All Out Cricket's Discussion Of The Week - What Is The Point Of ODI series?

On all www.alloutcricket.com today, Sam Stow discusses one-day cricket.

Are ODI series just a means to an end (ie preparation for the next World Cup) or are they contests to be cherished and respected in their own right?

Check out the article and let us know your thoughts. The article can be viewed at the All Out Cricket Website

In my opinion, ODI series are used for two reasons.

1) As an extra means of generating revenue.
2) As preparation for the World Cup.

As far as the ongoing ODI rankings are concerned, I'm not overly sure as to the importance of them in the minds of the cricketing nations around the globe. Yes, coaches and the governing bodies will always express an interest in topping those rankings, but squad selections, timing of tours (such as this current England tour of India, which seems somewhat unnecessary and over the top) and the media coverage of the ODI format would suggest otherwise.

The article rightly says that young, inexperienced players at world level are often given a chance in ODI tours, whereas this is rarely considered in the Test arena. You will also notice a great deal of chopping and changing in the ODI format, whereas Test sides tend to have a far more settled look to them.

It's a difficult one, really. Whilst they are rightly used to blood new players and experiment in order to find a winning formula, it is clear that a) there are far, far too many ODI's (which takes me back to my point about additional revenue), and b) it is important that a winning mentality is maintained, therefore meaning not tinkering too much at the risk of consistently losing games.

From my point of view, and I dare say this is the case with many English fans in particular, ODI's are somewhat of a sideshow to Test cricket, with far less importance placed upon them. Yes it'd be nice to win the World Cup, and by all means we should attempt to build a squad that is capable of doing so through this abundance of ODI cricket, but ultimately Test cricket is the real form of cricket, involving the highest skill levels not just technically but mentally, too.

ODI's are necessary for the game overall in terms of finances and gaining interest from youngsters (we must remember that their attention span is generally a lot shorter than that of us seasoned cricket fans), but I'm not overly sold on the notion of them being 'cherished'. Respected, absolutely. Cherished, not for me.

ODIs, unlike T-20, means propper cricket. The batsman, the fast bowler, the spinner, everyone has a chance.
I don't think all ODI series are oriented towards the world cup. The only major cricket that worked with that view in the pst has been England, and that is why they haven't won a single world cup so far. Each game has to be treated with respect. Individual ODI series have produced their moments.
ODI cricket does bring in additional revenue, and most cricket boards have engaged in an ODI overkill from this point of view. But to see all ODI series only as a revenue making process or preparation for a tournament that happens in every 4 years, I think its not fair.

I'm glad you commented on this, msp, it is good to get the opinion of an Indian as I feel the ODI game is viewed in a different light in India than it is in England.

You may have just made a very good point with regard to England being the only ones spending the whole time gearing toward the world cup, yet are one of the sides to never have won it. Maybe we tinker too much and blood too many players, as opposed to getting a settled side and plugging away at getting that winning formula and winning feeling?

You're right, they do produce their moments, ODI's, however there is a bit of a feeling that they get lost amongst the hubub of Tests and T20's.

Indeed. A very valid point. Is there really any point in preparing for a tournament until 2 years/18 months before? Maybe - like the Test team have found - creating a winning mentality is the most important thing. As an when players come into the side, they then expect to succeed, both individually and personally.

Anyway, we're going to stick our necks out and back England to pull things back to 2-1 in the next match!

That's a brave prediction, AOC! We certainly have the players capable (with the bat at least, I do have concerns over our bowling through a combination of inexperience and the senior members looking jaded).

Four years is an incredibly long time to prepare for something, that is about a third of a long career, so it could actually be argued that the first two years following a World Cup are actually pretty irrelevant in the overall scheme of things, and may be best used in order to see how some of your more inexperienced players deal with the added expectation and pressure of playing in an international fixture.

It almost highlights the irrelevance of the Champions Trophy here, too, going by our discussion thus far.

The Champions Trophy is of course inbetween each World Cup, yet nobody has mentioned gearing up for this tournament as a purpose of ODI cricket. It may just be time it was shelved.

I hate the phrase "building for the next world cup". I will use the rugby world cup as an example, as I can guarantee that some English fans will be calling for their side to immediately dispense witht he old guard of Tindall, Shaw, Hape, Wilkinson and Easter and "build for the next world cup". Absolute rubbish. Yes, you must have one eye on the future but you cannot sacrifice results for this. You should pick the best side to win every game and bleed youngsters in slowly. It is much easier for them to come into a winning side than a losing one. If you have a player who is 18, he probably isn't ready for international cricket yet despite having bags of talent so don't throw him in yet just for the sake of youth. Let him develop for a few years before playing him. People need less experience than you think. Again I will use rugby as my example, but look at Wales's world cup side: Priestland, Faletau, Lydiate and Warburton won't have 4 years of international experience between them but have come in and done a great job because they were allowed to develop at regional/county level first. Let these young cricketers develop before putting them in the ODI side too soon, they genuinely don't need to play until 2014/2015 to get enough international experience. It is overrated, experience.

Ah but JD you could argue that "building for the next world cup" is precisely what England did back in 99, and it worked very well then, and equally you could argue that Wales having such a young and (relatively) inexperienced team cost them dearly here, as they lost two tight matches which they should have won, and maybe had they had a side with more experience in close test matches they would have done so.

I think it was Bobby Robson who said that a footballer needed about 15-20 caps to feel at home in the international arena, so he's certainly one who valued experience. Equally, you could say that when a player is good enough you should put him straight into the side and not worry about his age.

Having said that, England cricketers seem to mature later than say Indians or Pakistanis. Clear examples are Flintoff, Bell, Anderson and maybe to an extent Broad who were arguably brought in too early and took a lot of time to get used to the demands of the international game, whereas guys like Strauss, Sidebottom (first test excluded), Trescothick, Swann and Trott were given plenty of time in county cricket first, and were successful straight away. The only examples of young guys doing well when they first came into the side I can come up with are Cook and Finn.

Back on topic again, I think that results are important, and maybe England don't really pay enough attention to these in the ODIs. The other thing that needs to be considered is that England have recently adopted a policy of rotating their players through the ODIs to give them a rest/work on their conditioning. This is a good idea IMO as it avoids burn-out, but it does seem that ODIs are given small priority by England.

My view personally is that the first two years in a world cup cycle should be used for finding the nucleus of the future WC squad, so experimentation. The next two years should be about keeping with that nucleus and instilling the winning habit into them, so picking your best team every game where possible, building up results and confidence, and dare I say it, an aura around that team.

As for the Champions Trophy, sorry but does any team really care about this one? England have played one game flat out in this that I can remember (the semi vs Aus where we creamed them a few years back, as we were using it as prep for the 05 Ashes). Australia never took it seriously either. Money spinner only IMO

Perception is so important, isn't it? In many ways, the Champions Trophy has always been the more condensed, more competitive version of the World Cup that lots of fans have called for, but neither players or fans seem as fussed because it's not called a 'World Cup'.

True MFC, but anyway you look at it that England side of '03 was an exceptional side, and I tend to think of them more as an exception to the rule than being the general philosophy. And even then they had a core of strong players to start with which they build around rather than a whole new side. They slowly fed players in around the established core of Johnson, who had already led a winning Lions tour, and Dallalgio etc.

A player who is ready to play international cricket, fully, at the age of 20 or below is very rare and is usually a exceptional talent i.e. Tendulkar. If they are good enough then they could play, but except failure to begin with. However, would Ian Bell be the player he is now without those hardships he suffered against Shane Warne in 05? Would he be better without those mental scars, or did they help shape him as a cricketer to what he is now? it is a tough one.

I am not sure what it is like in other countries, maybe msp could enlighten us, but as a fan of the England cricket team, I would rather them have an extended period as the number one test side (3 or more years) than see them win the ODI world cup. What what everyone else prefer? But it is clear that in other countries the shorter stuff is given more respect as a stand alone game, whereas we see it as a breeding ground for Test players.

The Champions trophy is a silly concept for me, beacuse despite the name it is essentially another world cup with the same teams in it. Except it isn't called a world cup. I think it should be scrapped to be honest, it is like the tri nations teams and the six nations teams playing a tournament between themselves and calling it the Champions trophy. It is essentially seeing who the best side in the world is, so it is a world cup in all but the name. And having it more often dilutes the excitement of the actual world cup.

Test matches, for me.

I'd also take exception to Jdizzle's proclomation that experience is over-rated. It isn't. It is absolutely key, and I guess the ideal situation would be that such experience is available and can be gained at the county level. However, even if that is the case, international cricket is still a whole different kettle of fish, and a period of adjustment would be required.

You do make a great point about Ian Bell though, Jdizzle. I think it has been proven that he is infinitely better off for the hardships he went through, and it has definitely toughened him mentally.

It is about striking a fine balance, I guess.

Cook Kieswetter KP Trott Morgan Swann Broad Bresnan

that's for me the "established core" you refer to, and they'll be around for the next world cup, so we should build around that, by introducinfg guys like Bairstow, Stokes, Dernbach, Finn, Borthwick, Meaker, etc. Not saying we should be building an entirely new side at all.

I honestly think when a player is ready he should play regardless of his age, and for me it's maybe not so much a question of age as a question of maturity. Cook for instance was always very mature and as such succeeded from an early age in test cricket, whereas someone like Bell wasn't. Of course, the older a player is the higher the chance he's sufficiently mature, but that's not all of it.

Regarding the second paragraph, I think Bell would have been pretty much the same cricketer right now regardless (see the maturity point again, Bell has finally matured as a cricketer IMO), but it's a very good point, and you could argue this one pretty convincingly either way IMO.

Oh and I'd take being the best tea in tests over winning the WC any day, maybe that's why we're not very good at ODIs. I think also part of it stems from the old "Sunday League" thing: County match finished on saturday, players got smashed, then went out for a bit of hit and giggle the next day. I know things are more professional now, but this did mark a generation for me (read Vaughan's autobiography). Winning the WC T20 was great (especially beating Australia in the final), but ultimately it's still all about tests for me...

Maybe I was a bit overzealous in my disparaging of experience, obviously you can't go battering in with a side of players that have less than 20 caps but conversely not all of the side needs to be 50 cap veterans. Striking a balance is key.

MFC, you look at that core of players and the only ones who don't have any debate about their place in the side is Cook, Morgan and Broad (both injured), Swann (who will be 36 by the next world cup, who is to say he will still be in prime condition for an international cricketer) and Big Tim, who is beginning to show the strains of a huge workload. Not a very strong core, it has to be said!

Take your point about some players be ready before others and I guess the only way you will know if they are ready is to play them. And if they fail, hope they come back harder.

Whi should the focus be on the world cup? England should look to win as many ODIs as possible. There should be some thinking about future, when timing retirement, or bringing in new players. Javakal Srinath, was kind of pressured by the then Indian captain Saurav Ganguly to keep off his retirement before the 03 WC, as the young Zaheer Khan and Ashish Nehra needed a guyding hand at that point. Likewise, New players are given more opportunities around the world cup, about the 1 and a half year tie before the event.
If bringing in youngsters is the way to improve the results, then that is what is to be done. The team should to improve all the time, and player selection should be focused on that . Around the WC time more of experiment can come good.
England has to leave behind their rubbish attitude to ODI cricket if they have to seriously challenge other sides. Otherwise, they have to wait for cloud cover and rain at home to win ODIs.

You do make a very valid point, msp. Other nations do seem to take ODI cricket a lot more seriously than England. That may be us being a bit harsh on England, who under Andy Flower I do seriously believe are trying to improve in this area, but going on past attitude toward it, and the attitude of the England supports, it is clear something is missing.

I do wonder, actually, if ODI series of say three games instead of five would restore a bit of interest in them.

Short and sweet, and wouldn't have that tiresome 'here we go again' feeling before it kicks off. I think we just get that swamped with fixtures that we don't take them quite so seriously. Some years we have had 7 ODI's with Australia...that is ridiculous.