where a batting team is happy to get four runs an over and the opposition is happy to concede them. Where is the contest?

Fifty-over cricket has also ensured the flattening-out of pitches, giving rise to a breed of successful attacking batsmen who hit through the line without moving their feet.

Take a hard, critical look at it and you will see that ODI cricket has slowly but surely helped rid the game of pace, swing, spin, and harmed the techniques of batsmen and bowlers, and negatively affected the basic cricketing skills that made the game worth watching.

All this is not to say T20 is not also a limited-overs format, which shares some of the ills of ODI cricket. It is, but it does not limit itself as much as 50-overs cricket does. It takes certain cricketing skills to the extreme - attacking batting, for instance; it also pushes bowlers to the edge, forcing them to dig deep and bring out all their skills to survive in response to extreme threat.

It's no surprise that we often see some really fast spells in T20 cricket from genuine fast bowlers. This is an attacking response, made possible because the fast bowler knows he is not going to be bowling more than four overs a day, and often just one over in a spell (an example of where limits actually help). So he does not tend to hold back. The same can be said about fielding too.

Learning from the damage done by one-dayers, if the number of T20s played is kept down and matches are made relevant, T20 cricket can do no worse than ODI cricket - and its appeal is far greater and its financial benefits more far-reaching. I do believe the time has come for administrators to stop expending their energies on bringing life back into one-day cricket. There is only so much you can do with its basic concept. The market too has spoken against one-dayers - sponsors are not excited about them unless it's a World Cup. Administrators would be better off instead diverting their energy and time to Test cricket, which needs attention. In my next piece: how to make Test cricket viable in today's times.

Former India batsman Sanjay Manjrekar is a cricket commentator and presenter. His Twitter feed is here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Leggie on June 24, 2012, 15:34 GMT

    In my opinion both T20 and ODI in its current form should be scrapped... T20 - because it is too short a format to really test the complete skills of 11 members in a team and ODI - because it has some very boring middle overs. The ideal balance will be 40-40 over cricket with 4 bowlers bowling up to 10 overs. T20 also has nothing in it for" genuine" spinner and only a format that has at least 40 overs can bring in the full repertoire of a spinner to light. Also with the 5th bowler being taken out of the equation the new format would give the batting team an additional batsman (which could still be what "common man" looks for entertainment) and it will be balanced with the bowling team having 4 best bowlers bowling all the overs.

  • joe_blog on June 24, 2012, 3:28 GMT

    One has to respect Sanjay's analysis because he has been a practitioner at the highest level. He puts his case forward eloquently with good examples. It did make me think. However, as a fan and someone who takes time out to watch the games I have to admit that I get more value from watching ODI and Tests. T20 is different animal. You could bring a team of unknown players and people will still watch it so long as there is big hitting and pure fast bowling. This format will never, in my opinion, prepare players for the test arena.

    Why not keep T20 purely as a club game whilst keeping ODI and Test as a country level game? If you have 3 formats at international level not only will you get player burnout but also viewer burnout.

    I think there is less correlation of technique between T20 and Test. I take Sanjay's point about killer instinct being developed in T20 but do I really want to see Sangakara trying to hit unorthodox shots in test cricket in order to avoid a draw?

  • Nampally on June 23, 2012, 16:07 GMT

    My answer to Sanjay's Question is a Loud NO. It is time to glorify ODI. Since ODI reperesent the best compromise between a Test & T-20, it has more right to survive than any other format of Cricket. It can be tweaked a bit with regards to D/L rules + better UDRS .But it certainly gives the cricketers the best chance to blossom without compromising their style of batting or bowling. A good spinner will always thrive.If he is spinning the ball, has decent length & direction & is accurate. The same applies to pace bowlers.In T-20 the approach is so different that it is totally focussed on baseball styled cricket. The argument against Test format is time consumed, crowd appeal & possibility of a "Drawn game" at the end of 5 days - No result. It suits old style English gentry who had plenty of time in a horse driven transport era rather than in a jet paced era. Test match is the purest Cricket format & T-20 the most corrupted one whilst ODI a decent compromise. So I say "Long live ODI" !

  • Nampally on June 23, 2012, 13:29 GMT

    Of the 3 formats, ODI represents cricket Fans' compromise best. It is neither too long as a 5 day test match nor too short " Chitty Chitty Banag Bang" like T-20 is.It gives batsmen to settle in and almost play his normal game at an accelerated S/R.It also lets the bowler deliver their normal stuff- either spin or Pace.Dale Steyn, Brett Lee are good examples of pace bowlers success whilst the Pakistan spinners Ajmal. Afridi & Hafeez prove that spin bowlers succeed even in a trio. T-20 is purely of entertainment value - slog fest! It is not cultured way & deprives the game of its majesty & artistry. Test cricket displays the artistry & beauty of the game in both style & grace - superb carpet cover drives, late cuts, leg glances & wristy strokes.It also shows how tactical battles are won.A 5 day game needs a lot of stamina & endurance too under varying weather. Only drawback in the modern fast paced word is that people do not have time to watch it at slow pace.ODI has best of all formats

  • Puffin on June 23, 2012, 11:22 GMT

    I think we must be very careful before scrapping ODI's: they are a good way for non-test playing nations to get into the big league. Consider if there were no international ODI's, would T20 be a good start for the then much bigger leap to tests? No, the difference between the two games is too much. The argument could be made that we have enough test playing teams already, I don't agree with that. We need T20 to bring money and interest to the game in general, but it should not take over nor become essentially a different game, only vaguely related to that which spawned it.

  • 07sanjeewakaru on June 22, 2012, 22:22 GMT

    50 over cricket should be survived.It's the only and best way of competing large tournaments like WC.Good test than T20 WC.I don't think T20 and Test complement each other to survive and eventually Test will die and That will be the end of the cricket.To survive the cricket it should be reiterated that there is other aspect like bowling,fielding and captaincy than hitting,and normal spectator should be guided to enjoy that aspects of this beautiful game as well.Cricket is not base ball.To me it is the closest game to the life,it has many resemblances to the life.T20 is funny but nothing.

  • on June 22, 2012, 21:58 GMT

    Ridiculous article. T20 is fine but it's nothing compared to an ODI or much less a test. It'll be a sad day in cricket's history if either format is scrapped.

  • on June 22, 2012, 8:40 GMT

    As SM suggested ODI should be reduced 40 overs, also cut down the number of meaningless ODI payed.

  • on June 22, 2012, 8:19 GMT

    I don't think that the current ODI format needs changes or burial. The two formats, test and ODI, are too good to watch and enjoy. After some initial collapse there is some room for resilience in the later stages unlike T20 wherein the governing rule is hitting the ball as hard as possible even at the expense of wickets as the format has limited overs and it doesn't need the batsmen to be on the field for more time.. ICC also thinking to save the time of the players so that they spend that time in money earning formats.

  • kharidra on June 22, 2012, 7:34 GMT

    The problem with T20 is teams that lose early wickets tend to lose all the wickets before the end of 20 overs. That does not bring to the fore much skill. It is either they are successful in hitting out or successful in gifting wickets. Usually it is just one batsman or just one bowler who bails out.

  • Leggie on June 24, 2012, 15:34 GMT

    In my opinion both T20 and ODI in its current form should be scrapped... T20 - because it is too short a format to really test the complete skills of 11 members in a team and ODI - because it has some very boring middle overs. The ideal balance will be 40-40 over cricket with 4 bowlers bowling up to 10 overs. T20 also has nothing in it for" genuine" spinner and only a format that has at least 40 overs can bring in the full repertoire of a spinner to light. Also with the 5th bowler being taken out of the equation the new format would give the batting team an additional batsman (which could still be what "common man" looks for entertainment) and it will be balanced with the bowling team having 4 best bowlers bowling all the overs.

  • joe_blog on June 24, 2012, 3:28 GMT

    One has to respect Sanjay's analysis because he has been a practitioner at the highest level. He puts his case forward eloquently with good examples. It did make me think. However, as a fan and someone who takes time out to watch the games I have to admit that I get more value from watching ODI and Tests. T20 is different animal. You could bring a team of unknown players and people will still watch it so long as there is big hitting and pure fast bowling. This format will never, in my opinion, prepare players for the test arena.

    Why not keep T20 purely as a club game whilst keeping ODI and Test as a country level game? If you have 3 formats at international level not only will you get player burnout but also viewer burnout.

    I think there is less correlation of technique between T20 and Test. I take Sanjay's point about killer instinct being developed in T20 but do I really want to see Sangakara trying to hit unorthodox shots in test cricket in order to avoid a draw?

  • Nampally on June 23, 2012, 16:07 GMT

    My answer to Sanjay's Question is a Loud NO. It is time to glorify ODI. Since ODI reperesent the best compromise between a Test & T-20, it has more right to survive than any other format of Cricket. It can be tweaked a bit with regards to D/L rules + better UDRS .But it certainly gives the cricketers the best chance to blossom without compromising their style of batting or bowling. A good spinner will always thrive.If he is spinning the ball, has decent length & direction & is accurate. The same applies to pace bowlers.In T-20 the approach is so different that it is totally focussed on baseball styled cricket. The argument against Test format is time consumed, crowd appeal & possibility of a "Drawn game" at the end of 5 days - No result. It suits old style English gentry who had plenty of time in a horse driven transport era rather than in a jet paced era. Test match is the purest Cricket format & T-20 the most corrupted one whilst ODI a decent compromise. So I say "Long live ODI" !

  • Nampally on June 23, 2012, 13:29 GMT

    Of the 3 formats, ODI represents cricket Fans' compromise best. It is neither too long as a 5 day test match nor too short " Chitty Chitty Banag Bang" like T-20 is.It gives batsmen to settle in and almost play his normal game at an accelerated S/R.It also lets the bowler deliver their normal stuff- either spin or Pace.Dale Steyn, Brett Lee are good examples of pace bowlers success whilst the Pakistan spinners Ajmal. Afridi & Hafeez prove that spin bowlers succeed even in a trio. T-20 is purely of entertainment value - slog fest! It is not cultured way & deprives the game of its majesty & artistry. Test cricket displays the artistry & beauty of the game in both style & grace - superb carpet cover drives, late cuts, leg glances & wristy strokes.It also shows how tactical battles are won.A 5 day game needs a lot of stamina & endurance too under varying weather. Only drawback in the modern fast paced word is that people do not have time to watch it at slow pace.ODI has best of all formats

  • Puffin on June 23, 2012, 11:22 GMT

    I think we must be very careful before scrapping ODI's: they are a good way for non-test playing nations to get into the big league. Consider if there were no international ODI's, would T20 be a good start for the then much bigger leap to tests? No, the difference between the two games is too much. The argument could be made that we have enough test playing teams already, I don't agree with that. We need T20 to bring money and interest to the game in general, but it should not take over nor become essentially a different game, only vaguely related to that which spawned it.

  • 07sanjeewakaru on June 22, 2012, 22:22 GMT

    50 over cricket should be survived.It's the only and best way of competing large tournaments like WC.Good test than T20 WC.I don't think T20 and Test complement each other to survive and eventually Test will die and That will be the end of the cricket.To survive the cricket it should be reiterated that there is other aspect like bowling,fielding and captaincy than hitting,and normal spectator should be guided to enjoy that aspects of this beautiful game as well.Cricket is not base ball.To me it is the closest game to the life,it has many resemblances to the life.T20 is funny but nothing.

  • on June 22, 2012, 21:58 GMT

    Ridiculous article. T20 is fine but it's nothing compared to an ODI or much less a test. It'll be a sad day in cricket's history if either format is scrapped.

  • on June 22, 2012, 8:40 GMT

    As SM suggested ODI should be reduced 40 overs, also cut down the number of meaningless ODI payed.

  • on June 22, 2012, 8:19 GMT

    I don't think that the current ODI format needs changes or burial. The two formats, test and ODI, are too good to watch and enjoy. After some initial collapse there is some room for resilience in the later stages unlike T20 wherein the governing rule is hitting the ball as hard as possible even at the expense of wickets as the format has limited overs and it doesn't need the batsmen to be on the field for more time.. ICC also thinking to save the time of the players so that they spend that time in money earning formats.

  • kharidra on June 22, 2012, 7:34 GMT

    The problem with T20 is teams that lose early wickets tend to lose all the wickets before the end of 20 overs. That does not bring to the fore much skill. It is either they are successful in hitting out or successful in gifting wickets. Usually it is just one batsman or just one bowler who bails out.

  • mukesh_LOVE.cricket on June 22, 2012, 6:14 GMT

    A test series should have the highest priority and a minimum of 3 matches , ODI is still a good format but the number of meaningless matches has to be reduced. maximum length of ODI series should be 3 matches , also there should be considerable gap between series played between same nations , for eg: India played England in a 5 match series in England , and barely one month have passed before another 5 match series is organized between same teams in India , seriously , who is going to watch it?? this is actually the problem , not the format

  • mukesh_LOVE.cricket on June 22, 2012, 6:04 GMT

    I dont know why so many people are against 0DI cricket , from a cricketing angle if at all anything has to be stopped its T20 , but that's obviously not possible , nothing is wrong with ODI , it has given us so many wonderful matches (1999 WC sa vs aus !) , has enough time to let contest develop and there is also scope for a team to make a turnaround after initial set back , the real problem is with ICC who keeps changing the rules every week and the number of matches being played

  • Game_Gazer on June 22, 2012, 5:25 GMT

    Keep only World Cups for 50/50, but make it every 2 years instead of 4. And, make merry with T20s & Tests...seems truly good way to go !!!

    But, spice up the pitches for lord's sake !!, I swear it wont harm the contest !! you don't want Dale Steyn to lose his outswinger like Kapil almost did, do you?!!

  • on June 22, 2012, 4:08 GMT

    Frankly speaking, I dont even think that this article is worth reading and hence commenting without having read it. T20 is a joke. It is a time pass. It is analogous to a starter while dining and can never ever be compared to a main course dish. ODIs are meaningful. They have a history. Some of them might be boring but generally they are quite interesting. They do check the technical skills of the players unlike T20 which solely focuses on power hitting. T20s are good for fun. 1-2 games per series as a precursor to the ODIs is not bad either. T20 world cups after every couple of years is not bad either. But for christ's sake, dont even think about replacing ODIs with these T20s. SM must be out of his mind if he is even suggesting anything of that sort.

  • Timmuh on June 22, 2012, 3:32 GMT

    The original purpose of limited overs cricket has been superseded. It was a money making scheme, which aided the survival, and occasional thriving, of Test cricket. It paid for fully professional cricketers, improved stadia, professional umpiring panels, etc. That role has been superseded by the T20 juggernaut. As the limited overs game, be it 50 or 20 overs, is not true cricket and the importance as a fund raiser no longer applies a case could certainly be made for its removal. But is it utterly spent, or simply over-played? Does it have another purpose? In my view the answers are "over-played" and "yes". The 50 over game provides an important longer format for Associate and Affiliate nations. Personally, other than World Cups, I would ban all limited overs tours which do not either include an attached Test series (minimum 3 Tests) or a non-Test nation. A maximum number of 50 over games per year, like with 20 over games, may also be necessary.

  • duralsumo on June 22, 2012, 2:57 GMT

    What is it with the guys who condemn ODIs is it a lack of attention span? Or is it they do not recognise the subtlies that an ODI can produce. I believe there is room for every form of cricket. Each of them has a place in the game and bring enjoyment to all cricket fans. To to death marshalls who keep on putting the game down should have a look at themselves. They are not true lovers of the game by the very nature of their condemnation of this form of cricket. Why was it that the West Indies have copped a rough deal trying to have credibility in their game? No brainer all their stars were playing IPL. That situation is wrong! IPL is a domestic tournament as is the Big Bash League and the English T20 Competition. They all have a place in the game and not at expense of other levels of cricket. Has it got something to do with Cable TV? Let you answer that. Finally a 50 or 40 over game can turn whereas a T20 game is a bash and whoever gets on top at the start will win.

  • ChikaCasey on June 22, 2012, 2:14 GMT

    I'd make time to watch a T20 international between nations I don't belong to. Can't say the same for 50 over cricket matches .... Besides, I secretly dream of a day, in my lifetime, when half the world's countries are hooked onto cricket ... and cricket is an olympic sport ... which is improbable, yet only possible by promoting t20s over 50-over matches.

  • HadleeCrowe on June 22, 2012, 2:12 GMT

    coudn't agree more.... i have long been embarrassed by in-betweener cricketers the dermot reeves paul collingwoods/ and nz's team full of dibbly boobly bowlers chris harris/ scott styris / jake oram these types of bowlers are a disgrace..... completely boring to watch.... They 50 over game itself unfortuantely encourages this type of rubbish .... and makes bowlers who used to be decent, like dan the man vettori ( yes he did used to spin the ball) rely on speed changes alone.

    Sooner they( the 50 over game and the dibbly dooblies) are gone the better

  • Marcian on June 22, 2012, 1:49 GMT

    I dont agree with Sanjay Manjrekar. T20s is where mediocre bits-and-pieces cricketers flourish; the shorter the format the lesser skills needed to succeed. This is the reason why some excellent T2O cricketers fail in the ODI format and ODI specialists fail in Test match cricket. It's not the 50-over format which is the problem; it's the amount of meaningless one-day matches played around the world. I think 5 ODIs for a series is too much, it used to be only 3 ODIs back in the 80s and 90s. ODI overkill is the problem not the format - too much of anything is not good.

  • on June 22, 2012, 1:17 GMT

    every format of game has its importance...i love all three format...i dont think there is danger of any format..T2O should be kept as it is..

  • Robster1 on June 22, 2012, 0:49 GMT

    Yes, with immeasurable thanks ODIs should be bade a fond farewell at the 2015 World Cup. It is a format that has outlived its time. 20/20 cricket and an annual test championship are the way ahead. The 40 over game at least cuts out the boring middle fifteen overs. ODIs - thanks and cheerio etc.

  • on June 22, 2012, 0:04 GMT

    I do think that One-Day cricket has it's place, getting rid of this link between T20 and Test/First-Class cricket will increasingly widen the gap between them, and reduce player crossover between the two. You would seldom see players crossing over from a Championship match in a drizzly April to a World T20 final or from an IPL game on a slow and low Chennai wicket to a Test match at the WACA without the medium of One-Day cricket to help a player learn the appropriate attacking or defensive skills to make the crossover. Test cricket would lose potentially game-changing performers like David Warner or Pat Cummins, and T20 would exist without the class of Tendulkar, Steyn or even Chris Gayle, and both forms of the game would be weaker for that. 40/50 overs allows for building, manouvering, blocking and blasting, swing, pace or a big leg break, and is necessary for someone to become a completely rounded cricketer

  • ashwin1729 on June 21, 2012, 23:07 GMT

    Man, what has the world come to? I do believe that 50 overs is too much, and a 40 over game would be good for the game. But then again, as someone pointed out the overs 15-35 are slow. They are slow for a reason. How many times have we seen spinners rip apart opponents in those overs? In my opinion, a game is won or lost between 15-40 overs. Lets face it, if you do not have the skill, you do not deserve to win. Not everyone is a Sehwag or Gilchrist. Provided they are entertaining, how many times have the likes of Michael Bevan, Hussey ...etc have saved the game for the team? Not every ball needs to go out of the park. If you are interested in that, then you need not go anywhere...just open your PC and download EA cricket.I believe the core problem is the overkill of cricket. Just rewind your clocks to the late 90's, and ask yourself this:Have you seen an empty stand however irrelevant the game is?

  • on June 21, 2012, 22:56 GMT

    i agree get rid of the 'in-betweener' ODIs!!! It has no place in either International or domestic cricket

  • on June 21, 2012, 20:47 GMT

    I think I am the only person IN THE UNIVERSE who actually likes 40 over cricket. Perfect length for me!

  • pommyadders on June 21, 2012, 20:34 GMT

    It would be nice to think that the ICC read these comments because there is an awful lot of sense being spoken here (which is rather unusual for this place!!) And importantly these comments are coming from the ICC's paying customers......the consumers of their product. The key point shining through is not support for one format over the other, it is all to do with quantity and relevance. Everybody here seems to understand that we have all had enough of 5-7 game ODI series, nobody can see the point of this meaningless series between Eng and Aus. I'm a test fan first and foremost but the thought of next years back to back Ashes is just hideous to me. As an Englishman living in Oz I live for the Ashes contests, but the wait and the build up is what gives the series it's hype and grandeur......over saturate us with it and you kill the contest. Is that really such a hard concept to understand ICC???

  • kalyanbk on June 21, 2012, 19:58 GMT

    I disagree. ODI achieves that balance between tests and T20. You still get to see batsmen build an innings and bowlers bowling longer spells. To avoid the tedium between 15 and 40, my suggestions is to split the innings into 25 overs. Every ODI World has produced memorable matches I remember after years. I really don't remember any T20 matches (international or otherwise). The other problem is to do away with meaningless ODI matches made for money.

  • Princepurple1979 on June 21, 2012, 19:21 GMT

    I totally agree with Mr. Manjrekar. The overs 15 - 40 are so boring and predictable, it drags on slowlier than even a Twilight movie. Also this is the period where low talented and below average players can thrive and improve their career stats. The amount of close matches where you are hooked to the suspense happens only rarely in ODI's. And most importantly you can't forget the fans. If they cant fill the stadiums or get adequate sponsor back up for ODI's, then the laws of economics has to take over and put an end to this. It's funny how all the purists used to say ODI's are bad and only test cricket is good, are praising ODI's now as if that is the gold standard in cricket..lol

  • hems4cric on June 21, 2012, 18:41 GMT

    First, For the Record: Indian Fans DO NOT go gaga over IPL. We just love the cricket as much as everybody else does. All the razzmatazz of IPL is not what we look for. Seriously, we dont follow it as much as we do with the ODIs or the Test matches. Next, coming to the article, I think the main issue with cricket is not the format, it is the overkill and relevance. I think the Administrators(No matter which board) try to extract as much as they can with a format and that is the real reason for one format going down.. A series should have equal number of matches of all 3 formats and please for heaven's sake have some relevance. A 7 match ODI series, and 2 test matches wont do or a 5 match ODI series now between ENG and AUS does not make sense.. Even we follow the Ashes, and let the build up to that be as it should be.. dont dilute it by adding a meaningless ODIs in between..

  • on June 21, 2012, 18:34 GMT

    Extremely one sided article.

  • Long-Leg on June 21, 2012, 18:27 GMT

    I agree that Test Cricket is the highest form of the game and should be preserved, but I am not so sure that T20 has the glorious future you predict. All the negatives you applied to one day cricket (defensive bowling, flat pitches, no swing or spin) apply just as much to T20. T20 is one dimensional cricket with attacking batting and defensive bowling. It all becomes very tedious after a while and I pine to see three slips and a gully.

  • InnocentGuy on June 21, 2012, 18:16 GMT

    This is exactly what I was thinking a few days ago. T20 cricket needs no skills really, at least when it comes to batting. You don't get anything from 50-over cricket that you don't already get from either T20 or Test. Aggressive starts, T20. Short bowling spells, T20. Sharp fielding, T20. Stroke making, Test. Consolidation, Test. Patience, Test. Strategics, Test. Pretty much every skill that a cricketer can gain/develop from 50-over, can also be developed from either T20 or Test cricket (mostly Test cricket). T20 is no better than 50-over in ridding cricket of some genuine art, but it's at least a much shorter affair. Sanjay is right - 50-over cricket is neither here nor there. Before T20, yeah it made sense. But it doesn't anymore. At least not the 50-over bi-lateral and tri-nation tournaments.

  • ribllh on June 21, 2012, 17:19 GMT

    It is not the ODI format that is the problem - it is the series of 5 - 7 games that are played on some tours. The rule changes made to One day cricket has hindered rather than helped.

    All tours should be 3 20/20, three ODI and 3 - 5 tests.

  • PratUSA on June 21, 2012, 16:54 GMT

    I highly respect Sanjay for his unbiased and honest opinions on cricketing matters but this article somehow feels like a forced one. I have been of the opinion for past few years that only ill with 50-over game is lack of relevance and too much cricket. I actually wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing empty stadiums for T20Is as well considering talks of 5 or 6 match T20I series are already in the air.

  • Pratchett on June 21, 2012, 16:51 GMT

    No no no! T20 will NOT consume one day cricket! I REFUSE to believe it! T20 is not an upgrade. It's not even a sport! It's a commercial festival! A circus! If it ends up killing one day cricket then I will turn to T20-sabotage...

  • khanc on June 21, 2012, 16:51 GMT

    ODI cricket will stay. T20I will go. When a *country* tours another *country* for a series, the games have to be substantial feats. T20 is too ephemeral for this - it is only a spectacle to be temporarily enjoyed. Moreover, there is no money in T20 *internationals* either. This would keep the world cup in ODI format which is necessary not only for the substance of the matches, but also for continuity and history. Everyone knows the money is in corporate-run T20 competitions - let it stay that way.

  • mmsandeep on June 21, 2012, 16:26 GMT

    I only partially agree. I think the key point here is context: T20 leagues and the ODI world cup (esp the knock out stage) have great popularity among audiences primarily because the stakes are high on each match making them "relevant". A random Ind-SL ODI (and for that matter, a test match) doesn't have that aspect going for it. An Ashes test is more popular than say a NZ-WI test for the same reason. IPL4 didn't draw crowds because it was on the heels of a very well-received world cup. It wouldn't be overreaching to say T20s would suffer from empty stands if the games don't have context. Imagine a 7 match Ind-SL T20 series: Ugh!

    I think with innovations in rules, and the advent of T20, ODIs have a chance to get better in playing quality. Just as ODIs helped the quality of test cricket. As for the quality of bowlers - its worth remembering that Warne, McGrath, Kumble, Steyn and co. came from the ODI era.

  • on June 21, 2012, 16:24 GMT

    No way. ODI is extremely important for the future of Cricket. All 3 formats, Test, T20 and ODI are important in their own way. So, sorry, but I disagree.

  • on June 21, 2012, 16:23 GMT

    I completely agree with Sanjay.50 over cricket has lost it's charm,we need to keep pace with time and t-20 is the best format to attract new countries as the lesser teams can manage to pull off miracles more in the shortest format. Cricket cannot grow with either Test or ODI cricket. Test cricket after 25 years will be dead(feeling very sorry to say as test cricket is the best i feel among all formats and the most genuine format among all other sport). 20-20 is the way to make cricket a truly global game in years to come.

  • on June 21, 2012, 16:08 GMT

    Completely disagree. The Skills required are far greater in ODIs than in T20. There are far more memorable performances in ODIs than in T20s.

  • on June 21, 2012, 15:35 GMT

    "A lot of cricketers with limited talents - bits-and-pieces cricketers, in-betweeners, neither very good batsmen nor very good bowlers - made long careers out of it."Any team would pick the best playing 11 on a given day.If there are players as you mentioned in the team it is just because the unavailability of quality players in the squad or country.And i would say Mr.Sanjay that you were one of those cricketers mentioned above if there was ever one.Coming to the point of ODI's, it requires a special skill set to master that format.A batsman should be capable enough to have patience when the ball does a bit or when quick wickets fall. Building up a partnership and attacking in the death overs,bowling with new ball for swing and old ball for reverse swing,spinning the used ball round the legs,showcasing the stamina by intensive fielding for 3 hours and maneuvering fields(when to attack & when to defend) by the captain, all these make ODI's unique.

  • Selassie-I on June 21, 2012, 15:19 GMT

    ODIs have slowly rid the game of swing/spin/pace, if so, T20 has cleared it a heck of a lot quicker. Just look at all those new indian spinners chucking darts.. i'm sure a lot of the recent great spinners from india - kumble etc. all played odis.. jsut look at harbajan, his decision to rid his bowling of all spin and bowla leg stump line almost freakishly started with the popularisation of international T20 and IPL!

  • yorkshirematt on June 21, 2012, 15:18 GMT

    I'm not sure where I stand on this. On the one hand you can get exciting, close ODI series such as the recent SL v Pak and WI v Aus series but as an England supporter I have to say most of our reent ODI series have been fairly one sided and uninteresting apart from the odd exceptions like SL in England last year and Pak in England in 2010. then again I suppose you could say the same about our recent test series. The closest arguably being Pak last winter. I know the result didn't suggest a close series but most matches were in the balance until the fourth innings. I suppose as a conservative yorkshireman by nature (not in a political sense i hasten to add!) I would like things to stay as they are. There is room for all three formats

  • sportofpain on June 21, 2012, 15:16 GMT

    Couldn't agree more with Sanjay! ODI is boring - the middle overs are such a pain and th agony drags on for the entire day. Quite ridiculous. It had its time when in the 1980's test cricket was at its dreary best with teams scoring 200-250 max in a day and draws were plentiful after 5 days - what an exercise in futility!

    The advent of T20 cricket is a shot in the arm for the game and should replace ODI's. Test cricket should stay but results should be obtained after 5 days - oh and they should play in the evenings so people can finish work and watch the games

  • mrhamilton on June 21, 2012, 15:07 GMT

    I was really getting ready to just think oh its just gonna be another IPL promotion what does Manjrejar know. As it turns out his article is a superb piece and i agree. 50 over one day cricket is just an anomaly. The constant tweaking etc and the way so many players have concentrated on it, and neglected their skills, the non stop barrage of meaningless one dayers, all of them have killed fast bowling and batsmen having skills. 20/20 is a little too vulgar for me. But take the IPL vulgarities out of it and its the best way to go just 20/20 and test cricket.

  • cricket_lover1 on June 21, 2012, 14:48 GMT

    HI, I am a cricket fan and following cricket since last 20 years and I love TEST cricket the most but I also feel that ODI CRICKET SHOULD STAY AS IT IS..Its sad to see such an aticle coming out of cricketer like Sanjay. I don't know why ICC feels that ODI cricket is loosing its charm. its not because people lost interest in ODI's but its because of the glamorous tournaments like IPL and too much of a cricket these days. I believe IPL is more of a GLAMOUR than CRICKET. In a T20 game its just require one player to click but in the other two formats its just not the case. IF THE ODIs ARE GONE THEN IT WILL ONLY LOWER THE INTEREST OF CRICKET FANS IN THE GAME...REST IS ALL UPTO ICC, WHERE THEY WANT TO TAKE THIS WONDERFUL WONDERFUL GAME....

  • NewYorkCricket on June 21, 2012, 14:46 GMT

    Look at the world cup. How can you say it was not successful. T20 just does not have enough space to showcase all talents!! It is good for club cricket. International cricket should always be 50-50.

  • Nadeem1976 on June 21, 2012, 14:42 GMT

    It's time to say good bye to ODI cricket after 2015 WC. T2020 and Test cricket are future of cricket.

  • Desihungama on June 21, 2012, 14:42 GMT

    Sanjay you are wrong. 50 over Cricket is still relevant. If not, then why every single Test player decides when to hang up his boots based on ODI WC's? Do you think players like Ricky Ponting, Sachin, Younis Khan, Cook, Amla will decide on retiring after a Twenty20 series? No, they won't. 50 over cricket is TOO important to shelve. It's the only format gives you true sense of being a World Cricket Champion in the form of WC.

  • eshwarmv on June 21, 2012, 14:33 GMT

    A very important point in favour ODI is that it allows you to test the skill, temperament, and stamina of a player, be it a batsmen or a bowler. You cannot test a young rookie in a test match. 50 over match allows this to a certain extent.

  • Chakri77 on June 21, 2012, 14:30 GMT

    I disagree. Bowling has become even less attacking in T20. You just have to maintain a tight spell and the batsman will try to hit you out of the park and gift you the wicket in the process. Look at all the ugly shots that are played in the name of accelerating the scoring, horrendous. A bowler can show more variations and attack in 10 overs rather than in 4. If ODI has brought down the quality and the technique, then, T20 is doing worse, not better. The only plus point is, it earns as much money as an ODI does, so, all the sponsors want a piece of the T20. Bowlers try a negative line, batsmen try to hit the ball with their eyes closed. It has become more a matter of luck than skill. What can be done though to make a contest out of the ODI is, reduce the number of overs to 40 say. It was done in the past from 60 to 50. Give the bowlers an equal chance so it becomes a contest, like doing away with one powerplay. Imagine somebody trying to graduate from T20 to the tests, scary.

  • on June 21, 2012, 14:30 GMT

    I believe T20 should not be played at an international level. I mean there is such limited skill involved, it is embarrassing to a michael clarke or a alistair cook to be involved in hit and giggle not to mention Patto and Cummins. We want to see them bowl all out raw pace which can be afforded in an ODI.

  • scripted on June 21, 2012, 14:02 GMT

    Agree with Manjrekar. It's too optimistic to expect that the current attempt to have three international cricket formats can sustain in the long run. Spectator interest will wane for one of them. No doubt in my mind that Test cricket should retain its position of pride, and it's beginning to appear that T20s are evolving into a sustainable shorter form of the game. By elimination then, ODI cricket should go. It will clear out a large chunk of the international calendar and make for less crowded and confusing scheduling.

  • StatisticsRocks on June 21, 2012, 14:02 GMT

    MR. Sanjay as usual you lack the ability to see the future or assess the situation. Maybe this is what you want. I agree 100% with @kaze. @Johnathonjosephs: stop making ridiculous statements like ''the only people to hate ODI/test are Indian fans'. Did you take a good enough representative sample of Indian cricket fans before making such outrageous statements. On what basis are u making that claim. We have 1billion+ in India and for you to come out and make that statement shows lack of analytical skills on ur part. Do ur study before drawing inferences.

  • on June 21, 2012, 14:01 GMT

    As a purist I'm for Test Cricket all the way, but failing that ODIs still capture the attention. You can still have full attritional Cricket in an ODI that you simply can't have in T20 knockabout. Technique is still key, with attributes that can be carried over into Tests. However, T20 erodes technique - I read an article here the other day about India's woes in looking for an opener to succeed Slogger and Gambhir as the key players all try to slog the whole time. T20 to me is like Rugby 7s - an interesting spectacle for people not really all that interested in the sport, but only loosely reminiscent of the sport itself.

  • denessa on June 21, 2012, 13:49 GMT

    THIS ARTICLE RAISES SOME KEY POINTS ABOUT ODI CRICKET....HOWEVER, I BELIEVE THAT T20 CRICKET IS MORE EXCITING BUT IT ALSO HAVE ITS ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES PLEASE DON'T LET US RUN AWAY WITH THAT FACT ABOUT T2O CRICKET......LONG LIVE THE GAME OF CRICKET.........

  • SillyBackwardPoint on June 21, 2012, 13:22 GMT

    (pt2) While that balance is not fully realised in ODI's, there is far more time to bat out and hence if 4-5 wickets are thrown away in 12 overs the team will be in real trouble, so while the batsman must score at a pace, equally he cannot just slog wildly and throw away his wicket. The real problem with ODI's is not so much the format but the lifeless batsman friendly pitches. I remember a fantastic match between england and south africa at the last world cup on a crumbling pitch where every run was worth something, this was by far the best match in the tournament. T20 just can't provide this as runs are just too easy to come by. Also it should really be stated that outside of India people really don't care that much about the IPL. Personally i watched some of it as i will watch almost any cricket, but it does not inspire the worldwide passion of something like the premier league. While its true that it gets packed house, so does test cricket in Eng, Aus, Sri Lanka

  • cricindia4life on June 21, 2012, 13:07 GMT

    I have held this opinion for a while now. But the success of the last world cup and the optimism showed by people like Haroon Lorgat clouded my judgment. I think T20 cricket needs to adopt a soccer-like structure. Club T20 cricket becomes prominent with some international friendlies thrown in here and there. A T20 world cup and regional cups should be persisted with. Test cricket, on the other hand, should most definitely remain an international game. But a context must be provided for test cricket. Each match needs to have some significance. Maybe test cricket should be played in a league format, culminating in the top four playing out a knock-out style championship. Either way, this solves the problem of over-exhaustion or both the players and spectators. It ensures test cricket's safety and popularity. And it allows cricketers to make salaries matching those of athletes in other sports, reducing the temptation to get into match/spot fixing and other means of corruption,

  • getsetgopk on June 21, 2012, 12:57 GMT

    Its the lack of competitiveness in most ODI's and Tests that are making the longer formats boring. Batsmen of one continent cant bat in another, Eng, SA and Aus struggle against spin whereas Pak, Ind and Sl strugle against seaming and swinging conditions. Batsmanship has degraded and techniques have eroded because of too much cricket. Add T20 to it and you have messed up everything that the game was once famously known for.

  • on June 21, 2012, 12:50 GMT

    Numerous closely fought ODIs and the success of the 2011WC are ample proof that this format is here to stay. Those advocating for the T20 as the new premier format need a serious rethink. If you kill the ODI game, you will end up with one dimensional cricketers.

  • KingOwl on June 21, 2012, 12:49 GMT

    One day cricket has a place - it can in fact be far more exciting than a T20 when the two teams are well matched in terms of talent. The problem is that there are far too many one day matches played, due to commercial interests. For success in test cricket, one does not need luck, in T20, you need a fair bit of luck. One day cricket is more balanced than T20. So, I have no doubt that 50 over cricket has a place - its place needs to be re-jigged. The problem is the vested money interests.

  • AtifFazal11 on June 21, 2012, 12:23 GMT

    what about all the history. the 50 over world cup is still the biggest thing in cricket by far

  • on June 21, 2012, 12:23 GMT

    Completely disagree here. ODI cricket is an integral part of the game. ICC and individual boards should do a fine balancing acts between all 3 versions of the game. A quality cricketer can adjust to the demands of all formats without compromise and there are many living examples of that. In my opinion the standard of ODI cricket is going to improve and is improving as a result of T20.

  • itsthewayuplay on June 21, 2012, 12:19 GMT

    Sanjay, I don't understand what you're saying. If Kapil Dev almost his outswinger, it wasn't due to the nature of the ODI format but because of the rules the umpires have to follow. Surely the simple solution would be to allow greater margin of error before a ball is called wide rather get rid of the format itself. You talk about overs 15-40 being a problem but so are overs 80-90 in test cricket where captains use part-timers to bowl whilst waiting for the new ball to become available. The main problem in cricket over the last 20 years has been the flat pitches cricket boards have prepared to ensure tests lasted 5 days so that they could protect their revenues. Bring back competitve pitches to restore the balance between bat and ball and give bowlers the incentive to bowl wicket-taking deliveries rather than opt for containment.

  • S.h.a.d.a.b on June 21, 2012, 12:17 GMT

    All 3 formats should stay. Make a separate team for each format and except rain rule all ODI rules should be settled back to 1975 world cup.

  • on June 21, 2012, 11:52 GMT

    Stop beating around the bush, 50 overs is perfectly fine and still gets big crowds. TEST CRICKET MUST GO. 10 nations playing each other over and OVER in-front of empty crowds is not entertainment. At least in both limited overs format you are playing for something and have a World Cup to crown the best!

  • africa.mike on June 21, 2012, 11:51 GMT

    What a load of nonsense. The 20 over game remains a hit and giggle side show that I cannot believe anybody takes seriously. if ODI games are watched by small crowds, look at the relevance of the games, the quantity of games and the cost of tickets. I prefer watching an ODI to a T20 every time. Not to mention the fact that it is the base of skills development in the modern game.

  • on June 21, 2012, 11:37 GMT

    If ODI killed outswinger,T20 is killing everything. In t20 fast bowlers are only interested in bowling yorkers, bouncers and slowers and spin bowlers dart the bowl to blockhole as akash chopra pointed out in another article.

  • muski on June 21, 2012, 11:30 GMT

    Sanjay- Do we need to kill one form of cricket to sustain the other.You said the overs 15-40 are boring. Is Slam Bang the only form of contest. Can accumulating singles, feilding restrctions and power plays be construed as a contest. ODI cricket with bowler friendly conditions with a really contest with bat and ball will survive the test of time. Its only the Flat Track Belters that we get in the subcontinent that is killing the game. Your statement that lots of bits and pieces guys have survived for long in this format is not correct. That may be true of the Bangladesh or Zimbabwe or New Zealand teams. As far as India is concerened there is one bloke who fits this bill- Sir Ravindra Jadeja. I can think of anyone else.

  • on June 21, 2012, 11:29 GMT

    if test cricket goes, i stop watching cricket - simple as that. i would think there are many others that share this view. odi's have had a good run recently but with t20 here to stay, its relevance is waning, and if they were to be removed there would hopefully be more room for tests. having said that, odi's still have specialist players and good traits (very rare to see a nice century or a five wicket haul earned rather than handed to a bowler) and are a good avenue for associate teams to develop. Probably won't be long until we see a 3-3-3 split of the three forms each tour, which isn't a bad thing.

  • py0alb on June 21, 2012, 11:26 GMT

    @DVC. Play one day declaration cricket of course. A far superior game to boring defensive 50 overs rubbish.

  • Straight-Drive on June 21, 2012, 11:21 GMT

    I do like to disagree to Sanjay Manjrekar. T20 seem to have some kind of impact on both ODI and Tests. But, the main issue is not the format itself, but the fact that the current trend across all the 3 formats are heavily biased towards Batsmen. In the last decade alone, we probably would have seen more spectacular scores (300s and 400s in Tests, 190s and 200s in ODI and even 100s in T20) across the 3 formats. We hardly see 150 scores being defended. I think the cricketting boards have understood that its 4s and 6s which would bring them money and does not like to watch a pain staking century that saves a test match. As a result, quality of cricket has detoriated. Even ordinary batsmen with no technique flourishes across format. This trend on the whole would be bringing curtains to Cricket on the whole.

  • on June 21, 2012, 11:19 GMT

    Make it a 40 overs per side...split it into 2 innings..like the test...1st innings of 20 overs n 2nd innings 20 overs...it ll surely produce results...n ll b interesting as well.....all the domestic limited overs games shud try this format.....n make it a successful one....

  • jmcilhinney on June 21, 2012, 11:11 GMT

    I agree that, if something's got to give, it will likely be 50-over cricket. I don;t necessarily agree with a lot of the points made in this article though. Any damage that has been done to Test cricket by ODIs would have been done just as much by T20 if ODIs had never happened. Any lack of attack seen by bowlers in ODIs is seen at least as much, if not more, in T20s. Just look at the number of slower balls bowled by fast bowlers in T20. And why would a slower ball be so successful? Because the batsman are just swinging rather than playing a ball on its merits. The reason that T20 has been so popular is because it has attracted people who aren't actually cricket fans to watch the game. That's what has brought in the money but such fans are likely to be far more fickle. It would be interesting to take a poll at a T20, ODI and Test match and see what percentage of people could explain the LBW law.

  • balajeev on June 21, 2012, 10:49 GMT

    ODI's can stay, but just remove the annoying 25 overs in the middle so that everyone's happy.

  • on June 21, 2012, 10:39 GMT

    Correctly put. Kudos Sanjay for summarizing the situation beautifully.

  • Sandeep.M.J.D on June 21, 2012, 10:30 GMT

    I'm sorry Sanjay M, completely disagree mate. There is no point first hand, do you mean Kapil would have carried his Outswinger if it was T20s he played than ODIs? Atleast half swinger :)? No, all three are different skill sets. If there is no contest between 15 to 40 overs in ODI scoring at 4 an over, then it can be said there is no contest for 350 overs in Test cricket, you can choose those 100 overs to watch which makes it more unpredictable. Overall comparing Tests vs ODIs vs T20s is like comparing Cricket vs Baseball vs Rugby, all corresponding in position in the comparison. If someone asks me I will tell him no one would compare them correctly since their base is not the same (Though it is Cricket, you understand why the base is different).

  • FaysalKabir on June 21, 2012, 10:29 GMT

    In my opinion ICC should force all bilateral series to be exactly 3 Tests, 3 ODIs & 3 T20s (and yes this also includes series with Bangladesh & Zimbabwe) This will roughly take 40 days per tour. Each country can complete 4/5 such series per year thus allowing it to play all other nations once in 2 year cycle and home and way in 4 year cycle. This should also leave enough room for ICC tournaments/tours to non test playing nations (to promote the game) and also allow players to rest/take part in some domestic tournaments + special additional tests (strictly test only) for icon series such as India v Australia or Ashes.

  • montys_muse on June 21, 2012, 10:18 GMT

    The arguments that Sanjay is making seem very baseless! But the idea is right behind the article, ODIs must go! For the simple reason that they are so boring and predictable to watch, mainly with their middle overs conundrum. Also, constant chopping and changing of rules is making it confusing.

  • montys_muse on June 21, 2012, 10:10 GMT

    Finally someone has come out with an article such sensible thoughts. Thank you for the article Sanjay. To save cricket and cricketers ODIs must go!

  • on June 21, 2012, 10:08 GMT

    There are 100 meter, 200 meter,400 meter, 800 meter, 1600 meter -------------- international race. So, why not Test , One day, T20 international cricket match? Don't think to bury the ODI in future.

  • i_witnessed_2011 on June 21, 2012, 10:03 GMT

    I do not think its end of road for ODI. Administartors need to catch up with fans demand. Earlier ODI cricket was exciting because test cricket do not offer the SPICE that ODI used to provide. Fans found ODI exciting and So more and more flat pitches,batsmen friendly conditions\rules encouraged by administartors But with the advent of T20, Fans saw more SPICE. the Fans who wanted to see contest between bat n bowl turned to test cricket. the only way out for ODI cricket is, Administrators need to bring more balance between bat n bowl. Fans still apreciate when there is a contest irrespective of the format. More life in the Pitches required and tweak the rules such as allowing one or more bowlers more than 10 Ov. Give 8 runs for big sixes and at the same time encourage bigger grounds. Some spinner friendly rules must be brought. At the end of the day, Fans need entertainment, they need contest. all 3 formats can exist if you can ensure entertainment and contest.

  • D.V.C. on June 21, 2012, 9:55 GMT

    Nobody who writes any of these articles advocating the end of the ODI ever addresses you we are going to develop cricket skills in Associate and Affiliate countries without it!

  • dalesteyn123 on June 21, 2012, 9:40 GMT

    Above article applies only to the one day matches played in sub continent...I think the problem is that current Indian team can not play well in England, Australia,south Africa conditions.. so what their board does is that they increase the home one day matches..lot of one day matches played within sub continent teams, is one of the main reason behind the decreasing interest, which we all know is due to inability of Indian team to play decent test cricket... also Indian crowds are not much interested in test matches(due to flat wickets) so they increase the number of one day matches, which actually kills the one day matches....

  • on June 21, 2012, 9:38 GMT

    50 over format has had it's share of over kill.with 7 ODI SERIES....now seriously do we need 7 odi's between India-Sri lanka every few months...this is what killed the thrill in India.

  • on June 21, 2012, 9:36 GMT

    lol What a joke! If there is a format to get rid of then its T20. ODI is certainly important because just like Tests, shows the real character of Cricketers Cricketing skills but just within a day whereas in T20 many top players fail and are just not suited for that format so that's one of the main reasons why ODIs should stay. Have you seen some of the ODI matches this year? i.e. Asia Cup most of these matches especially the final were thrillers and not much different from T20. The only reason people question ODIs is because too much of it is being played for example the recent SRI-PAK ODI Series which if you remember has happened last year as well that's why ODI has come under question, the same boring old matches over and over again and the ICC is to be blamed for it plus meaningless ODI Series such as the coming ENG-AUS 5 match ODI Series, a series which will be played next year so you see my point guys? the scheduling is all messed up simple as that.

  • Romanticstud on June 21, 2012, 9:19 GMT

    50 over cricket was formed out of test cricket ... because it offers a result in a day ... it makes for a good days entertainment ... even though some have been one sided but then take the famous 438 game at the Wanderers ... Australia had the cards laid down ... favorites to win the decider ... it began like a normal ODI ... 3 overs 6 runs ... after 10 overs it was 66 ... 300 looked a likely score ... 96 after 15 ... still on track ... 123 after 20 overs ... then came 86 in the next 10 ... 92 in the next and 301 was the score after 40 overs ... 400 was now a likely score ... 133 runs were blasted in the last 10 overs ... 434 was the new mark ... could South Africa do the impossible ... lost a wicket in the second over with 5 on the board ... not likely ... then the scoreboard read 23 overs and 200 runs ... 50 runs to the good ... suddenly was 434 enough ... then 3 wickets from the 30th ... still 93 runs in 10 overs ... maybe choking again ... a few overs of panic ... SA won in the end

  • on June 21, 2012, 9:11 GMT

    wasnt even worth reading.... everyone of the ills that he mentioned is magnified in t20. take a look at indias t20 stars in the wi now. their feet are in lead shoes- cant even move to make a proper drive. 2hrs t20 innings cannot compare with a 5th day test with intense battle between bat and ball where neither time nor overs limit pose a threat. in t20 technique and skills are irrelevant. the worst bowler can get a wicket off the worst ball. the worst batsman can make runs just by blindly swinging and connecting. West indies is the worst test side and look how their second string team has that of the just dethroned #1

  • Udendra on June 21, 2012, 9:10 GMT

    Sanjay, India is not the World, and though T20 is good for India, it's not the same in other countries.

  • on June 21, 2012, 9:06 GMT

    Take T20 out to the back and put a bullet in its head. It is the death of cricket. 50 over records matter more and require a larger application of skill and concentration. Popcorn cricket is not needed. If anything keep all 3 formats alive. If one form of cricket were to be phased out think of all the records that batsmen have accumulated over the last 50 years. Please stop making mountains out of molehills.

  • on June 21, 2012, 9:05 GMT

    I'm going to an ODI this Saturday; Ireland v Australia, if ODIs where done away with this would be a T20 match and I certainly wouldn't be going.

    T20 has had a far more detrimental effect both on the way Cricket is played and on the attitudes it has engendered in some players, it has effected Test Cricket more than ODIs just look at the recent two match Tests between England and Sri Lanka, this should have been at minimum a three match series but was curtailed to fit in with the IPL.

    ODIs are also the lifeblood of Associate countries like Ireland, it gives them some exposure to longer forms of Cricket as a step towards Test Cricket something T20 will never be able to do and I can assure you these games are taken very seriously, the match on Saturday is likely to be a sell out.

  • on June 21, 2012, 9:05 GMT

    The problem is not with ODI Cricket,the problem is with meaningless & excessive ODI Cricket. Like,the next tour of Australia in England & Ireland just to play ODI cricket is completely meaningless. How can such series be even brought into FTP,even though there is a scheduled ODI series after the Ashes? Just retain the old system of ODI Cricket back,it was good enough,& rather stop bringing stupid one-off or two-off T20 matches in for earning money.

  • on June 21, 2012, 8:59 GMT

    Utter rubbish! If anything should go, its T20 Cricket which is simply pointless with no showcasing of skill and talent. Test cricket is what I call real cricket, but the ODI format is not far behind in that aspect as well. ODIs have come a long way. There was a time when a total of 250 meant doom for the team chasing, but not anymore. Who can forget the classic Australia-SA match some years ago? Or what about the England-South Africa match in the WC? The Ban-Eng match in the WC? ODIs still top T20 cricket by a mile.

  • smbhayi on June 21, 2012, 8:54 GMT

    Who say T20 better than ODI. Its BIG Joke!! These days a lot of cricket played, so sometimes decrease the viewers bcoz they have another job. But a cricket played around the glob, they following cricket through net!

  • eZoha on June 21, 2012, 8:44 GMT

    Completely flawed argument from Sanjay. He talks about bits-and-pieces cricketers in ODI, but forgets that in T20, these bits-and-pieces cricketers are golden. Actually T20 encourages players to become more bits-and-pieces rather than specialists. Spin or fast, bowling in the block hole is the ultimate goal of a T20 bowler most of the time, whereas he mourns about how Kapil Dev lost his swing due to ODI. Just reduce the number of bi-lateral ODI series and bring back triangular and quadrangular tournaments. Try to put in some context. ODI will be fine.

  • on June 21, 2012, 8:40 GMT

    Is this the direct effect of Manjrekar getting into the IPL bandwagon???So 50 over cricket is for bit and pieces players and is detrimental to overall cricketing skills??then what is T20??look at the IPL stars like Dhawan, Rohit, Rahul Sharma and Rahane struggling against WI A, where are players like Valthaty and Asnodkar??..and I do not know if "Wided" is actually something in the dictionary. In all its years T20 has hardly generated a match that is remembered along the same line as 99 WC SF..Please spare us this useless gyan and get your facts straight next time..anyone can tonk a ball for 20 overs but to open against Steyn, Morkel and deLange in a 50 over format requires skills

  • ziggy500 on June 21, 2012, 8:32 GMT

    lets get rid of t20's. stuff u t20, u have hindered the beauty of cricket

  • CricFin on June 21, 2012, 8:14 GMT

    Test cricket should go.It is boring & time consuming.It is very predictable by 2nd day ..

  • on June 21, 2012, 8:09 GMT

    One day cricket has suffered from complete overkill and a bucket load of meaningless games, but no way should it go! This bit really got me "Going forward I think it is 50-overs cricket, not Test cricket, that is more vulnerable as a format with the arrival of T20 in general and the IPL in particular" The IPL in particular?? So because there is an IPL we should know consider the one day format dead? Cricket in general has been suffering at the hands of ridiculous scheduling for far to long. A more rational way of thinking is needed not axing one format so it can accommodate one countries tournament.

  • on June 21, 2012, 8:05 GMT

    Pointless rambling from Mr. Manjrekar. The ODI is still relevant and has more meaning than T20 matches, which are purely for entertainment as it degrades Cricket matches to just sixes and fours.The matches do not help the players develop their game as we have seen many so called specialist T20 players, who were found out in the longer version of the game. A great example of this was displayed in the recently concluded test series, where the batsman from the Indian A team failed big time against an ordinary West-Indies side. Lastly, you will have greedy players or ordinary players who are unlikely to get selected for their national side, prefer to play in T20 league formats etc instead of ODI or test matches. But these players won't be remembered or respected the same way, people still respect Viv Richard, Dravid, Imran Khan, Akram etc.

  • on June 21, 2012, 7:51 GMT

    Will any commentary about the game of cricket b complete without the mention of 99WC semifinal between SA and AUS.Will Tugga allow that tournament and his and his team's heroics in that tournament to be edited from his CV.will he remain the same player.Didnt the 99WC transform the Aussies from "the best " to "one of the all time best" and sanjay says there no space for this very format.Sanjay the problem with ODIs is when Ind and SL play each other meaninglessly every 2 weeks on flat dead tracks and score 350 and win/lose by 20-25 runs.no one watches such matches.problem is not with the format BUT with the ground conditions/quality of players/scheduling etc which need to be addressed NOW.enough has been said and written...

  • timohyj on June 21, 2012, 7:49 GMT

    if batsmens technique is danaged because of flat pitches in ODI's then T20 damages it much more because the batsmen are just trying to hit every ball for a boundary. Also, ODI's blend several factors of tests and T20. for instance. scince you have to bat 50 overs in an ODI, batting requires the temperament to stay in there like in tests, but you still have to score fast, like in t20. And bowlers in ODI's actually have to work a batsman out in the middle overs by bowling good balls because the batsmen will not be playing aggresively at that period. In t20 bowlers onyl get wickets when batsmen go for big shots and miscue them, they don't have to work a batsman out. and if ODI'd bring about bits and pieces players then t20 does so much more. The west indies team is only 11 bits and pieces players which is why they have a very goo t20 team but they keep failing in odi's. you can have a team like that in t20 but not in ODI

  • Dinesh2112 on June 21, 2012, 7:45 GMT

    I feel all the three formats are important and will stay on course. If you have a look Test Cricket represents the basic and true picture of cricket, 50 over cricket represents One day cricket culture and T 20 cricket represents pure entertainment in purpose and intent. Each format has its own significance.

  • on June 21, 2012, 7:41 GMT

    Only a average Limited overs cricketer can write such an average article, after all is it not the same writer who wrote off a certain cricketer a few years back and had to eat his own words, yes 20-20 cricket is popular now, but ODI still has what it takes to survive. People may not me going to the grounds to watch it, but the interest has not died down. I remember while in office, the canteens are flooded with people whenever there is a ODI being aired on TV, and most people also have Cricinfo Live Score Card kept minimized on their office desktop/laptops whenever there is an ODI, just to keep a track of the match. I feel only the meaning less ODI especially the India - Sri Lanka ODI has me reduced (however I guess that is to help Sri Lankan board who are in a financial crises, so I guess that is also acceptable for the time being). And if you ask the general masses, people still love 50 over than 20-20, people love to watch a Dale Steyn bowl 60 balls rather than just 24.

  • venkatesh018 on June 21, 2012, 7:38 GMT

    More than the formats, it is the quality of the pitches(both in Tests and ODIs) which are loaded in favour of batsmen, which forces the fielding captain to go on the defensive, leading to dull cricket. Rather than removing the ODIs from the calendar, play those in not-too-frequent 3 or 4 nation tourneys(like the HERO Cup in the 90s), play it on sporting wickets, and make it compulsory for teams to field 3 "Under 21" cricketers in their side.

  • on June 21, 2012, 7:37 GMT

    Utter hogwash! If 50 over cricket has an effect on basic clicking skills, then T20 has even more of an effect on the same. It's not just about crowds and half empty/full stadiums, you know. What a ramble and a bore!

  • on June 21, 2012, 7:33 GMT

    The best part of the article was " For a large chunk of a 50-overs innings - from the 15th to the 40th - we have a situation where a batting team is happy to get four runs an over and the opposition is happy to concede them. Where is the contest"? But lets take a example teams can't be evaluated by just seeing T20 only why Pakistan is good @ T20 and not doing well @ 50 over cricket how you define this scenario?

  • on June 21, 2012, 7:32 GMT

    Also: 2 days ago Cricinfo's facebook page put up a photograph from the epic Aus v SA semi-final from the 1999 world cup. Watch that game and tell me we need to get rid of ODIs afterwards. An ODI tournament played with context is still the best way to determine the best cricket team in the world. End of.

  • ListenToMe on June 21, 2012, 7:31 GMT

    ODI was boring in the 20-40 overs always. When I was a child, I use to watch ODIs in the first 20 and last 10 overs only. At that time itself I had thought why this game is 50 overs? If it were 40 overs with just 20-30 overs being a low scoring period, you won't see it boring and still it can use the skills of both bowlers and batsmen. Dear Sanjay, do you think that a 20-20 really test a bowler's or batsman's skills? I agree that a best bowler or a best batsman might perform good, but a worst bowler or a worst bastman can win a lot of matches too. Do you want a game to be dependent mainly on luck? I request the authorities to make ODI a 40 overs game and make sporting pitches which really test batsmen. You will see a lot of people watching an ODI on TV. Please don't kill it.

  • on June 21, 2012, 7:27 GMT

    The fault isn't with the format, it is with the scheduling. As I write this, NEO Cricket is showing an ad (a ridiculous one at that) for the upcoming SL v Ind series - a series that is limited to ODIs and T20s. Quite apt because it is this sort pointless bilateral series that has even allowed questions such as yours, Mr Manjrekar, to be posed. Also your argument about ODIs having a detrimental effect on the techniques of cricketers is unsound I think. If we follow through your argument, we are left with cricketers who need to shift between the two extremes of Tests and T20s. Watching the new breed of IPL-hyped Indian batsmen in England last year, I would have thought that this shift between Tests and T20s isn't necessarily the easiest to make. ODIs, therefore, is the perfect middle ground.

    Limit ODIs to the WC competition and perhaps a tri-nation or two leading up to it while cutting out ODIs from bilateral fixtures? That's seems like the most logical step forward to me.

  • on June 21, 2012, 7:25 GMT

    This is really a bad assesment! I am really dissapointer with the writer!! T20 is killing all the great fun! Waiting till the last over is not the fun! The fun is teh agility of the players to play longer and play with their minds too! Take the example of sri lanka vs Australia match where Mathews and Malinga pulled out a record 100 run partnership to win the match! That doesnt happen in t20! T20 is just a game about who had the luckiest day! My favourite formats are 50 50 and test

  • on June 21, 2012, 7:21 GMT

    Mr Manjrekar, few days back you were supporting IPL(main casue of INDIA's slupm in test) but still i was ok with that. but this article is too much ODI' crikcet is affecting the batsmen's technique???? what are saying buddy.AND T20 is improving the batsmen technique?

    Its a joke really.

  • on June 21, 2012, 7:20 GMT

    Disagree completely. ODI cricket embodies both test and T20 cricket to offer somethings that neither of the other two formats could do alone - such as actually allowing "building" of an innings from cautious starts to explosive finishes. Further, bowlers actually get a chance to make up for a bad day in a limited overs match - first spell of 2 or 3 overs weren't so good, but the next 2 may be fantastic. You won't get the chance to see either of these in T20. A final point would be the fact that the cricket world cup is a tradition that has (almost) always been a successful event, bringing all the cricket world together every 4 years. I don't think a 2-week tournament every 2 years will eclipse the aura that the world cup and ODI cricket has earned.

    Give me an ODI over a T20 any day.

  • ramankk on June 21, 2012, 7:18 GMT

    Just to deviate from the topic,Cricinfo should have a feature where these so-called experts take up viewers Q's & Ans thm or have a healthy discussion on their article.Ofcourse,you need to moderate it but atleast both the parties would be involved.Just putting up any of your opinion and sitting back doesn't really help.

  • dariuscorny on June 21, 2012, 7:14 GMT

    Sanjay i know you have been asked to endorse IPL but not at the cost of odis.odis are still popular.meagre magnitude of spectators during last Eng-Ind odi matches do not suggest odis have become less prominent.it was scheduled at the wrong time between two teams who played each other recently.i believe if the no. of odis are limited there would be no overkil for the viewers.same goes with t20s ,i bet if there is too much t20,t20s too will face hard consequences,so in my opinion schedules should be made such a way which maintains the excitement level for every format and ofcourse length of IPL should also be shortened or else we will witnes only few hundreds of people in stadiums

  • on June 21, 2012, 7:11 GMT

    Isn't the real problem with ODIs the massive saturation scheduling of meaningless bi-lateral series, the vast majority of which are forgotten 5 minutes after they are finished? Restrict ODIs to World Cups and replace all other ODIs with a World ODI League with promotion and relegation every year. If the top associate nations are included you could have 3 divisions of 6 or 7 countries, play each team in your division twice at home and twice away (every country then gets 10 or 12 home matches and the same number of away matches) and completely get rid of all the other meaningless ODIs. The fans would have something they could understand and get a bit of passion about match outcomes and I bet the crowds all over the world would start coming back to the matches and following them.

  • on June 21, 2012, 7:11 GMT

    Formula1 lasts a couple of hours without forcing the viewers to choose between formats - and it's one race a fortnight; Football games last 90 minutes without any advertisements in between and are restricted to the weekend; Tennis games don't take as long to complete. The other side of the argument - the BCCI - are they interested in promoting any cricket, other than the IPL? What does it tell you if N Srinivasan is the owner of an IPL franchise? You've written a eulogy of sorts for the ODI's here.. so will not touch that format of cricket here. The test team - we can't play seam and bounce, and there's no one who can spin the ball. All our test matches will be during the week and we will all follow cricket through Cricinfo etc and watch highlights. So - the question to be asked is - does cricket, beyond IPL, have a future in India?

  • Rudra_Murthy on June 21, 2012, 7:11 GMT

    Guys enough of talking about cutting down the number of ODI's to 3. Assume some nation won a 3-match ODI series by 2-1, does that mean the winning nation is better than the other? Can anyone prove it statistically??

  • on June 21, 2012, 7:09 GMT

    makes no sense at all how are you expecting t20s parent to walk out just because the child is enjoying success? i bet you, people will ask for more odis once we start getting rid of them the thrill you get watching the last ten overs after an entire innings of building up to the chase or setting a target is something priceless too bad t20 cant even dream of nearing such a climax.

  • ziggy500 on June 21, 2012, 7:08 GMT

    oh yeah, coz t20 doesn't harm the game either. really, in t20 the term 'bowled out' is gone. there is no real strategy, just hit or be hit.what can you do with ball in 20 overs, certainly not swing. maybe make every single ball a slower ball. what one day does bad, t20 does wors

  • Rudra_Murthy on June 21, 2012, 6:48 GMT

    Just answer me one question Mr.Sanjay Manjrekar why is that they always have a batting pitch prepared for T20s and whenever a bowling pitch is prepared why is that everyone criticizes it? And you opine that immature T20 should be buried for a mature ODI???

  • ramankk on June 21, 2012, 6:41 GMT

    Still think ODI's have a life.Why can't they make an ODI a 40-over a side match with PP remaining the same or PP1 & PP2 b/w 0-15 overs and then PP3 b/w 25-30!Also,no point playing 5-ODI's per series as the teams are currently playing.Make it 3 ODI's per series,3-Tests and a couple of T20's.

  • S.Jagernath on June 21, 2012, 6:21 GMT

    I personally feel each of the 3 formats have their place in the world.A common tour should have 3 T20s,3 ODIs & 3 Tests.For special series the tests may increase up to 5.I love ODIs,the thrill of the late 90s matches when I was young was truly brilliant.Players like Tendulkar,Klusener,Ponting,Bevan,Akram,Waqar,Akhtar,Gibbs & a few others.These days ODI pitches are just too flat & that leads to monotonous cricket.Variation in pitches,like in the 90s,will always intrigue cricket lovers.People who do not love cricket,should just not watch or attend the matches.

  • Sandman5five on June 21, 2012, 5:49 GMT

    Sanjay, a lot of the ills you find with ODIs, like "cricketers with limited talents making it big", "Bowlers thinking economy instead of wickets" and "flat pitches giving rise to attacking batsmen who hit through the line without moving their feet" are only magnified manifold in T20s! In fact, even when ODIs were around our cricketers still managed to hang on to a decent level of technique and temperament (which is necessary to build an innings in an ODI). Even bowlers have to use their head/skill to EARN a wicket in an ODI (especially during the 15th to 40th over phase). In T20 even the worst of deliveries can fetch you a wicket, because the batsman is looking to score the maximum off every delivery! And the harm that IPL and other copycat leagues are doing to the mindsets of upcoming cricketers cannot be stated enough! So if you have to bury anything, please BURY T20s. Thank you.

  • on June 21, 2012, 5:44 GMT

    ODIs are much better format than 20-20 . As other have put...we can remember exciting ODI and test matches and not a single 20-20 ... ODIs require all the skill needed to be a test player and there have been many exciting finishes.Then how can u scrap the format and expect the wrold cup to be relevant. I am from India and can tell you that ODIs are still popular..all these talks to scrap it should be rubbished away

  • khaledys2 on June 21, 2012, 5:36 GMT

    its very unfortunate to hear all these from a guy who played a lot of cricket. he means he wishes 50 over game should vanish

  • venkatesh018 on June 21, 2012, 5:36 GMT

    Sanjay, How have u suddenly become "enlightened" about the ills of Limited Overs Cricket? Anyway a nice article, posing very relevant questions to the administrators.

  • on June 21, 2012, 5:24 GMT

    I agree that one day cricket has lost its meaning in modern times. Hell,there is no doubt about it. As you mentioned,it is only given context in a world cup setting or champions league (provided the series is not long and drawn out for months)these days. But,I cant help but dip into the past and see how it has transformed the game of cricket as a whole since the 70's.The australians were a good example of this positive change.They brought in the concept of attacking test cricket.Australians have always been aggressive cricketers throughout history,however with one day cricket it made them realize that attacking cricket as a concept can be taken to another level(wc wins). Under steve waugh(&punter),they were able to procure run rates of 4 in test cricket to decimate opposition into submission. Sure they had the players to do it,but as a concept I think one day cricket paved the belief system the world over. That being said,in modern times it has lost out to 20 over cricket.Rightly so.

  • on June 21, 2012, 5:15 GMT

    100 Percent agreed with Sanjay.

  • on June 21, 2012, 5:14 GMT

    This entire article is a contradiction. If players adapt it in 20/20 then its digging deep and if they do it 50 over cricket then its bits and pieces cricketers making a long career? Really? Shall we start counting the limited players who cant play a test match to save their lives currently playing in T20's all over the world. Manjrekar has been doing this since T20 first came about. But his arguments in this article are poorly thought out.

  • on June 21, 2012, 5:13 GMT

    The excessive number of ODI's may warrant a scaling back of the number played. But ODI and Test cricket is still far better than T20. And if we are going to discuss a form of the sport that is over played, let's go with T20. Taking into account the Domestic circuits of the 10 Test Nations, International games and other international tournaments, the 2011/12 and 2012 seasons will play 510 games all up. That sounds like overkill to me.

  • on June 21, 2012, 5:03 GMT

    I don't see why all three formats of Cricket can not co-exist with each other. People seem to be jumping on the bandwagon without realizing, that with so much T20 matches being played these days, sooner or later, people will tire of it. They will want to watch something more substantial like ODI or test matches. Instead of talking about getting rid of ODI, they should find solutions to rejuvenate the format by introducing new rules etc. Personally, I prefer ODI because it is something I have grown up watching and feel that, it takes greater sense of skills and talent to excel in this format.

  • pratn on June 21, 2012, 5:02 GMT

    I have a proposal - T20 Classic. It's T20 with Test match rules so you only need two bowlers minimum. No fielding restrictions. No runs for mishits behind the wicket. This will end the mindless strokeplay and reward good batting.

  • on June 21, 2012, 5:02 GMT

    Rubbish article. I have objections to some points raised here by Manjrekar: 1) ODI cricket has got rid of swing, pace, seam, spin and harmed batsmen's technique. Fact is Mr. Manjrekar nothing has harmed the art of spin and swing bowling and eroded batsmen's technique more than T20 game.

    2)ODI has resulted in flat pitches. Mr. Manjrekar I dont recall a single T20 game that has provided a sporty pitch thus far. The T20 pitches are even flatter

    3)In ODI from 15th-40th over the batting side takes 4 singles and the fielding side concedes it. Fact is if the teams play defensively then the format can not be held responsible for that. Teams have to learn to play attacking cricket and ODI format does not stop them from doing that

  • nebulae on June 21, 2012, 5:01 GMT

    Ok, So you bury ODI's, play lesser T20's and play around 10 Tests in an year. What are you going to do rest of the time?? Just play IPL?? You have to maintain right amount of international cricket to maintain the interest in the game.

  • SatyajitM on June 21, 2012, 4:51 GMT

    Sanjay, "T20 is the new, faster-paced version of 50-overs cricket, like a new processor in a computer, which mostly does the same things but quicker." -- That's a very wrong analysis if you know computers. A faster processor only does things faster pace and hence always more desirable than a slower one. Can't say the same while comparing 50 and 20 over formats. T20 is a much less test of your skill than ODI. If a fast bowler is bowling really well, in T20 you have to survive 2 over (at most 3), in ODI it can be at least 5 (and could be 6 or 7) which is similar to single spell of Test. Same with facing good spin bowlng. Of course in T20 you need to keep scoring, but to restrict scoring most bolwers lose their variety (in a fashion much worse than ODI). So, ODI is still better test of skill than T20 while T20 has the advantage of finishing the match in 3 hrs time. I think bilateral long ODI series and ODI only serieses should be dropped but the format itself is good to have.

  • gravapine on June 21, 2012, 4:48 GMT

    I think it is time to end meaning less ODI series. Lke if a 5 Match ODI series is there then if it is 3-1 then discard the 5th ODI. Also ODI games played between the same teams is making boring to watch. Just look at the number of ODI games India is playing against SL. Its so boring to see same teams playing.

    Also T20 is entertaining because they are unpredictable right from ball one. ODI's are mostly predictable in between 15 to 40.

  • TheOnlyEmperor on June 21, 2012, 4:44 GMT

    *Yawn*. T20 is the bad guy out to kill Test and ODI cricket - this is the rant of the old-age cricket writers. Tell us something new.

  • Mr_Anonymous on June 21, 2012, 4:42 GMT

    I think that the World Cup is an important tournament for keeping the interest in ODIs alive. I do feel though that a series of 5 (or 7 in some cases) ODIs is a big issue in lowering the interest. I think the max number of ODIs in a bilateral series should be 3. I do see ODIs as more interesting if more than 2 countries participate. Perhaps some thought can be given to staging a Benson and Hedges World Championship (like in 1985) tournament for ODIs every year (which would be like a mini world-cup) to sustain interest in this format. In my mind, the more interesting development would be the appearance of a format like T40's where you have 2 innings of T20 each (so more like a test match in that sense but limited overs and you limit the advantage to the side batting first or bowling first as compared to a 50-over ODI). I can't even imagine how things will be in 20 years. I know that I doubt I will ever watch a complete 5-day Test Match (~30h) again, probably just follow the scores.

  • Pacelikefire_Samrat on June 21, 2012, 4:38 GMT

    Excellent article Sanjay.But the purists can whine as much as they want about the impact ODI's have had on the bowlers.The limited overs format is heavily stacked in favour of the batsman no doubt,but at the same time it has encouraged bowlers to think on their feet.Take for example the slower ball from the back of the hand or the different variations employed the tweakers.With the present day pitches and the bats they use these days,even in test matches bowlers have become ineffective.Its not fair to blame ODI's for the decline of the bowling standards.ODI's have been existent since 1971 and we have had bowlers who have been successful in both formats.Like the saying goes," A champion in one era will always be a champion in the other" similarly a great bowler will always find ways to dominate the batsman and be successful in any format.

  • Shasheen on June 21, 2012, 4:35 GMT

    India vs England series did not attract big crowds because Indian Team was missing few biggest crowd pullers like Sachin Tendulkar, Yuvraj Singh, Zaheer Khan, Harbhajan Singh, Rohit Sharma Etc.... Other reason may be that India and England were playing continuously for 3months before.... Final Conclusion : Any Match that will feature Sachin Tendulkar will be a sell out at any part of world

  • Fauzer on June 21, 2012, 4:33 GMT

    No Sanjay, it is not the time to bury the ODI. ODI is still real cricket, a fan can still be absorbed in it, while it can also throw up the fire works. Does anyone remember anything that goes on in a soda pop 20 over game? KEEP THE ODI!!

  • harshthakor on June 21, 2012, 4:28 GMT

    It would be one of the greatest losses to the game to lose the 50 over one day International.It is 50 over cricket that transformed test Cricket.Much better fielding standards were created and scoring rates also phenomenally increased in test match cricket,because of the advent of one day Cricket.Now days twice as many test matches have results than in previous eras.One day cricket made batsman more innovative and forced them to improvise.It also taught batsman how to adapt to run chases and organise their innings.

    Without one-day cricket would the skills of Sir Viv Richards,Sachin Tendulkar or Wasim Akram be completely expressed.Tendulkar's and Viv Richard's best came in one day cricket.It was the one day game that gave us the cricket world cup-an unforgettable event-which produced some of the most enthralling cricket ever seen.One day Cricket has produced some of the greatest finishes and turnabouts and today may even be on par with test cricket.

  • on June 21, 2012, 4:27 GMT

    Well explained throughout. But I think Sanjay, you were harsh in saying "A lot of cricketers with limited talents - bits-and-pieces cricketers, in-betweeners, neither very good batsmen nor very good bowlers - made long careers out of it." Wasn't ODI's the need of an hour back in 1980's? Besides T20's seem to be culling the hen that gives Golden Eggs. The fanatic cricketer follower in me has somewhere vanished in the IPL's. Also, the suspicious cloud to wager over the T20 results these days. Awaiting your coloum on Test cricket. @kunalpraut

  • vivek1997 on June 21, 2012, 4:27 GMT

    my personal opinion is that ODI requires both these things , playing yourself to get set and then hitting with your skills, tests require the former and t20s the latter, so ODI's shouldn't be burried down as it helps detemine a cricketer's mettle and skills both in defence and attack . also t20s should be limited to domestic leagues , it shouldn't be played at international level unless it's a world cup , and also there should be 3 tests and 3 odi's in each series . by this way i think everything will go along nicely.

  • on June 21, 2012, 4:20 GMT

    my suggestion is t20 should be taken off

  • bobagorof on June 21, 2012, 4:20 GMT

    "Learning from the damage done by one-dayers, if the number of T20s played is kept down and matches are made relevant, T20 cricket can do no worse than ODI cricket". How many people actually believe that the number of Twenty20 matches will be kept down? Already we have seen Test series curtailed to fit in an extra Twenty20 or two. If ODIs are scrapped or pared back, Twenty20 will jump in to fill the space. They will then find, years down the track, that they have the same problems that ODIs have had after their initial entrance. Such a short sighted view.

  • rahulcricket007 on June 21, 2012, 4:18 GMT

    OH NO SANJAY , WHAT R YOU TALKING HERE ? DID N'T YOU SEE THE LAST CB SERIES OR THE WC LAST YEAR OR THE ASIA CUP WHERE MOST MATCHES FINISHES IN THRILLING MANNER . @JONATHAN JOSEPHS , WHY WOULD INDIAN FANS WILL HATE ODIS , IT IS THE ONLY FORMAT WHERE INDIAN TEAM 'S PERFORMANCE HAS BEEN GOOD .

  • on June 21, 2012, 4:16 GMT

    I think all formats are there to stay. They have their own flavour and rhythm. I believe in the future there will be almost an entirely different team for each format. Obviously, test cricket is clearly in danger especially because no one has the time to sit around for 5 days and watch 22 people run around a big field while 2 others stand waving their arms.

  • SouthPaw on June 21, 2012, 4:16 GMT

    Excellent post Sanjay! ODI brought in the right change from Test cricket to balance a long format with a short format that guaranteed results. However, like you say, in the middle overs (as large as a 30 over chunk) the ODI meanders and today, it has the unfortunate distinction of neither here nor there.

    In other words, the ODI has passed the "use by date" and should seriously be canned.

  • on June 21, 2012, 4:09 GMT

    It is too hasty to say that 50 overs cricket should be scrapped. I think the game still has a huge following which is evident in the crowds for most of the bilateral series' played in India or even in other countries like Aus, SA and Eng. An exciting 50 over game has much more thrills and spills to satiate the cricket fan's appetite. 50 over cricket I feel is a more evolved and much refined format than T20 cricket. It requires more skill, patience and technique to conquer. I think there's still a lot going for ODI cricket and we might see T20 dying before ODIs. But yes, ICC desperately needs to regulate the quantity of all cricket to make the product premium.

  • desireuben1 on June 21, 2012, 3:59 GMT

    manjeraker has gone crazy, 20/20 has only been there for less than one decade and we are already seeing people losing interests in it. this type of discussion should arise after a format of game is been there for minimum 25 years and still popular (in terms of number of people come to watch it, not how much money is made by cricketers or boards)

  • 1st_april on June 21, 2012, 3:58 GMT

    Great article....exactly what i see in 50 over cricket....it is neither this nor that....Bowlers attack in tests and t20s...while 50 over is docile....teams always recover from an early collapse in 50 over cricket...because the nature always them to...that itself sums up

  • Heisenburg on June 21, 2012, 3:40 GMT

    I enjoy ODI cricket, all that needs to be done is completely ban 7 match bilingual series, and completely remove useless ODI series, like this current Australia vs England.

  • on June 21, 2012, 3:30 GMT

    what?!?! it's the only format in which india can currently win games outside the subcontinent. it also helps players transition easily from one format to the next. it definitely needs to stay, otherwise you'll have T20 and Test specialists.

  • johnathonjosephs on June 21, 2012, 3:24 GMT

    @Kaze, 100% right mate. Why do people say ODI's are boring? We just had a great ODI series with Sri Lanka/Pakistan and the last CB series was amazing. In fact, the only people who seem to hate on ODI's/Tests are the Indian fans. Must be part of the IPL experience. The truth of the fact is, the rest of the world enjoys real cricket and we're not going to sack the game because of one population

  • Mervo on June 21, 2012, 3:20 GMT

    No they are more game of cricket and use most of the skills that cricketers have. I think that the 20/20 game should go. They are very limited as games of cricket, and so boring. Would never be missed.

  • Kaze on June 21, 2012, 3:19 GMT

    Time to bury the T20 it is downright boring. I can remember loads of exceptional ODIs and Tests but not one T20. T20 is so rushed that it ceases to have much meaning.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Kaze on June 21, 2012, 3:19 GMT

    Time to bury the T20 it is downright boring. I can remember loads of exceptional ODIs and Tests but not one T20. T20 is so rushed that it ceases to have much meaning.

  • Mervo on June 21, 2012, 3:20 GMT

    No they are more game of cricket and use most of the skills that cricketers have. I think that the 20/20 game should go. They are very limited as games of cricket, and so boring. Would never be missed.

  • johnathonjosephs on June 21, 2012, 3:24 GMT

    @Kaze, 100% right mate. Why do people say ODI's are boring? We just had a great ODI series with Sri Lanka/Pakistan and the last CB series was amazing. In fact, the only people who seem to hate on ODI's/Tests are the Indian fans. Must be part of the IPL experience. The truth of the fact is, the rest of the world enjoys real cricket and we're not going to sack the game because of one population

  • on June 21, 2012, 3:30 GMT

    what?!?! it's the only format in which india can currently win games outside the subcontinent. it also helps players transition easily from one format to the next. it definitely needs to stay, otherwise you'll have T20 and Test specialists.

  • Heisenburg on June 21, 2012, 3:40 GMT

    I enjoy ODI cricket, all that needs to be done is completely ban 7 match bilingual series, and completely remove useless ODI series, like this current Australia vs England.

  • 1st_april on June 21, 2012, 3:58 GMT

    Great article....exactly what i see in 50 over cricket....it is neither this nor that....Bowlers attack in tests and t20s...while 50 over is docile....teams always recover from an early collapse in 50 over cricket...because the nature always them to...that itself sums up

  • desireuben1 on June 21, 2012, 3:59 GMT

    manjeraker has gone crazy, 20/20 has only been there for less than one decade and we are already seeing people losing interests in it. this type of discussion should arise after a format of game is been there for minimum 25 years and still popular (in terms of number of people come to watch it, not how much money is made by cricketers or boards)

  • on June 21, 2012, 4:09 GMT

    It is too hasty to say that 50 overs cricket should be scrapped. I think the game still has a huge following which is evident in the crowds for most of the bilateral series' played in India or even in other countries like Aus, SA and Eng. An exciting 50 over game has much more thrills and spills to satiate the cricket fan's appetite. 50 over cricket I feel is a more evolved and much refined format than T20 cricket. It requires more skill, patience and technique to conquer. I think there's still a lot going for ODI cricket and we might see T20 dying before ODIs. But yes, ICC desperately needs to regulate the quantity of all cricket to make the product premium.

  • SouthPaw on June 21, 2012, 4:16 GMT

    Excellent post Sanjay! ODI brought in the right change from Test cricket to balance a long format with a short format that guaranteed results. However, like you say, in the middle overs (as large as a 30 over chunk) the ODI meanders and today, it has the unfortunate distinction of neither here nor there.

    In other words, the ODI has passed the "use by date" and should seriously be canned.

  • on June 21, 2012, 4:16 GMT

    I think all formats are there to stay. They have their own flavour and rhythm. I believe in the future there will be almost an entirely different team for each format. Obviously, test cricket is clearly in danger especially because no one has the time to sit around for 5 days and watch 22 people run around a big field while 2 others stand waving their arms.