Take sides on the hot topics of the day

ODI cricket

July 1, 2013

Are bilateral series better for ODI cricket than tri-series?


There are no neutral games in bilateral events, which means all games will be well-attended. Besides, they assume added context when they are part of a full tour that includes a Test series.


Watching two teams play each other repeatedly can get boring. Longer bilaterals stand the risk of becoming one-sided and aggravating very quickly, and in the worst case, could feature dead rubbers. On the other hand, tri-series will very rarely feature inconsequential games.


© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

. Your ESPN name '' will be used to display your comments. Please click here to edit this.
Comments have now been closed for this article

July 3, 2013, 0:09 GMT


Bi-lateral series doesn't make sense to anyone.I haven't seen any good Bi-lateral series in years.Scores are always 5-2,4-1,5-0 and series is finished in first 3 games and rest is dead rubber. I used to remember when there were Tri-series in England and Australia, amazing grounds and conditions. Triangular series are always better due to their permutation and combinations. Idk why ICC has stopped tri-series in England or Australia. Playing in a neutral venue is always better. Bi-lateral has 5 to 7 matches so why not involve 3 teams with 2 rounds, matches would be same anyways. in 2011 Ind, Srl, Aus played in aus was so much fun but now due to non-sense bi-lateral series big players take rest and no fun at all. I remember in 90s we had so much of good cricket coz these triseries. now a team visits a country playing 5 odis, then within 3 days another teams comes in playing 5 odis so over all home team is playing 10 waste odis. so why not tri-series ,remember triseries ind,pak,aus in 99.

July 9, 2013, 5:47 GMT


Bi-lateral series is good for cricket. Players get ample chances to sort out their problems. Batsmen understand how to bat better against such bowling units similarly bowlers get more chances to think how to bowl better against good batting unit. Spectators get to see contest between the two teams with their favorite player sorting out their technical problem. In tri-series sponsors gets the benefit, but not cricket.

July 8, 2013, 6:58 GMT


i support tri series, but on one condition that it should be either Ind or SL as participating team. It is frustrating to see these two go head on in each n every series.

July 3, 2013, 5:24 GMT


In my opinion bilateral series is as important as tri-series. For commercial purpose and also to get rid of the monotonicity of bilateral series, cricket fans may want a tri-series. But that being said the bilateral series like Ashes, Border - Gavaskar trophy, Pataudi Trophy are as classy as any other high profile world tournaments in cricket. In fact my fondest memory of cricket would be sitting on the couch with a cup of coffee and watching a glorious day of cricket in Border- Gavaskar trophy or Ashes. So, to me both are equally important and in my opinion more test matches need to be played.

July 2, 2013, 8:59 GMT


Having grown up watching cricket in the 1990's, arguably the Golden era of triangular and quadrangular series, I am a bit biased towards them. Back in the 1990's there were annual fixtures for tri series - in April and October there were the Sharjah cup and in December we had the B&H/Carlton and United/VB Series in Australia which was in my opinion the pinnacle of the cricket calendar. The Aussie grounds, the fiery cricket involving legends of the game with the commentary of Messrs Benaud,Lawry,Greig et al was an absolute delight. Due to the 'neutral' games I understand the low attendances and the concerns of the organizers, but there's that added element of interest when 3 or 4 teams are involved. There are always many subplots than just Host Vs Visitor for 5 games. In my opinion there should be a few such multi-nation tournaments and Bilatteral ODI's should be kept to 3 match series.

July 9, 2013, 5:34 GMT


Triangular or Quadrangular Series are far better than Bilateral series

July 3, 2013, 9:31 GMT


Both have their merits. As part of a full tour, it's a good way for teams to suss each other out, and the visitors to get used to the conditions before a test series. However, the added context of bonus points and net run rates mean the last games of a triseries can still have some life. Unlike a bilateral series where a one sided contest will have dead rubbers. Furthermore, there is nothing worse than a 6 or 7 match bilateral series IMHO. Horrendously tedious.

July 3, 2013, 6:56 GMT

Hari Kishore

In my opinion, a triangular or a quadrangular series catch more attention and is interesting to watch. A bi-lateral series can become a dead rubber at times. Triangular series also mean that teams clash with different teams thereby modifying strategies, playing XI's (not always though) regularly. Bonus points, net-run rates etc add up to the excitement which gives the triangular series a definite edge. Bi-lateral series should be restricted to 3 matches that helps to retain the viewership.

July 3, 2013, 6:16 GMT


Tei-series r the best options. Matches have extra pressure and extra weightage due to points and need to qualify as winner makes matches sizzling. Sharjah cup, Standar bank trophy series in south africa, benson hages series in australi were the legacy of ODI cricket and since these tournaments ended, ODI cricket has become a paralyzed game with boring effect. It is my request hat plz arrange tournaments same like before 2003 era when every year 5-6 different tournaments in different part of world were organised and ODI cricket was hot those days...

July 3, 2013, 5:44 GMT


Tri- Series have some difficult contest. There should be more tri-series