One-Day cricket: Knocking on heaven's door?

It is only when his patient is on death-bed that a doctor formulates a strategy for revival. Perhaps an injection to kickstart the heart? Maybe risk opening the lungs or arteries up? Or taking the surgical knife to unusual depths? Desperation sometimes succeeds and gets branded as a miracle. But more often than not it fails. And the consequence is death. That I suspect is the battle for one-day cricket now.

Doctor Tendulkar is the latest to float an idea for one-day cricket to be rescued from the ICU: Play a Test match over one-day is basically his solution (This 25 overs-a-side over two innings is theory has been doing the rounds for a while, it isn't a Tendulkar original!). Importantly, not the medicine but the recognition of an ailment from the greatest one-day batsman of all time is what must make everyone invested in cricket take notice. Something is rotten in the core of the one-day format that has led to this cacophony.

My sense is the 25 over a side over two innings solution is a mere diversion. It fails to recognise the critical problem: TIME. One-Dayers simply take too long. 8 hours is an entire working day. Somehow, the same format that filled up the coffers of cricket boards over the last couple of decades is now for want of a better word, a bore. Why is that? Well, because the best of what a shorter format offers is available in a 3-hour package. Big shots. Smart running between the wickets. Sharp fielding. Skillful death over bowling. Try convincing anyone now to watch the middle overs in a one-day game that intersperse the assault at the top and the ferocity at the end.

So is it just because T20 cricket emerged that one-dayers now face an existential threat? Not quite. Interest in one-day cricket was starting to fade even before the T20 revolution. Because as Sanjay Manjrekar rightly argues, it bred mediocrity. Too much of it was played. And too much in a game was taken for granted. Taking a single was acceptable for both the batting & fielding sides. Figures of 10-0-48-1 were perfectly fine. It was a conspiracy of acceptance between competing teams that the paying public was only going to buy into for so long, and no more.

What's worse is a monster was created. The "bits & pieces cricketer". Content to play one-day cricket with little ambition outside of that arena. Run in and bowl a few unspectacular overs, construct an innings on ungainly nerdles, edges and when needed the odd ugly slog. Teams searched for more and more of this ilk. Chris Harris, Robin Singh, Mark Ealham, Tom Moody and many more had long and forgettable careers. A defeat was not really rued. There was another game just around the corner. A mountain of impressive statistics were created but those were rewards for longevity above skill. Cricket went from being entertaining and engaging to being professional and constructed. If sport makes you yawn, then we have a problem, Houston!

T20 places a premium on exceptional skill. The fearless attacker at the top of the order. The finisher who doesn't need time to get his eye in before launching a breathless and savage assault. The infielder who challenges the temerity of a batsman attempting a single. The fast bowler bending his back to find bounce in a lifeless pitch. The spinner giving it a tweak in the middle overs, not content to merely be milked for singles. For all its ungainly ugliness at times, T20 produces a spectacle. One-Day cricket demands from its audience the ability to endure.

Cricket needs to answer a fundamental question. How many formats does it really need? Intrinsically 50 overs a side, 40 overs a side or 20 overs a side has one common thread. They are all limited overs formats. The construct of the game is similar. A certain number of overs to bat and a quota of overs to bowl. Why then does cricket need more than one such format? If T20 cricket is the entry point for newer audiences to the game, as Lalit Modi so grandly argued recently then let it be so.

Let newer audiences buy into our game through this one power packed format, not through a basket of confusing options. Oh, we have T20, but how about a taste of 40-overs a side? Perhaps you would like a dollop of 50-overs each too? Maybe 25 overs a side spread over two innings? To my mind this is an unholy mess that leaves cricket confused and open to ridicule.

There would ofcourse be those who argue the logic of time also applies to Test matches. That argument fails to understand the mind of a fan of Test cricket. The uniqueness of the 5-day game lies not in its intricate ball by ball following, but in what it offers the mind: Possibility. The Test match officianado doesn't need to watch every ball, sometimes doesn't need to watch even a single ball. But when he sees a scorecard after a hard day at work, he debates the course of the game.

He wonders whether the rate of scoring is acceptable? He wonders if another couple of wickets were needed? He ponders when the declaration should be made? He debates whether the follow-on should be imposed? Whether an additional spinner should have played? A one-day game offers the inevitability of a result. So in essence it leaves the fan cold. A Test match offers the possibility of the unknown. It invites engagement. It merits attention. And results in contentment or discord. That is why Test cricket can survive.

The road forward for the bosses of the game is clear. Phase the one-day game out. The 2011 World Cup final in Mumbai should be the last recorded One-Day International. It would allow cricket to achieve clarity. It would allow its players to express themselves fully on the field without fear of injury or fatigue. It would allow enough Test cricket to be played so a larger audience learns to appreciate its nuances and mystique.

It would open doors to greater commercial success by opening up windows for T20 leagues. Maybe cricket can be played at the Olympics as well? And as for those who shed tears for one-day cricket, well there is always nostalgia to fall back on! After all, there was a time when Dev Anand made watchable movies! Similary there was a time when

One-Day cricket was worth a watch. That time has passed.