In defence of the one-day international

The general consensus is the England-Australia series has been a poor advertisement for 50-over cricket. Matthew Hayden in the Independent writes that the series has been too long but ODIs still have their place and the format should not be tinkered with.

It's ridiculous that England and Australia are engaged in a seven-match one-day series. It is not what this summer needed or deserved. But two caveats. It's fine for us to walk around and run down these one-dayers because, ultimately, there are so many of them and we're on the road and see them every day. Well, tell that to these spectators who are filling grounds. It is their only day at the cricket, so that must be borne in mind.

And say that it's too many to Ravi Bopara, who's trying to get back into form, or to Adil Rashid, the young all-rounder, desperately trying to get back into England's side regularly. You can learn a lot and you have to keep this in perspective. Playing one-day cricket for your country is a wonderful experience.

Simon Barnes in the Times argues that the problem with ODIs is that the players have worked it out and teams form a sort of non-aggressive pact during the middle 25 overs of an innings.

As a result, now that 50 overs is the standard format for a one-day international, we have a period between the end of the fifteenth over and the start of the 41st in which the batters tip and tap their way on in nudged and nurdled singles that the fielding side are perfectly happy to concede.

Back in the Independent, Stephen Brenkley writes that of much greater concern than England being 4-0 down is the increasing uncertainty over the immediate playing futures of Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff.

In the Times, Rick Broadbent gets Michael Vaughan's opinion on the current stage of England's team.

With three dead rubbers to look forward to, the Guardian's Rob Smyth suggests the itinerary could have been fixed so that England and Australia played their Twenty20s and ODIs before the Ashes begun.