Extinction threat of ODIs and pointing the finger at Bangladesh for its demise

[nahaz]

Recently there has been a spike in the discussion regarding the demise of ODI cricket. Now, whether the threat is real is arguable, but one thing that has come out of all this discussion is that one-day cricket is pretty boring for a majority of the time.T-20 cricket has raised the expectation in the level of excitement in cricket. In the past, we would look for a classic contest, nowadays we are looking for entertainment.

Any cricket fan in Bangladesh would know that this is the only format we can hope to be a major force in over the next seven or eight years. One day cricket is the perfect format that allows a relatively weak team such as Bangladesh or the West Indies to compete on a regular basis. Test cricket is all about the cricket culture of a country, and a cricketing country as young as ours will develop this slowly. In the meantime, we would hope to keep competing in one-day matches.

One may argue that we have a future in T-20, but a win by a weaker side can easily be termed as a fluke in a match where two good overs can be everything. Many argue T-20 takes a lot of skill, but I would like to point out to the fact that none of the teams can actually dominate attests to the fact that luck is a major factor in this format. Besides, one cannot help but think Bangladesh is on par with the Irish in T-20.

Coming back to ODIs, there has been talk of revamping the game in order to make it more exciting. Suggestions include splitting the innings and reducing the number of overs, as well as possibly getting more cheerleaders and making all players wear clown shoes and noses. One has to wonder if this eagerness to experiment may ultimately end in ODIs losing their identity and getting obsolete.

The main concern this writer has, however, concerns Bangladesh. Certain quarters are going around saying that the cutting off of Bangladesh from the Champions Trophy will make it more exciting, as only the elite nations will get to compete and this will make it more exciting. This, despite the fact that the opening game of the Trophy has become as one-sided as ever, and two weak teams, West Indies and England are still playing the tournament. There are always going to be one-sided one-day matches, and only 4-5 nations actually know how to play the game at the moment. So why al the talk about kicking out Bangladesh. One would say the last World Cup was a lot more interesting when India and Pakistan got kicked out. Not a lot of marginal cricket fans actually care about who wins between England and New Zealand, but they certainly feel interested when a Bangladesh beats an India, or when an Ashraful makes a Glenn McGrath look like a rookie player. When Ireland beats Bangladesh, everyone knows about it, but not many outside the subcontinent knew who won between India and Sri Lanka in any of the 50 ODIs played over the last year.

The main problem in ODI cricket is not the quality of cricket, but rather the quantity. Did we really have to endure 7 boring one-day matches straight after a Test Series such as the Ashes? What is the purpose of all the 5 and 7 match series between India and Sri Lanka? Why do all big teams have to play 3 tests and 5 ODIs on a tour, and then have to repeat the same routine when the other team tours them in 4 months' time?

What I suggest is: 1) Two teams should not play each other more than six times in a year in bi-lateral competions; 2) Get rid of the restrictions in bouncers; 3) Have 5 bowlers bowl a minimum of 5 overs in a ODI. Maximum should be 15. 4) Make wickets more sporting and the fields bigger; 5) GIve teams like Bangladesh a fair go in terms of the number of matches and the venues. All the talk about expansion of cricket would be hypocritical otherwise.

My question to people is: 1) Should the overs be split; 2) If so, should it be 20-20 , or 25-25 per innings if it is so; 3) Would it really change the game, or will the players and coaches somehow find a way to make that pretty boring too ?