Aussie suggestion to revamp ODI Cricket

[marc71178]

What do people make of it.

To me looks stupid, and it's hardly going to cut down on the travelling the players do if they had play 2 games, probably at different times, in EVERY country that plays ODI Cricket.

 

[Neil Pickup]

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.

 

[luckyeddie]

This is a total non-starter because it would be a logistical nightmare.

 

[Rich2001]

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 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.

 

[Kiwi]

It is stupid u would spend a lot more time travelling then playing.

 

[Tim]

No World Cup? now lets be honest...the pinical of a players career is to play in a World Cup and if that was taken away then what would there be to achieve in ODI cricket anyway? to top a meaningless ODI table at the end of each year?

 

[krkode]

I agree with all that has been said here so far. No world cup? Nonsense... 1 game in a country per year? Nonsense...

Personally, I think the way it is, is fine. Sure there's too much of it. Just make what is there a little less frequent and hence more monumental. No need to play 1 match in every single country in the world every single year.:rolleyes:

Maybe go 2 away tours, and 1 home tour, and the next year, 2 home series and 1 away series. Each series with 3 tests and 5 ODIs.

Ponting thinks 7 ODIs is too much - I wonder what he thinks about 5 tests. Personally, I think a 3 test match series is more than enough to define a winning team. Since ODIs are more scattery in their results, 5 should do fine, I think.

 

[Tim]

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.

 

[Kiwi]

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 don't have a problem with 7 ODI's but I think more tri series matches should be played.

 

[Paid The Umpire]

7 ODI in a row, make them loose their significance.

 

[Simon]

the current system has the teams playing too many games and the proposed system has teams doing too much travelling.
Its simple really, just play less when they r playing. 7 ODI's against the same team is stupid, 5 at the most.

 

[marc71178]

So no-one likes it!

I don't necessarily think 7 ODI's is wrong, but in the current climate, it need's to be between 2 even sides (think of the last 2 home series India played, admittedly they were 6 game series, but they were both crackers!)

 

[chris.hinton]

My Format would be as follows


* World cup every 3 years with 16 sides in 4 groups of 4 and then Knockout

* Each Country should play a Maxiuim of 20 one day internationals and a Miniuim of 30

* Cut down on Triangler series(They do my head in)

 

[luckyeddie]

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.

I like the idea of short test tours (3 or 4 games) with just 2 or 3 ODI's between the protagonists. Most countries have 2 sides touring them in the year, so if there's an overlap, this then gives the opportunity for the triangular series.

I think the balance in England this season is perfect (for us).

 

[Tim]

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.

 

[aussie_beater]

Trying to get rid of the world cup is the stupidest part of the whole plan.... that's the biggest money spinner for the game and needs to happen every four years, no matter what.Its something that every cricket lover lives for.Also this plan will make the cricketers rack up their airline miles instead of runs/wickets.

To cut down on the ODIs, ICC can mandate the max number of matches that can be played by two countries in a series to 3 or 5.

 

[marc71178]

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.

I wouldn't have necessarily thought so in England, since tickets tend to all but sell out prior to the game in my experience.

 

[PY]

What would people do with the Ashes in the scheme of things? i.e. the length of it.

I'm a big fan of the Ashes being at least 5 matches long, because if I'm honest it's the biggest series that England play so elongating it seems sensible + they are usually money-spinners because of either the Barmy Army or the Aussie equivalent.

Opinions?

 

[luckyeddie]

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.

 

[aussie_beater]

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.

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 anyway