I agree it's a silly idea, not only it's a hell of alot of travelling just for a single game (just think WI - Australia), but when would you have the time to fit it all in? not only do you have each country play 2 Tests series (on avg a year) that would last a month + each, but 30 games a year would mean year round cricket of about 2 games a month, and they already moan about to much cricket as it is.Neil Pickup said:For people who haven't seen it, the plan is that all eleven ODI nations play each other three times a year, once at home, once away, and once at a neutral venue, making thirty games a year. Oh, and no World Cup.
To me, it will help nothing. Are these the same Aussies whinging about too many games and too much travelling? Besides, India and Pakistan will mess it up.
I don't have a problem with 7 ODI's but I think more tri series matches should be played.Tim said:I think 3 ODI's is enough.
With for example 7..if a team wins the first 4, then that means the final 3 matches are dead rubbers. People lose interest and thats when Cricket Boards start to lose money. To avoid that from happening, there should only be 3 ODI's per tour so that loss of interest & profit is minimal.
The last game in Trinidad and the two in Grenada way well have been dead rubbers for Australia (hence Ponting trying - unsuccessfully - to fire his side up by calling it a 'new 3 game series') but it gave the West Indies an opportunity to snatch back a little pride - and the crowds went WILD.Tim said:I think 3 ODI's is enough.
With for example 7..if a team wins the first 4, then that means the final 3 matches are dead rubbers. People lose interest and thats when Cricket Boards start to lose money. To avoid that from happening, there should only be 3 ODI's per tour so that loss of interest & profit is minimal.
I wouldn't have necessarily thought so in England, since tickets tend to all but sell out prior to the game in my experience.Tim said:but that won't happen everytime.
I mean for example in NZ or England im pretty sure the public would lose interest if their team lost the series.
hmmm....biggest in what sense ? ticket sales ? or worldwide following ? On both of those counts, I think an India-Pak series would be bigger and even an India-Aus series would be bigger...but yes, India-Pak series don't seem to ever happen anywayluckyeddie said:The Ashes is the biggest test series in cricket - and if England and Australia were to sink down the list it still would be.
Note I didn't say 'best' - biggest.
As such, it should always be 5 tests.