Worth playing dead ODI rubbers

[irfan]

Just wondering cricketwebbers whether it's worth for teams to play all the games in an ODI series if one team has already won the series (like Ind (4-0) up against Eng in a 7 match series.)
The only positives to come out of ODI dead rubbers are that the winning team has an opportunity to blood new players who may not have truly earnt his selection and the losing team have a chance to reclaim lost 'pride.'
I can understand that in the year before a WC that teams want to play as much as games as possible to try out all their combinations so that they have a clearer idea of their best XI come WC time. But in non-WC years is pride and blooding new players worth enough to play meaningless ODIs. I know that ODI schedules are drawn up long before and the cancellation of games may lead to some venues missing out. Maybe tickets for the last games in a series should only be a sold if both results are possible. I know some cricket organisations see ODI's as they're main revenue but is playing 5,6 ODI's instead of 7 really going to make THAT big a difference for all the major countries?
So I am going to make a case for a basketball-type setup where the last matches in a series aren't played if one team has already won the series. That way the wiining team gets a well deserved break and the losing team doesn't get a chance to get unneccesarily demoralised further or restore confidence in meaningless wins against a second string linuep.

BTW, I am in no way saying that this should happen in tests. Ashes should ALWAYS be 5 tests.

[oz_fan]

You made some good points but yes.
If games have already been played in for example Sydney, Brisbane and Perth how would fans from Melbourne, Tasmania and Adelaide feel.

[irfan]

Keep shiftin the order of the venues for each series so every venue every season so all the venues have a fair go

[vic_orthdox]

Never going to happen. Unless crowds for dead rubbers become so low that the matches are unprofitable.

But still, State associations would never let it happen.

[Jungle Jumbo]

If there are too many dead rubbers, there are too many overstretched ODI series.

[chaminda_00]

there aren't enough dead rubber test cus there is too many Two Test series. Seven Match ODI series are a joke, i get bored after 3 ODIs, but that probably cus Sri Lanka is 3 nil down by that stage.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by irfan

So I am going to make a case for a basketball-type setup where the last matches in a series aren't played if one team has already won the series.

But Basketball is home and away, so can be easily cancelled.

If ODI series were cancelled then the grounds which have gone to great expense to promote the game and prepare the ground will all be lost money.

[open365]

ODIs provide good entertainment for the crowd and so they should be kept, even if it was possible to get rid of them.

[no1_gangsta_786]

It dosent matter if its a dead rubber...the team that has lost the series can play to gain more confidence, experiment more and play for pride as well as gaining more points to go up in the ODI rankings table.

[Langeveldt]

Its a good idea, but not going to happen..

Television companies have paid a lot of money to cover the games, locals have paid money to see the matches, the stadium has been booked etc. The compensation payouts would be enormous..

[Goughy]

They are still worth playing.
ODIs are about entertainment and people can still have a very enjoyable day out at the cricket even if the series has already been decided.

I think many who go to a game look to have a good time and enjoy the spectacle and the actual series result does not matter that much. Its all about what happends that day.

Going to an International cricket game is as much a life experience as anything else.

I do beleive that there are far too may meaningless ODIs played but as long as people want to watch them there will be games after the series has been decided.

[Goughy]

I would say the biggest argument against playing ODIs after the series has been decided is the posibility of match fixing.

If you are 3-0 up in a 5 match series you can 'throw' the 4th game in complete confidence of still winning the series.

In a number of sports it has been shown that if a team can 'fix' a game and still win overall that they are far more likely to do so.

[luckyeddie]

Originally Posted by Goughy

I would say the biggest argument against playing ODIs after the series has been decided is the posibility of match fixing.

If you are 3-0 up in a 5 match series you can 'throw' the 4th game in complete confidence of still winning the series.

In a number of sports it has been shown that if a team can 'fix' a game and still win overall that they are far more likely to do so.

Good point - I was going to 'playfully' suggest the same thing but the more I think about it....

The idea of 'blooding' a load of youngsters or just bringing in the second strings is something that happens now in football, but 30 years ago it was illegal.

Dirtyleeds United, once fielded their entire reserve side in a league match and got hammered, both on and off the pitch. Nowadays it's no different to the Wengerboys or Scum doing the same in the Worthless Cup, but of course no-one says a dickybird.

I never realised the full implications until now.

[irfan]

I understand that many people will disagree about this due to the financial implications which is fair enough. But just imagine their are no financial issues and from a purely cricketing perspective would you still want to see/participate in meaningless ODI's?

[GotSpin]

Reduce the number of ODI's played alltogether.