The English itinerary is a disgrace

Two Tests and seven one-day internationals. Seven one-day games against England? What a waste of time. The Indian board has conveniently blamed the FTP for there being only two Tests, but it begs the question: Why on Earth do we need seven ODIs?

Why not just three so that the extra Test can be fitted in? The answer is a one-word one. Money. ODIs usually mean a bigger pay-out from the sponsors. The BCCI doesn't even need the extra change. Undisputed leaders of the world game as a result of the financial muscles they keep flexing repeatedly, they have yet to learn that with great power should come great responsibility.

If India-England isn't deemed worthy of three Tests, then what happens next? Half a match against West Indies? A two-day game against Zimbabwe? How pathetic, especially after a gripping contest in England last year, and the Flintoff-led heroics in Mumbai two years ago.

Comments

[bill edmunds]

In the UK at the moment we are concerned about children leaving school without understanding maths. How do we explain a Test Series played as the best of two? Given England's propensity for using the first Test as a warm-up to ease into the Series this is a total joke.

[The Pav]

Given the result of the just finished test between SA & India perhaps it is two test two (sic) many

[Piya]

I agree Dileep - it's a disgrace and a testimony to the fact that it's all about the money rather than the game. 7 ODI's is a dull prospect, I'm off to watch golf.

[SanjayN]

Sadly, Test cricket became devalued in India as far back as the late 80s. The board cottoned onto the fact that they could earn huge revenues thru TV, meaning they didn't have to worry one iota about the quality of facilities for the watching spectators or care less where in India the game was taking place.

If you look at Sachin Tendulkar's Test career closely, you will see that it has taken him almost 20 years to play some 140 Test matches - he has missed very few thru injury. Someone from Australia/England would be close to 200 Tests by now. Conversely, Tendulkar has played an outrageous number of ODIs as his board have gone truly over-board with the 50 over format.

And then look at the number of 5-Test series that Tendulkar participated in. I can only think of the 1992 series in Oz, and the 2002 series in West Indies. He has never played in a 5-Test series even in England - the ECB has not rated India highly enough, and I can't even remember the last 5 Test series to have been played in India. It may have been the mid 80s series against Pak where Gavaskar finished with his classic 96 at Bangalaore, all in vain.

We've gone from 5-test series to 3 to just 2, something Slanka specializes in. But as much as the board is to blame, what about the fans in India? The BCCI could not have got away with this if it did not have the support of the fans. The Indian public is fascinated by the shorter version of the game, and we are witnessing an increase in the dumbed-down version of the cricket fan who only understands "sixers".

[The Pav]

I think that a three test series is too short.A bit of bad weather, a bad session & one team is a game up. They can then just play for a draw. With five tests it's a real campaign & true indicator

You need five to really get to the truth.

The recent Aus/India series is a case in point. Even with four tests it was still undecided.

I realise the fixture congestion but there should be a two tier system. Promotion & Relegation on a three year cycle.

I know I'm dreaming but it would be nice. The fact of the matter is the cricket product with the longest shelf life is test cricket.

Boredom with 50/50 has led to 20/20. Give it time & 20/20 will be passe.

Good test cricket is more interest & exciting & actually gives more product to the media

[Rusty]

Seven ODI"S are an utter bore, no matter who is playing them. Five are bearable if the competition is good and there is a substantial Test series before or after. The ODI's complement Test cricket, but only if the balance is right between the two forms of the game. Seven vs. two is absurd. But the BCCI are playing to India's strengths, not England's.

[Dileep]

Your criticism of the ECB is perfectly justified though. It appears that greed is contagious. Now, everyone, and Cricket Australia come into this as well, wants to play seven ODIs against the golden geese from India. Pretty sad indictment of the way the men in power are shortchanging the game.

[Dileep]

And frankly, I think the Christmas thing is only reasonable. It's not just about the players either. Match officials, journalists and fans too would like to spend Christmas at home with family, or at least in a country/place where it's a big deal. The Indian players didn't want to play any Champions Trophy games during Diwali in 2006. Again, perfectly understandable.
The whole point here is the devaluation of Test cricket. It's not even as if India-England ODIs are a marquee event. I'd understand if it was Australia, but even there seven ODIs is overkill.

[Homer]

Agreed Dileep, but in this case, the ECB is as culpable as the BCCI for the shambles that is the India England itinerary.

India and England played the 3 Test 7 ODI set in 2005 and 2007. Should have been the case this time around too.

I can only wait for the FTP to elapse - the individual boards can then go back and decide on bilateral series instead of the ICC middling in.

Cheers

[Ann]

A disgrace indeed. 3 tests should not only be the minimum, but a rare exception.

[Dileep]

The minimum duration for a series between two major Test nations has to be three Tests. The sooner they standardise that, the better. And the same goes for ODIs. Five games for the really big series like India-Australia and Australia-SA and three games for the rest. Anything else is a waste of time and energy because ultimately only the World Cup (and the Champions Trophy to a much lesser extent) matters.

[Homer]

And it is the BCCI's fault that the ECB has a "basic agreement" with its players not to play cricket over Christmas in any place other than Australia and South Africa.

Just like it was the BCCI's fault that the ICC decided to slip in the Twenty20 World Cup at the last minute, leading to India's late arrival in Australia.

And while we are at apportioning blame, it was the BCCI's fault that India played 7 ODI's in England, an avowed Test loving nation who could have done with one extra test and two less ODIs, but chose not to.

And what if the BCCI does a quid pro quo come 2011 - 2 tests and 7 ODIs in England instead of the planned 4 Tests and 5 ODIs???

Damn the BCCI!!