ODIs not relevant in the age of T20 cricket

At the Sabina Park in Kingston, Jamaica a not so familiar cricketing contest forced its way into our living rooms on Friday night. The players were in coloured clothes, they were playing for their countries and giving it their all.

But somehow they were on the field longer than we have become accustomed to seeing. This wasn't the three hour, pacy T20 version that has become such a part of our lives of late.

This was the original form of limited overs cricket - one-day internationals. Suddenly in the new world order of cricket, the game's original cash cow, the glamour game was not such a hot cake any more, or was it?

CNN-IBN raised the all-important question - Are ODIs relevant in the age of T20 cricket - with two men who have invested plenty in the game over the last few decades: Maninder Singh and senior journalist Ayaz Memon on a special show of Cricket 360.

Former India spinner Maninder Singh found Friday's one-dayer between India and West Indies to be "very boring. After the overdose of T20 cricket, it turned out to be very, very boring," while Memon, who watched the whole game, endorsed Maninder's view that "it became a bit of a drag and that's largely because we have got so used to T20 cricket over the last few years."

After having seen the rise of T20 cricket, the ODI version suddenly seems too long. The best of what limited overs cricket offers is big hits, smart bowling and sharp fielding. The argument has increasingly been on the lines of if one can experience each of those in a crispier 20-over format, why bother playing the 50-over game.

Maninder, however, had a different point of view. "After the overdose of T20, probably we don't want to watch 50-over cricket," he said. "But after a couple of months when there's not so much of T20 cricket, you probably will be interested in watching one-day cricket. Last night was different as there has been a lot of T20 cricket of late. There were overs in which only two runs were scored.

"I think it was only because of the overdose. But I feel the ICC still needs to make more changes. When it started, ODI cricket was of 60 overs before it was cut down to 50. I'm sure it is going to get cut down further to 40 overs in the time to come."

Memon agreed with the thought. "Time is going to be the big issue," he said. "If you get the same thrills in a shorter span of time, why would you want to spend an entire day? The key is really Adam Gilchrist's recent Colin Cowdrey lecture for the Spirit of Cricket. He advocated a greater deployment of T20 cricket, perhaps reducing the Test matches played in a year. He went on to say that one-day cricket is now becoming irrelevant. He says in Australia there's a 2:1 ratio of preference for T20 over one-day cricket. There itself is the answer."

These are also the thoughts shared by fans. For the afficionado, though, you wouldn't see a lot of instances in a T20 game that you witness in ODI cricket. A batsman taking time to settle in contrast to getting out in a T20 adds value to the game.

"Undoubtedly there is value to the game," Memon said. "Yuvraj must have been wondering what has changed since his debut in 2000 that a blazing innings in a bilateral series against West Indies, with India being the biggest draw in world cricket. The real difference is Twenty20 cricket."

Early signs suggest T20 cricket could end up doing the same thing to one-dayers what the ODIs did to Tests and that was to freshen it up. Twenty-three sixes were hit in the ODI in Jamaica on Friday. The influence of T20 cricket over one-day cricket could end up taking the game to another level.

"It will, certainly," said Maninder. "The West Indies made a match of a huge target even when they needed 159 from the last 20 overs with seven wickets in hand. Three or four years ago, nobody would have thought about getting close to such an imposing target. But now they have the belief of going after such totals. The game became interesting towards the end. The introduction of ODIs had a huge impact on Tests. Now seven out of 10 Tests get a result. So ODIs will also become more inetersting than before."

One of the problem areas for ODI cricket has been the television viewership. The T20 and ODI versions are driven by the response to it. It could be a critical determining factor for the ICC and the administrators. If ODIs start to lose their relevance or its audiences, they will perhaps push for T20 cricket that much more.

"I think the deciding factor is going to be the time spent in front of the television," Memon said. "Three or three and half hours seem far more reasonable for anyone than an entire day. Many of us have grown up living off one-day cricket, but times have now changed dramatically. T20 has provided all the excitement of the ODI game, and taken out the bunkum from that game like the middle overs, the defence, and building up of an innings.

"So I think more and more people are going to gravitate towards the one-day format. Frankly, if that's where the cash cow lies then why look at one-day cricket. Of course, the FTP is packed until the 2011 World Cup so its not going to happen that soon. But I think it's going to get marginalised over the next 5-7 years."

Although the Test version doesn't seem to be in any imminent danger as of now, the ICC has okayed the trial of day-night Test cricket if they get the ball right.

"I honestly can't believe that Test cricket would be played in the night," Maninder said. "The ball is a major issue. Also, I don't see any point because I find Test matches interesting enough during the day too. We need not try to change something that's not broken."

The disastrous World Cup in the West Indies in 2007 raised questions about the survival of one-day cricket, with the tournament taking one and a half months to get over, before the T20 World Cup was played out in South Africa over two weeks.

"Time is the big issue in terms of the itinerary and the number of matches that extend in a world championship," Memon said. "Although I think all the three versions can survive, but if the ICC is to make the game more globally acceptable, then T20 is the format to be pushed, and not one-day cricket. You can preserve Test cricket as the most sacrosanct form. The shorter the game, the more level is the playing field. This is the reason Ireland and the Netherlands did well in the World T20."

There have also been suggestions to modify the one-day version and make it into two innings-a-side playing 20 overs. "That's the way to go," Memon agreed. "This is one way of getting loyalty for the one-day game. Otherwise I see ODI games marginalised over the next decade at most."

Shane Warne also made a similar point saying one-day cricket needed to be done away with as the players needed to be preserved for the pinnacle event, the Test matches, and make them play T20 cricket which the people want to see.

Maninder said that he saw the 50-over game being reduced to 40 overs and not broken down into two innings of 20 overs, as it had been tried out in Australia a few years ago. He was confident 50-over cricket would survive, "only if it is reduced." Ayaz Memon said one-day cricket would "survive for five years, but I'm not sure about 10."

CricketNext Poll Verdict: Are ODIs relevant in the age of T20 cricket?

Yes: 55 per cent

No: 45 per cent.

More on:ball temparing