Hello again

Tim May made a career out of being dull (you have to when your competition for the Australia spin-bowling place is the uber-exuberant Shane Warne) so you know that when he says he is bored by something, it really must be a paint-drying moment. May is now head of the Australian international players' association and is dismayed that his countrymen are due to play India no fewer than 21 times in the space of eight months. That's not including at least one and possibly two encounters at the World Cup beforehand.

Australia will play three one-day matches in Ireland in June (a surely unnecessary cash-cow), then seven more in India in October before heading back to Australia for four Test matches and seven more one-day internationals. Many Australian fans, not to mention the players, will find it immensely difficult to summon the enthusiasm for anything more than the five-day matches.

When will administrators realise that cricketers and cricketing fans alike want less cricket of better quality, rather than more and worse games? England also have to go through the slog of seven one-day internationals against India this summer - why the fashion for seven-match series when five is only just bearable? Obviously, money is talking. Test cricket is much less popular in India than one-day cricket (just look at the ranks of empty seats in their stadiums for Test matches) and it appears that those who allocate matches are more interested in the billion potential TV-watchers on the sub-continent than the quality and integrity of the game.

Which is a shame, because recent Test series between Australia and India have been gripping. In 2003-04, Australia lost in Adelaide after making 556 in their first innings, then made 558 at Melbourne in levelling the series before rallying from a first-innings deficit of 231 at Sydney to draw the fourth Test and the series. In 2004-05, Australia won the series in India 2-1 but were unable to chase a target of 107 in Bombay. And then there was that wonderful series four years earlier, when India followed on in Calcutta and won before sealing the series in Madras.

That is what most fans want - or at least what most Australian and English fans want. A match that ebbs and flows and in which players have the chance to show off the full array of their skills. If Indian fans want to be fed a diet of bilge and tepid, meaningless slogathons then so be it. But why should Australia - or England - play along?

Comments

[Humphrey B Bear]

Gday Pat

Yeah, there's too many One Dayers.

It's almost like a down-grading of representing your country. When blokes start getting rested and rotated etc, it becomes a bit like the grind of a club football season.

Leaves bigger fellas like me and Gatts a bit on the outer too. First they weeded out non-sapiens like me and Basil Brush. Then even humans with a bit of 'condition' on em went, like Gatts, Merv and Ranatunga. How Inzi hangs in there is beyond me.

Lots of 'just right' porridge in his cave, the lucky bugger. Good on him.

Cheers...

[Mr A. Nel]

McGuinness,

Long-winded rubbish as usual.

A quick glance at the current ICC rankings will confirm ODIs as the ultimate measure of cricket superiority.

Of course, the ICC cannot be trusted to rank bowlers with any reliability.

Anyway, shut up.

[Caro]

The BBCI believe, (I believe) that India and Australia are the two most exciting teams to watch and more importantly, the biggest drawcards in cricket (money, money!) - well, I can't argue with that since they're my two favourite teams, too. But do I want to watch them 21 times? No.

Three months of Oz and England were bad enough (that's why Oz really lost it at the end - boredom....just kidding!). Even though the India/Australia matches will be spaced over several months, it's not just that it's 17 ODI's rather than Tests, but also the sheer amount of seeing so much of the same two teams in one season.

I'd really rather see more variety of teams, more of the "minnows" in the mix, than the same two slogging it out 17 times. Forget the idea of of boring walkovers - after all, look at Bangladesh. Oz didn't exactly walk all over them in their encounters. More mix in the matches would keep the top teams on their toes rather than falling in to this much vaunted "hubris" we keep hearing about! ( I notice no-one yet throws the word "nemesis" into the argument. Haven't learnt that one yet?)

[Peter McGuinness]

The game of cricket has been hijacked by the BCCI. Actually, that's the wrong word. It's been raped. And the ICC has languidly spread it's legs and welcomed the abuse like the insipid sham that it is.

It is enough that the laws of cricket are continually bent, changed, re-written, contorted and straight-out ignored; lest their application be regarded as racist.

But of late, the intrinsic essense of the game - the very nature of the sport - has been diluted to suit the BCCI and it's mega-media puppet-masters.

The monotony of endless, predictable ODIs and the attendant re-gurgitated, recycled dross that passes for TV commentary is cheapening international cricket in both it's forms.

Firstly, it is acknowledged by every first class player in the game that Test Match cricket is the ultimate form of the game, and is the quintessential test of cricket superiority. This standing fact is being proactively undermined by the BCCI and it's masters.

Secondly, whilst the marketing of ODIs and their inherent 'evenness' is currently working well in some markets (Subcontinent, South Africa), it is damaging the credibility of the game in others (Australia, England, West Indies).

Quality is being sacrificed for quality. There are far too many ODIs played. The more games played, the more the game is revealed as a contrived, rather dull and formulaic
off-shoot of the real thing. Forcing so many ODIs upon the world is self-defeating.

Ultimately, ODIs will become boring to everyone. Then what? Twenty20 for a generation. Then what?

Dangerous paths are being chosen by those with the steering wheel of the game in hand. The more the rules are bent to accommodate 'markets', the more the foundation stone of the 'Test' of cricket talent is vandalised; the more radical and frequent unnecessary changes to the game must become.

It's like the old saying about lying. One lie leads to another. Once a rule is by-passed, the disturbing momentum of precedence is created. Likewise the ill-considered focus on ODIs as the game's centrepiece.

I agree with Patrck. Five games stuck on the end of every Test Series, plus the ICC Champions Trophy and The World Cup are more than enough.

ODIs are a made for television watered-down version of cricket. And like any marketing exercise, over-exposure due to greed will kill the goose laying the golden eggs.

Too many rubiks cubes. Too many frisbees. Too many pet rocks. Too many cabbage patch kids. Too many boy bands. Too many hi-protein/low carb miracle diets. Too many hula hoops. Too many reality shows.

Too many ODIs.

They have their place. Like chocolate. But you cannot live on chocolate.

[Michael]

That's for coming out and saying this mate! I agree with you wholeheartedly!