Quotehanger

  • "The fact is that once I was playing again I was automatically available for everything on the schedule and that meant Stanford. I make no apologies for that and, as for the suggestion that I should waive the fee or give it to charity, I don't see why I should be a special case."
    Steve Harmison feels strongly about suggestions that he came out of one-day retirement in order to play the Stanford Twenty20 for 20

    Sep 7, 2008

    • Recent Posts

    Try DVD rental for £3.99 per month!

    The headlines

    The news

    TWC



    I hate treadmills. I hate one-day cricket

    By Will last year, at the end of September Leave a comment on this post

    This is wrong, so wrong. A fascinating summer of cricket has barely finished and yet already England are playing their first match of the winter, with a friendly today against a Sri Lankan XI ahead of a series of five ODIs.

    Writes Patrick. It’s a huge bugbear of mine that so much cricket is being played, and so little is being done about it. The season hasn’t had time to catch its breath, yet off England traipse for another bloody one-dayer on Monday. This treadmill just doesn’t stop.

    Contrast this with the Ashes summer of 1993. Six Test matches were served up, drizzled with a light sprinkling of three one-dayers (Texaco Trophy!). The Championship finished on September 20 and England’s next international was on February 16, 1994 against West Indies, a gap of 4 months and 27 days. I was approaching 12-years-old at the time, and must admit that the hiatus for someone of that age was too much to bear. Fast forward 13 years and cricket is now a constant in our lives. It’s not so much “when” the cricket is on as “who’s playing?” or “where?” Someone, somewhere, will be playing a meaningless one-dayer, earning lots of money for it, and/or forming the beginning of a career-threatening injury which will cut short the number of Test matches he plays.

    Some more figures for you. Between January 1 2006 and January 1 2007, England played 14 Tests and 20 one-dayers - a total of 170 days of cricket. In the same time period, India played 30 one-dayers and Australia 29.

    We want less cricket. We want fewer one-dayers, and a greater focus on Tests; the less cricket - the less the physical and mental strain on the players - the greater the quality they will produce. Cricket (and sports in general, for that matter) must start to look after itself better and not wring itself dry. We’ll survive with less, honestly. TV companies will too. Yes, the executives might not be able to afford their great-grandson’s private education, or a shiny new Porsche 911, but who is this bloody game for?

    Ranting now. Join in below.

    Tags: , , , |

    8 Responses to “I hate treadmills. I hate one-day cricket”

  • Daneel wrote:
    September 29th, 2007 at 2.44 am

    Amen to that.

    There should be three ODIs as a warm up (and to use up some of the earlier parts of the season with the less reliable weather), then one 5 Test or two 3 Test series, followed by a break and then the same pattern in the winter. That’s what I want. I don’t want quality players like Flintoff having their Test careers ruined by playing hundreds of pointless ODIs the results of which you forget a week (if not a day) later anyway.

    I don’t care if England are doomed to be permanently awful in the World Cup by not playing much one-day cricket; it’s just a bit of a knockabout that serves as a nice aperitif to the proper form of the game.

    Also; the anticipation of a new series is part of the fun - with international cricket never stopping (for England, at least - Australia don’t seem to have to play so much) the excitement gets somewhat diluted.

  • Rusty wrote:
    September 29th, 2007 at 10.58 am

    I’m beginning to agree. I don’t mind the shorter formats but with so many of them nowadays, and cricket becoming more like a circus…..

    ODI’s just as warm-ups for Tests, and for letting off steam after them; Twenty20 for occasional publicity and charity matches (bowl-offs, I ask you! Why not a bat-off, too - see who can hit the ball the furthest).

    Are you sure England is playing more cricket than Austrlia, or is it just the way it’s panned out over that period?

  • King Cricket wrote:
    September 29th, 2007 at 10.58 am

    The more cricket there is, the easier it is to ignore for potential new fans and long-term followers alike.

    We might even find time to follow more than one sport if schedules were cut back. Give every major sport its day in the sun.

  • Scott wrote:
    September 30th, 2007 at 12.40 am

    Australia have started playing again after a hiatus and the team is basically going to be in action non stop (with the odd break of no more then about a month) until something like 2010.

    It’s madness. The ODI series in India that we’re playing now is a complete irrelevance, for profit and of no benefit to anyone.

  • Rusty wrote:
    September 30th, 2007 at 1.47 am

    Why seven ODI’s, anyway? Is that Indian OTT? for spiritual purposes or just money making?

  • Elliott wrote:
    September 30th, 2007 at 9.09 am

    “It’s madness. The ODI series in India that we’re playing now is a complete irrelevance, for profit and of no benefit to anyone.”

    The only people it is of a benefit for is the BCCI and the television company that is broadcasting it. And the broadcast itself is a tacky cheap job anyway, it has a real air of unprofessionalism about it. I get much more enjoyment turning the commentary off…

  • pod wrote:
    September 30th, 2007 at 9.40 am

    yes, it’s a pointless series.. yet you will watch it.. (albeit with the commentary turned off).. it’s not like the bcci held cricket australia at gun point and compelled them to send a team over.. your team is there in india, because even your board wants to make money.. enough of this crap the indian board’s taken already.. i am convinced that the bcci is the second worst-run cricket body (after zimbabwe), and that it does a shit job on most things.. including scheduling games only for the big bucks.. but cricket australia HAS WILLINGLY sent its team so that IT CAN ALSO GET A SLICE OF THE PIE. if it’s a pointless series, they shouldn’t have come..

    wake up guys.. too much cricket isn’t a great thing, and i’m not a fan of it either.. but we need to rise up to the realities that confront us.. and sadly enough, it is money that does the talking. what i disagree with is this constant incessant lambasting of the bcci.. if there’s too much cricket, why did cricket australia and the ecb run down to mumbai to announce the creation of the champions league.. EVERYONE wants money.. it’s not just the indians…

  • Marcus wrote:
    October 3rd, 2007 at 11.26 am

    How much simpler and enjoyable would cricket be if they just made the following rules?
    1) No bilateral ODI series unless Tests are also included.
    2) No bilateral ODI series to last longer than 5 matches.
    3) No more than 2 T20 matches in any given series.
    4) At least 3 Tests in each series, but no more than 5.
    5) Adequate rest time between tests, eg. 3 Tests to be played over 4 weeks.

    • Comments

    Receive email updates on new comments


    « India arrive home | Main | A necessary evil »