Agree with these wise words from the medway valley.
yea, you are right....
It all depends, really, on what you think the point of ODIs is. For me, there'd not be much point playing ODIs if there was no multi (and by that I mean more than 3) team tournaments. I don't treat them as Test warmups at all - the formats are notably different and I always ensure to keep everything that happens in ODIs separate from Tests (much as certain pyschological battles which can have impact in Tests are occasionally fought there).
mishteekNice
I agree that it depends on what you think the point of ODIs is. A very good question! I was brought up on (pretty much) one touring side per summer. Part of the enjoyment was getting to know that team in detail throughout the summer, in all forms of the game. You'd have a few county warm-up games which you'd follow in the press. You'd then have 3 ODIs where you would get to know the other side's players. The promise of a "psychological advantage" would add some lustre to these games, as would the fact that the main course was yet to come. And because these were ODIs you might have some Test hopeful getting a try-out in the ODI team first.
I am exactly the opposite. I would be happy if all bilateral ODI series were scrapped, we went back to the older format of tours with Test matches interspersed with first class games and had a tournament like the WC and the Champions Trophy once every four years. Making it an ODI tournament involving everyone, once every two years.
I agree entirely that a bilateral ODI series (a tri-series can sometimes be different) played after a Test series is woeful planning. I always, always want to see a ODI series played first when a tour composes of Tests and ODIs. With the exception of series' between subcontinental teams, as this generally ends-up working the other way around - the Tests have no appeal to most fans as the ODIs are generally far more popular.
Again I agree entirely that England's selectors' attempts at long-term planning have been fruitless in the last 3 tournaments (the only ones I really remember the build-up to) and I thought exactly that at the time of each of them. However, to me this is not because the idea of the planning has been wrong but simply because the execution has been poor - the wrong cricketers have been picked, repeatedly. And matters obviously haven't been helped by the fact that good English OD cricketers in recent times have been pretty scarce.
Well... I'd look at it as more that giving the horse a journey with no cart is pointless and an expense of effort for no gain. I (as I say in the article) feel that the Champions Trophy is unpopular because no-one has taken the time to organise it properly. I feel that with enough effort, the Champions Trophy can indeed fulfill a purpose which, in my view, badly needs fulfilling.
I'm not so sure. I think the fact that Australia played an ODI series in India last season means that this tour is about the Test series, and the Test series only, which means it can be spaced out over a longer period of time, allowing the Australians more preparation time, and hopefully leading to a higher quality of series, instead of cramming in the 4 Tests as quickly as possible to fit in a 7 game ODI series afterwards.
The ideal situation would be these two things having enough time to be played at the same time. Sadly with the current calendar, there isn't.
Well... one of any number of excellent things. Only shame was the Bangladesh bits, though even that had one silver-lining in the sensational Aus-Ban game.
this many number of ODIs after 5 test series is ridiculuos.....
Personally I felt that the 3-match ODI series before the Ashes began was a series too far. By that stage we were all ready for the Tests to begin, even though (IIRC) the ODI series had quite an exciting conclusion.
