Why not? I'm getting tired of all this ODI bashing, the logic behind it boggles the mind. All we hear is how great the last test series was because it wasn't as one-sided as usual, and this is justification for dropping ODI games. Why? That series wasn't that exciting, we had two pointless draws, and two games handed to the opposition by the losing side. The bowling was so depleted as to be laughable while the batting was mechanical in taking it apart. The VB series was then blasted by pundits in spite of there being a clear winner, and because of the inclusion of Zimbabwe, which Indian journalists ezpecially decried, somehow forgetting how they very nearly and probably should have lost to them at Adelaide. And no, I don't think the series is too long.
More generally, ODI cricket is ridiculed for being predictable. Again, I don't know what games the media have been watching, but some of the most exciting cricket of the last decade has occurred in the last couple of years in one day cricket. India v Pakistan was brilliantly unpredictable, Aus/Ind/NZ last year, Pakistan in NZ produced some great matches as did the World Cup.
Aus/Ind matches on the subcontinent are always gripping, exciting matches, and extremely competitive. Test cricket is admittedly more exciting than it's ever been, in large part due to ODI's influence. Test cricket would be wallowing if it wasn't for one day cricket, and one day cricket lends itself so much better to international competition. Why does it deserve this ridicule?
I'm an avid cricket enthusiast like everyone else here, I like test cricket, but i think one day cricket has more than earned its dues and shouldn't be treated like the bastard son it has been for so long.