Possible way of dealing with dead matches.

[slippyslip]

ODI series are usually 3,5 and even 7 matches and are set in stone. Sports like basketball and the baseball in the USA have best of series. So ODI series with a best of 3,5,7 would be ideal but of course cricket administrators would be against that since tickets, sponsorship and TV rights are done before a series start. I dont think the ECB would have been too happy to cancel matches 5-7 of the Australia v England ODI series last year.

With the recent pathetically limp series between Australia and West Indies and Pakistan its apparent that dead matches, in Australia at least, have to be resolved. For years Australia had the tri-angular series with a best of 3 final which worked well. Australia usually won but quite often teams in the final caused upset wins. See England in 2006/07 and India in the last series in 2007/08 and fans like that since it felt like teams were actually playing for something and anything could happen in the final.

I dont think how long a series really matters. Last summer South Africa was leading 3-1 going into the 5th and final ODI against Australia and I barely watched the 5th game and didnt particularly care. Compare that to the NZ series straight after that was 2-2 going into the 5th (unfortunately it was washed out) and my interest was a thousand times that of the South Africa series.

I dont care if an ODI was 9 matches long if it was 4-4 going into the 9th match.

The solution is to turn dead matches in an ODI series into Twenty20 matches. That way administrators, sponsors and TV still get to keep their $$ without damaging cricket with lop sided ODI matches which do more harm than good.

I'm no huge fan of Twenty20 at all. Some people might think its sacrilegious to replace an ODI match with a Twenty20 match and hurt ODI's, oh so sacred 40 year history. A lot of people will hate this idea purely because they hate Twenty20 rather than any great interest in the 50 over format.

But if meaningless, dead matches are going to be played then why not play them in the format that best suits?

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by slippyslip

ODI series are usually 3,5 and even 7 matches and are set in stone. Sports like basketball and the baseball in the USA have best of series. So ODI series with a best of 3,5,7 would be ideal but of course cricket administrators would be against that since tickets, sponsorship and TV rights are done before a series start. I dont think the ECB would have been too happy to cancel matches 5-7 of the Australia v England ODI series last year.

With the recent pathetically limp series between Australia and West Indies and Pakistan its apparent that dead matches, in Australia at least, have to be resolved. For years Australia had the tri-angular series with a best of 3 final which worked well. Australia usually won but quite often teams in the final caused upset wins. See England in 2006/07 and India in the last series in 2007/08 and fans like that since it felt like teams were actually playing for something and anything could happen in the final.

I dont think how long a series really matters. Last summer South Africa was leading 3-1 going into the 5th and final ODI against Australia and I barely watched the 5th game and didnt particularly care. Compare that to the NZ series straight after that was 2-2 going into the 5th (unfortunately it was washed out) and my interest was a thousand times that of the South Africa series.

I dont care if an ODI was 9 matches long if it was 4-4 going into the 9th match.

The solution is to turn dead matches in an ODI series into Twenty20 matches. That way administrators, sponsors and TV still get to keep their $$ without damaging cricket with lop sided ODI matches which do more harm than good.

I'm no huge fan of Twenty20 at all. Some people might think its sacrilegious to replace an ODI match with a Twenty20 match and hurt ODI's, oh so sacred 40 year history. A lot of people will hate this idea purely because they hate Twenty20 rather than any great interest in the 50 over format.

But if meaningless, dead matches are going to be played then why not play them in the format that best suits?

How about replacing all ODIs with T20s?

ODIs have always been dog food. Im sure a few will miss then when they disappear but they will soon be forgotten

[Simon]

It's a good idea in theory but there are lots of things to consider, such as the games are locked in as 100 over matches and you wouldn't generally know that it would become a 40 over game till about 2 days before, this is a problem given that tv schedules are locked in, catering staff, ground security staff etc... are all rosted on and paid to work what is effectively a 8-10 hour day. You can't be stuffing around that many people just because a game is essentially worthless.

[slugger]

@ Slippy's post....

the camparison you use is not applicable to cricket at international level. baseball and basketball in the USA are basically a franchise compitition with a large number competing the final is only a state vs state franchise all season the teams have been aiming for the final which are normally best of 7.

it is best not to view a cricket series with the idea that it is a final in essence. maybe it would help if icc rewarded teams points for wins which would result in an odi championship league table. which leads to a final between the two top teams and is only best of 5.

i guess something like that would make more sense.

[Streetwise]

I can only comment on Australian series but why should the supporters from one city miss out on watching their team play if the series result cant change. The reason for so many ODI's is to allow supporters from all over the country to go to a live game. I would be pissed if I didnt get a chance to watch Australia play because the opposition lost the first three games.

[Athlai]

ODI rankings should be given a greater importance.

[GingerFurball]

The problem in Australia is the scheduling.

It was already quite apparent from the Test series that Pakistan would be hopeless, and the West Indies were hampered by losing all their best players bar Gayle to injury.

10 matches in a row, where you know Australia are going to dish out a beating, just doesn't make for exciting viewing.

[slippyslip]

Originally Posted by Simon

It's a good idea in theory but there are lots of things to consider, such as the games are locked in as 100 over matches and you wouldn't generally know that it would become a 40 over game till about 2 days before, this is a problem given that tv schedules are locked in, catering staff, ground security staff etc... are all rosted on and paid to work what is effectively a 8-10 hour day. You can't be stuffing around that many people just because a game is essentially worthless.

You can handle them the same way One dayers that are washed out or end early.

As for TV - Channel 9 took an absolute beating in the ratings during the ODI series. Channel 9 apologised to sponsors and gave them free spots to make up for the pathetic ratings. Sponsors would have been overjoyed if the ads they had booked for games 4 and 5 were turned into a Twenty20 since crowd and TV audiences were much higher even though people knew they were going to be a slaughter. People can stomach a quick, clean and precise kill in 40 overs rather than a long, drawn out, messy 100 over massacre.

Catering staff et cetera are all done by contractors, in Australia at least. And for the ridiculous prices they charge for the crappy food, I dont think people would be crying in the streets if catering contractors had to deal with having to do a slight re-schedule . If they dont like it someone else can do the contract. Same with security. As for police at matches, its not like the police are an 9-5 (or 2pm-10pm) business.

Ground staff, well they would have to deal with it. Since its in the financial interest of the game to keep it popular a slight inconvenience is a small price to pay.

Dont forget for over 25 years Australia had a best of three final series. Quite often it didnt go to a 3rd game. How do you think catering, ground staff, security etc dealt with that?

Its easier to go from 8hours of play to 3-3.5 than go from 3 hours to 8 anyway. So a few people get a couple afternoons off.

It was only the second season of having 5 match series in Australia and not the tri-angular series. Last year there was only 1 dead match, that being the 5th match against S.Af so it wasn't an issue, and in some years its not going to be. But there has been immense harm to cricket this year because of terrible, lop sided series. Since cricket is not a franchise sport there is no way to prop up under performing teams like Pakistan and West Indies. If cricket was a franchise sport the Pakistan and West Indian cricket boards and franchise would have been destroyed decades ago due to poor administration. Or, if it was a promotion/relegation system, Pakistan and West Indies would be in League Two facing relegation to Conference.

There has to be some solution to dead matches.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Goughy

How about replacing all ODIs with T20s?

ODIs have always been dog food. Im sure a few will miss then when they disappear but they will soon be forgotten

Same could be said the other way around.

I'm frankly astonished that anyone wants to see seven-match or even five-match Twenty20 series'. Granted, not all that many people actually want to see seven-ODI series', but when they actually go well (which is rare) most people genuinely enjoy them. I doubt the same would be said for a seven-match Twenty20 series.

[NUFAN]

I honestly think 4 match ODI series is the maximum length we should have. Yes 2-2 is a possibility, but as I've said before (if anyone remembers) make sure Net Run Rate is factored into it. The worst that can happen is the final game is a dead rubber. It also makes the games interesting right up to the final ball as both teams are trying to increase or limit the Net Run Rate.

[G.I.Joe]

IMO all dead rubbers should count double for the ICC ODI rankings.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

I honestly think 4 match ODI series is the maximum length we should have. Yes 2-2 is a possibility, but as I've said before (if anyone remembers) make sure Net Run Rate is factored into it. The worst that can happen is the final game is a dead rubber. It also makes the games interesting right up to the final ball as both teams are trying to increase or limit the Net Run Rate.

Four ODIs per series is not enough. Five should be the minimum IMO - and in most cases, the maximum as well. Only rarely is the seven-match ODI series needed.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Richard

Four ODIs per series is not enough. Five should be the minimum IMO - and in most cases, the maximum as well. Only rarely is the seven-match ODI series needed.

I reckon virtually all ODI series should be three matches, personally.

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by Richard

Four ODIs per series is not enough. Five should be the minimum IMO - and in most cases, the maximum as well. Only rarely is the seven-match ODI series needed.

Yeah nice opinion, but not including no results or ties, in your 5 game series 40% of the games could be dead rubbers, but in my 4 game series only 25% of the games could be dead rubbers.

So that would suggest that 4 games, not 5 is a better option if you would like to cut dead rubbers.

[Prince EWS]

Maybe I'm odd but, unlike Tests, when I watch ODIs I don't really do so with the series result in mind. I tend to just watch ODIs for the spectacle and the contest that each match rather than investing myself in the result of the series, so dead rubbers don't really bother me much. After I've seen three ODIs in a row though I do start to get tired of them and really long for a Test, however.