Five against the Kiwis and five against the Aussies. What purpose do these matches serve other than to generate gate money and fill up Sky TV schedule? These are equivalent to international football friendlies that England play from time to time whch football fans don't really care much for.
How do you turn these ODIs into competive fixtures that actually mean something? I reckon there should be a world ODI championship that runs for two years (not too long otherwise tournament risks losing focus), which should have two divisions of 10 countries in each, with three promoting and three relegating. Only the top two in division one will get prize money. Big prize money, and there will be a big difference between what the top two get. This will lead to a lot of competition to win but also teams below that scrapping out for the second spot. There will be a lot of competition in the bottom half of the table to avoid relegation to division two. Each ODI will be weighted as it is unlikely teams will play each other the same number of times. However, no single series should have more than three one dayers.
After the two year cycle there will be a one year of regular ODIs. The following year will be the regular World Cup, then back to the world championship that again runs for the next two years.
Initially, for the very first world championship you can have the top ten ranked ODI teams (or the test countries) in the first division. Countries like Scotland, Kenya, Holland, etc can be in the second.
Although this part is debatable, I would prefer ODIs were reduced to forty overs a side with a strict over rate of around 17 overs an hour. Shorter ODIS will mean the toss will play smaller role in the proceedings and a faster over rate will make for better viewing (less downtime between deliveries).
How do you turn these ODIs into competive fixtures that actually mean something? I reckon there should be a world ODI championship that runs for two years (not too long otherwise tournament risks losing focus), which should have two divisions of 10 countries in each, with three promoting and three relegating. Only the top two in division one will get prize money. Big prize money, and there will be a big difference between what the top two get. This will lead to a lot of competition to win but also teams below that scrapping out for the second spot. There will be a lot of competition in the bottom half of the table to avoid relegation to division two. Each ODI will be weighted as it is unlikely teams will play each other the same number of times. However, no single series should have more than three one dayers.
After the two year cycle there will be a one year of regular ODIs. The following year will be the regular World Cup, then back to the world championship that again runs for the next two years.
Initially, for the very first world championship you can have the top ten ranked ODI teams (or the test countries) in the first division. Countries like Scotland, Kenya, Holland, etc can be in the second.
Although this part is debatable, I would prefer ODIs were reduced to forty overs a side with a strict over rate of around 17 overs an hour. Shorter ODIS will mean the toss will play smaller role in the proceedings and a faster over rate will make for better viewing (less downtime between deliveries).
Last edited:
