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 3, 2013, 5:05 GMT


Tri series are much better as in the 90's like the vb series

July 3, 2013, 2:48 GMT


India didn't field well and didn't bat well. That's why they lose by a big margin.

July 2, 2013, 18:13 GMT


Bilateral series are better than tri-series, because tri series tend to end up as a "third wheel" scenario way too often. I prefer both bilateral and quadrangular series to a tri-series, because of this effect.

A tri series has one too many team for there to be an intense personal rivalry between opponents, but too few teams to be truly competitive. Series with 4-6 teams ( perhaps include two non-test teams in a 6-team series) taking place once in a while might be a better concept than random tri-series.

July 2, 2013, 15:45 GMT


Bilateral series ensures that the home side is involved in all matches played. In a tri-series, matches between two visiting teams have scarce attendance and probably less viewership on television. This was very evident in Australia in the last decade, which made them cancel the annual tri-series and have bilateral series instead. With the dwindling viewership/attendance for ODIs, it's the matches without context and relevance that will kill ODIs. We need proper tournaments like the Champions Trophy and World Cup to keep them alive.

July 2, 2013, 13:08 GMT


Yes, Bilateral Series are way better than tri-series, but I would definitely wanna

see an INDIA-PAKISTAN-BANGLADESH TRI-SERIES because I believe this is

going to change the landmark of ODI cricket & what better way to have three

of the topmost strongest & competitive sub-continent teams battle it out for


July 2, 2013, 11:35 GMT


Tri-series become a flop if the home team is knocked off early. Yes, I have enjoyed the tri-series and the quadrangular series, but a success of the series is now measured by the gate collections and TPR's. These parameters are drastically down if the home team is not in a game. With this said I support the argument that ODI's should be bilateral and T20's should be a tri-series; Actually bilateral T20's have become a dud

July 2, 2013, 9:02 GMT


Both are good in it's own ways.

But my suggestion is ODI's should be kept bilateral.T20'S should start getting Tri-Nation tournaments,because T20s with two teams itself is very entertaining,if you add one more team into the mix,then you will have a blast!

July 2, 2013, 8:49 GMT


Tri Series or Quadrangular series give much more charm and quality as compared to bilateral series as one gets bored by seeing two same teams playing with each other time and time again. ICC should do some needful measures to revive such competitive Tri series atleast which we used to have in Australia. I don't really know why Australia has discontinued that. That series was being anxiously waited atleast by me for the whole year, doesn't matter which two teams except australia are playing. Hope it restarts. (Y)

July 2, 2013, 4:53 GMT


tri series make cricket more interesting.hope this run continue

July 2, 2013, 2:20 GMT


From the perspective of spectator turnout the tri-series may not be the best proposition. Here is a possible scenario with the present Tri-series in the W.I.: W.I vs India- good turnout W.I vs Sri Lanka - good turnout India vs Sri Lanka- average turnout Final- India vs Sri Lanka- average to poor turnout Conclusion- both formats have their advantages.

July 1, 2013, 18:51 GMT


Bilateral series are better

July 1, 2013, 13:58 GMT


It is always more interesting when another team is thrown into the mix. It will be hard to accomplish this unless the schedules are worked out well. but I must admit that I'm rather more excited by this series than I would be with a two nation series. As for the crowds they will return if Windies continue to improve. Twenty 20 cricket is entertaining but lacks the real essence of cricket. What we need are players of the calibre of Viv Richards, Michael Holding, Gordon Greenidge, Malcolm Marshall, Curtly Ambrose etc. who can sustain the excitement over longer periods. Those guys were NEVER boring!

July 1, 2013, 11:04 GMT


I think realistically because of scheduling concerns it would be very hard to get 3 teams to play. I think a home/away series should be there. This would include 2-3 tests, 3 ODI and 3 T20. The T20's are the best way for boards to make money.why have less than half seats empty at 5 ODI's when you can get full house for the T20's

However, with no more CT the tri-series may become meaningful and interesting

July 1, 2013, 11:04 GMT

suresh kumar

if one more match added to each team in ongoing tri serious, it would be more intresting. 3+3+1 would be ideal than 2+2+1 in tri series.

July 1, 2013, 10:37 GMT


tri series are good as the host team will be tested always

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

July 3, 2013, 3:50 GMT


I'm all for tri-series or quadrangular series. Bilateral series often end up with several meaningless games, whereas when you have series involving a number of teams there are more games with something riding on them. Also, in today's revenue-driven world, surely it would be more lucrative for nations to host several visiting teams - it would appeal to a wider audience and draw different people into the grounds depending on who was playing. Naturally, games involving the home team will always draw a bigger crowd, but it is nice to see the variation which arises when there are series involving multiple teams.

July 3, 2013, 1:37 GMT


Triangular series are undoubtedly the better option than a boring 5 match bilaterial series. Bi Laterlal series gets boring many times with same teams playing each other and more often it is more predicable and boring. In Triangular series, there are more calculations to be done than just playing each ODI.

July 3, 2013, 0:47 GMT


In my view, the era of 90s was much better than toaday. Why, because there were always try series and quadruple series. I believe that those small series were the main reason for quick build up of a team. A associate team can be easily trained by these small series. We have the example in front of us. Sri lanka were considered a minnow in late 80s and early 90s. It was small tournaments like try series which made them a mature team so early. But then we again have the examples of other associate teams of early 2000s era (kenya) which have never got success because of the lack of try series. Even the rate of improvement of the teams slowed down due to the elimination of those small series. Those small series used to give so much confidence to a minnow when they used to win a game against the test side. Secondly, the people used to take more interest in a small tournament such as Sharjah, benson and hedges cup and other small tournaments.

July 2, 2013, 23:33 GMT


Tri-Seriesare better because you will get to see amazing players and matchups people always relish; Malinga-Gayle, Gayle-Ashwin, etc. It creates much more hype and it gets boring watching the same 2 teams play 5-6 matches

July 2, 2013, 17:00 GMT


I agree with Sachit. I am also biased towards tri series tournaments. Bilateral series can be monotonous. It makes no sense to play a 5 match 50 over bilateral series especially in this t20 era. The perfect tour in my opinion should start with a single t20 match. A tri series. A 3 match test series. I still don't understand why we have even number of matches in a series. There can be no clear winner in those. It's probably due to tight schedules I guess. Also gone are the days of a one off test match. We certainly don't need a two match t 20 bilateral series. I would love to see a 3 match t20 series. Never had one of those.

July 2, 2013, 14:28 GMT


The multi-team tournaments always produce more interest because of the qualification scenarios which arise and they will be more interesting when teams like India and england are involved. I would love to have a quadrangular involving India, england, south africa and pakistan in england or a neutral venue like sharjah.

July 2, 2013, 13:43 GMT


To keep the game alive and kicking on all fronts, I believe in the dictum - The More the Merrier. Multilateral series, on neutral venues are definitely more interesting and entertaining for the spectators. I am looking forward to cricket coming back to neutral venues like Toronto, Sharjah and Malaysia, once the numerous betting scandals die down.

July 2, 2013, 13:41 GMT

bikram pratap

I will go with Tri Series. But at the same time i m sure we will see more and more bilateral series just because of home team playing in every match factor. Two neutral teams (if India is not one of them) playing in an odi match doesn't attract any board.

July 2, 2013, 12:48 GMT


I Wish There Were More And More Multiple-Country Cups. We Could Also Have An ODI Champions Trophy In Every 3/4 Years With Say 5-6 Teams Playing Against Each Other!

July 2, 2013, 12:31 GMT


The Tri-series will always be better as far as creating more interest for the sport is concerned, but nothing is wrong with bi-laterareals either, once it is cricket that is being played. However, THE REAL THING is MORE INTERNATIONAL TOURNAMENTS. But I see ICC are trying to reduce the regularity with which they are being played, even though it's not enough already! I think some sort of international cricket tournamanet should take place every year - call it what you want. All it does is create MORE PROMOTION FOR THE SPORT. So what is wrong with that? At the same time too, TEST CRICKET IS THE REAL DEAL and anything that interferes with its continued development and promotion must be axed immediately from the cricket itinerary!

July 2, 2013, 12:09 GMT


I am in full support of the Triangular / Quadrangular Series. They rarely produce a dead rubber.

July 2, 2013, 11:59 GMT


If the third team is India then the neutral games involving India will also have a huge TV audience. In India tri-series may not be a good idea where in a bilateral would be good.

July 2, 2013, 11:23 GMT


If it gets India, England, and Australia to play someone other than India, England, and Australia, sure! Maybe we should have also have Test cricket tri-series. A specific clause must be jotted down that says at no one time may England, Australia and India participate in the same tri-series though :p

July 2, 2013, 10:26 GMT


Tri-series is always interesting than a bilateral, especially the 5 or 7 match sagas. But the tri-series tournaments should be planned better and should not happen as the current one, where i guess the organisers have gone nuts to schedule a series in Caribbean with 2 sub-continent teams and matches start at 8PM IST and finish at 3.30PM IST. How can they expect more viewership for this?

July 2, 2013, 9:49 GMT


Yes.They are boring dull mundane

July 2, 2013, 9:29 GMT


I too enjoyed tri/quad series played 90s & early 2000s...Sharjah and B&H(commonwealth bank series now ). but what I see here is due to these multi lateral series,the test match may get further diminish. we need to have the test matches also in the same level as oDI and T20s...specially the real cricket n genuine skills/talent can be seen in test matches, bcos as we saw already the impact of toss, weather, luck is playing a significant part in shorter version. so in the sense of promoting and saving test cricket there may be a negative impact due to these series

July 2, 2013, 9:16 GMT


Tri-series have the following advantages: 1) Neutral games. The visiting teams rarely encounter each other in neutral venues. This is the best examination they can ask for since neither teams have an advantage over the other e.g. pitch, crowds, conditions 2) Home advantage. The home team can still dictate terms. This will work out even better if the home team is the worst ranked/performing among the three. 3) Scheduling: ICC will have lesser headaches in formulating a schedule for the Future tour plans. Instead of 5 match bilateral ODI series played among the three teams; making it 15 ODIs, the number of matches can be reduced. For e.g. a tri-series will have just 3+3+2 games, minimum. This means more room for Test cricket for the year. 4) Lower probability of a "dead rubber".

Tri-series any day.

July 2, 2013, 8:36 GMT


Tri-series are more competitive and will reduce "dead rubber" games. Specially BCCI loves these dead-rubber so much that the tournament is reduced to a useless formality. For instance, India have played Srilanka maybe 50 or more times over the last 5 years and most of them have been a one-on-one series. A tri-series will be better since there are 2 oppositions to each team and strategies against each other will differ. Moreover, the challenge of the "finals" will keep the teams alive. Else, consider a 5 match series in which one team has already won 3 or 4 matches. The last match has no significance at all....!!

July 2, 2013, 8:08 GMT


Tournaments are interesting than the bilateral series.

July 2, 2013, 7:31 GMT


Tri-series are much better as they give a sense of a tournament more than bilateral series.

July 2, 2013, 6:55 GMT


Tri-series is the way to go. Some of the best cricket did occur in the Australian annual tri-series. After a one-sided test series, there is a chance to get something back for the visiting team. Also the crowd/viewers get to see something else. Plus there are some neutral games and they test the neutral teams. For example, Ind and Pak playing in NZ or WI or SA is good to see which one is better. Otherwise SL vs Ind in SL or IND becomes boring with nothing new. Also waqar, wasim, walsh, ambrose, donald, pollock wtc all got a chance to shine in englnd or Australia. It makes a cricketer complete. There should be even tri-series tests. There is less crowd for neutral games - but not in India. Host a Wi vs NZ match at Indore, kochi, gawhati, Rajkot, or elsewhere and you still see big crowds. In other parts of the world anyway stand are empty even when the home team plays (of course there are exceptions).

July 2, 2013, 6:39 GMT


long waiting for worldcups and many nations playing a side can be reduced by watching 3 0r 4 great nations to play together and thats why tri or quadra series is far better than bilateral hope to be considerd by icc and arrange more bilateral 5 nation or 4 nation t20 series will be more effective tooo

July 2, 2013, 6:01 GMT


TRI-SERIES are the best when compared to BILATERALS

There is an ELEMENT of SURPRISE in Tri-Series, where bilaterals doesn't have. The home team always has an added advantage and upper hand such as crowd support, known conditions, well-read pitch condition, past results, day-night advantage, etc...

When it comes to Tri-series even sometimes the home team was blown away from finals. that makes tri-series quite a thrill.

July 2, 2013, 5:57 GMT


bilateral series takes the spice out of the game ,competing with the same opposition time and time again its good to have a tri-series, fans in India are waiting for the series in Sharjah of the late 90's and the early 2000 were having ,that tournament's were simply gr8

July 2, 2013, 5:25 GMT


This is a bit subjective. Depends which teams are playing. Sometime bilateral may get boring like the upcoming series of India vs Zim 5 ODI series. Triangular series brings a different angle to the tournament with 3rd team. And if all 3 teams are good like Ind, Eng, SA then the series will produce good amount of cricket and viewership.Don't remember when was the last time India played WestIndies/NZ/SA at home. Nowadays India play Sri Lanka too often for everyone's comfort. We can have a 3 test series in India in Oct with SA followed by 3 nation tournament with WI as 3rd team and then we can have another 3 test series with WI. So by Jan end we will have our quota of 2 home series in a year. Before IPL we used to have home series in Mar-Apr. That needs to addressed to sustain Test cricket. We need to have a fixed calendar for home matches. Further we can also have 3 nation T-20 series which will be real fun!!!

July 1, 2013, 16:24 GMT


tri series lot better coz v see diffrent teams playing . bi lateral gets too boring,seeing 2 teams play again and again :O

July 1, 2013, 15:47 GMT


Tri-Series are more interesting. Scheduling can be easy when tours are mixed/converged. Suppose Australia visits England for Test and ODIs and it is followed by India touring Englang for Test & ODIs. Towards the completion of Aus' tour India can arrive and a tri-series can be played. Then, India will play Tests only. This way two lengthy bilateral series can be turned into an interesting ODI Triangular.

July 1, 2013, 14:29 GMT


As long as they're not ridiculous six-week-long series like the Australian one 18 months ago, triangular/quadrangular series are more interesting.

July 1, 2013, 13:57 GMT


Tri-series add contexts to each game. each match is important to get points on the board and make it to final. There are rarely any dead rubbers. many bilaterals are one sided and feature dead rubbers and i find many of these matches largely meaningless

July 1, 2013, 12:50 GMT


I don't necessarily think a tri series is better especially if one or more of the teams is terrible but 5 match ODI games can get boring unless they are super competitive. What would be better is to have more tournaments like the Champions Tournament. Even a double round robin between 4 teams could be played in two weeks and gives the teams the chance to play a lot of different teams in a short period of time. Limited overs cricket is well suited to tournaments and gives some countries like the West Indies or Sri Lanka a great tourist boost.

July 1, 2013, 12:24 GMT


I think tri- series is much better in ODI rather than bilateral series .

July 1, 2013, 11:13 GMT


Tri-series is better than bilateral series

July 1, 2013, 10:43 GMT


Oh, this is a no brainer. The more teams in a tournament (unless some teams are there to make up the numbers), the more interesting, because there are so many possibilities, including run rates. But the key is to get some competitive teams. This tri-series involves such teams, and should be interesting if the teams play to their potential. But wickets are critical. I am very disappointed at the sluggish wickets on display in the WI.

July 1, 2013, 10:32 GMT


Triangular/quadrangular series are obviously better than bilateral series because these days in Cricket, there are far too many same boring bilateral series between India-Sri Lanka, Australia-England etc and it has now gotten to the point enough is enough. It would be more wise in Tri/Quad series, if 1 weaker team is also given a slot for example Bangladesh, India and New Zealand so not only they are getting enough opportunity but can also gain financially. Also i.e. Triangular series is short, competitive and interesting but do not convert the current formula to the one that use to be used for the Commonwealth Bank Series which was a huge disaster. According to the FTP, there are a quite a fair bit of Triangular series listed so that's good to see. My opinion, these Triangular series should be played more often than not when there is a World Cup coming around and would be great if associates also get a chance so that such tournaments will be competitive.

July 1, 2013, 10:21 GMT


Tri-sereis are much more meaningful and competitive and of course climax in a grand final which adds a touch of the championship effect. Ensuing out of a tri-series teams are much better able to evaluate their standing and build strategies for their game going forward.