Extinction threat of ODIs and pointing the finger at Bangladesh for its demise

[nahaz]

Recently there has been a spike in the discussion regarding the demise of ODI cricket. Now, whether the threat is real is arguable, but one thing that has come out of all this discussion is that one-day cricket is pretty boring for a majority of the time.T-20 cricket has raised the expectation in the level of excitement in cricket. In the past, we would look for a classic contest, nowadays we are looking for entertainment.

Any cricket fan in Bangladesh would know that this is the only format we can hope to be a major force in over the next seven or eight years. One day cricket is the perfect format that allows a relatively weak team such as Bangladesh or the West Indies to compete on a regular basis. Test cricket is all about the cricket culture of a country, and a cricketing country as young as ours will develop this slowly. In the meantime, we would hope to keep competing in one-day matches.

One may argue that we have a future in T-20, but a win by a weaker side can easily be termed as a fluke in a match where two good overs can be everything. Many argue T-20 takes a lot of skill, but I would like to point out to the fact that none of the teams can actually dominate attests to the fact that luck is a major factor in this format. Besides, one cannot help but think Bangladesh is on par with the Irish in T-20.

Coming back to ODIs, there has been talk of revamping the game in order to make it more exciting. Suggestions include splitting the innings and reducing the number of overs, as well as possibly getting more cheerleaders and making all players wear clown shoes and noses. One has to wonder if this eagerness to experiment may ultimately end in ODIs losing their identity and getting obsolete.

The main concern this writer has, however, concerns Bangladesh. Certain quarters are going around saying that the cutting off of Bangladesh from the Champions Trophy will make it more exciting, as only the elite nations will get to compete and this will make it more exciting. This, despite the fact that the opening game of the Trophy has become as one-sided as ever, and two weak teams, West Indies and England are still playing the tournament. There are always going to be one-sided one-day matches, and only 4-5 nations actually know how to play the game at the moment. So why al the talk about kicking out Bangladesh. One would say the last World Cup was a lot more interesting when India and Pakistan got kicked out. Not a lot of marginal cricket fans actually care about who wins between England and New Zealand, but they certainly feel interested when a Bangladesh beats an India, or when an Ashraful makes a Glenn McGrath look like a rookie player. When Ireland beats Bangladesh, everyone knows about it, but not many outside the subcontinent knew who won between India and Sri Lanka in any of the 50 ODIs played over the last year.

The main problem in ODI cricket is not the quality of cricket, but rather the quantity. Did we really have to endure 7 boring one-day matches straight after a Test Series such as the Ashes? What is the purpose of all the 5 and 7 match series between India and Sri Lanka? Why do all big teams have to play 3 tests and 5 ODIs on a tour, and then have to repeat the same routine when the other team tours them in 4 months' time?

What I suggest is: 1) Two teams should not play each other more than six times in a year in bi-lateral competions; 2) Get rid of the restrictions in bouncers; 3) Have 5 bowlers bowl a minimum of 5 overs in a ODI. Maximum should be 15. 4) Make wickets more sporting and the fields bigger; 5) GIve teams like Bangladesh a fair go in terms of the number of matches and the venues. All the talk about expansion of cricket would be hypocritical otherwise.

My question to people is: 1) Should the overs be split; 2) If so, should it be 20-20 , or 25-25 per innings if it is so; 3) Would it really change the game, or will the players and coaches somehow find a way to make that pretty boring too ?

[al Furqaan]

firstly, this t20 talk is bullshit, and it makes no sense.

t20 is exciting, ODIs are boring...maybe the problem is not with the game but the fans itself. i still see plenty of folks "following" ODIs. people continue to confuse IPL success for some supposed excitement in T20Is. and thats mistaken. if one really thinks that a t20 match between England and New Zealand will attract crowds in Hyderabad, which ODIs wouldn't, they're mistaken. format of the game doesn't matter: neutral games will always be ignored. cricket is not soccer, and will never be, there is no point trying to make it so.

20 years from now, t20s will become boring, and f5 cricket will be introduced with tendulkar's son, Bachin, claiming he can predict the outcome of 82.3% of all matches based on who wins the toss and that t20s should be split into 40 seperate innings of 1 over each.

seriously, am i the only one who can poke holes in this crazy thinking???

[al Furqaan]

to prove tendy's clairovoyance as a sham:

aussies win loss ratio: 1.79
rises to just 1.82 when winning toss

india ratio = 1.03
rises to just 1.08

i'm sure the numbers for other teams reflect similar minute differences indicating no one can predict just from toss who wins a game.

[Ajfar]

i think what they are after is, do as much experiment with ODI as possible, and see if some how they can manage to degrade the quality of the game, that way they have an excuse to put less ODI on the FTP. and more time available for T20 tournaments.

[One World]

This thread is a redundancy if in case we should not use those four letters.

[Tigers_eye]

Most of this ODI suck, boring, ran it course, need to revamp etc. talk is coming out of England media, ECB and MCC, cause England suck big time. End of story basically. If you don't like it don't watch it. No one is holding a gun in your head and ordering you to watch actually. Any sports can not sustain without audience. If ODIs is to die let it die. No need to excellerate the death by changing rules and making it custom made for England. Let us see if it can survive or not.

[t697318]

let us not forget that the one day format saved cricket alltogether
twenty 20 expanded a stable sport

[zman]

Originally Posted by One World
This thread is a redundancy if in case we should not use those four letters.

Agreed...same old content in new packaging.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
Most of this ODI suck, boring, ran it course, need to revamp etc. talk is coming out of England media, ECB and MCC, cause England suck big time. End of story basically. If you don't like it don't watch it. No one is holding a gun in your head and ordering you to watch actually. Any sports can not sustain without audience. If ODIs is to die let it die. No need to excellerate the death by changing rules and making it custom made for England. Let us see if it can survive or not.

unfortunately, many if not most senior BC members have bought into the t20 > ODI delusion simply because the IPL has made serious bucks.

the IPL is popular in india for obvious reasons, and popular in england, australia, rsa, etc because their top players play and earn top bucks. very same reason why we went gaga just because mash and ash were lucky enough to get paid for warming the bench.

does this mean that T20Is - a totally different setup than IPL matches - will be more exciting or more lucrative than ODIs are at present? is there any logic or empirical data to suggest this?

world t20 was a rousing sucess because the only champions thus far are India and Pakistan - who incidentally provide 90% of world cricket fans and 75-80 % of world cricket money. what happens when those two teams are bottom of the pack, a la world cup 2007? then we will see how much money t20 really makes, how long and boring the world t20 is, how minnows need to stop playing t20, and what a crappy product t20 is vis a vis ODIs.

no one would watch a 50 overs match between west indies and zimbabwe in karachi, but oh a t20 clash between ireland and bangladesh will pull crowds by the drove in the kotla or madras?

who the hell are we kidding?

[kalpurush]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
Most of this ODI suck, boring, ran it course, need to revamp etc. talk is coming out of England media, ECB and MCC, cause England suck big time. End of story basically. If you don't like it don't watch it. No one is holding a gun in your head and ordering you to watch actually. Any sports can not sustain without audience. If ODIs is to die let it die. No need to excellerate the death by changing rules and making it custom made for England. Let us see if it can survive or not.

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
unfortunately, many if not most senior BC members have bought into the t20 > ODI delusion simply because the IPL has made serious bucks.

the IPL is popular in india for obvious reasons, and popular in england, australia, rsa, etc because their top players play and earn top bucks. very same reason why we went gaga just because mash and ash were lucky enough to get paid for warming the bench.

does this mean that T20Is - a totally different setup than IPL matches - will be more exciting or more lucrative than ODIs are at present? is there any logic or empirical data to suggest this?

world t20 was a rousing sucess because the only champions thus far are India and Pakistan - who incidentally provide 90% of world cricket fans and 75-80 % of world cricket money. what happens when those two teams are bottom of the pack, a la world cup 2007? then we will see how much money t20 really makes, how long and boring the world t20 is, how minnows need to stop playing t20, and what a crappy product t20 is vis a vis ODIs.

no one would watch a 50 overs match between west indies and zimbabwe in karachi, but oh a t20 clash between ireland and bangladesh will pull crowds by the drove in the kotla or madras?

who the hell are we kidding?

Top posts.

[Isnaad]

ODI will stay till cricket lives..Maybe its format will change.

[nahaz]

Hey, I was typing at midnight so maybe it doesn't make good sense. But basically I was just pointing out what some people are spreading around on cricinfo and around the world. This is what I think:
1) One-day matches do have boring middle overs half the time, but that's all-right, coz then you can do stuff in that time. I still like following ODIs

2) T-20 is, to me, a bit of a circus. Its good for fun and entertainment and a night out for people that do not want to be involved in actually following the game. Its like the music they play in the pubs. Just because ppl turn up doesn't mean they've converted to cricket. We shouldn't plan our cricket around this format.

3) The only people really having a problem with ODIs are the money-makers and advertisers. Obviously, if ppl stop following a game in the last 30 overs coz the contest is over, noone will watch the ads, hence its a gamble for the ad-makers. The rest are all being eye-washed.

4) ODIs might need some tinkering such as bringing back the bouncers, but nothing as drastic as splitting the innings. But i wanted to know what you guys think.

5) Tests are the ultimate show of cricketing skills, so don't touch it too much.

6) A couple of writers (ian chappel) at Cricinfo tried to say if Bangladesh didn't play boring contests won't happen half as much. I was just trying to say, reduce the ridiculously high no. of ODIs between top countries that are commercially viable and ppl would start caring more. If they had better balance, maybe we might be able to get even more games.

7) Can one really take T-20 too seriously? what's the point in playing sth where noone cares about the result. I, for one, couldn't say which team won the last IPL.

P.S: If anyone doesn't like the thread, fine, don't post. But don't try calling it kdpp when its not. I only posted based on articles over the last week. Would be glad if moderators could set up the links to Ian Chappel's article, and the one that quotes Sanga and Smith on eve of opening match.

Thnx to Al-Furqan bhai and couple of others who posted sth constructive. Really wanted to know a few ppl's opinions so keep posting. Cheers

[One World]

I understand, the reason I think it is a redundancy is there was nothing new in the starting post, everything mentioned was already discussed and still it is active in some other very good dynamic threads. Those discussions that you are trying to initiate are vastly analysed in those two threads as well.

Another problem is the thread title and its lack of linkage to the original discussion. No one in the cricket world as far as I know of has pointed a finger to BD for ODI's demise. I was curious to learn how those two were related and ended up reading some vain exposure of weak repeatitive jargon.

In case if the thread was just to discuss it could easily be posted in the existings, if it was to alert us about BD's involvement in ODI's demise it better had legitimate source and new found information within.

[BangladeshFan]

i think odis still pull crowds, t-20s are good because they are shorter and they bridge the gap between rich and poor, we can have some powerhouse like usa and china play it out and can actually win some matches, which they would never do in a test match. Its all good, we can keep all versions.

If anything has to go, i guess it should be test matches. I want ODIs in weekends and t-20s in weekdays.

[auntu]

Originally Posted by Isnaad
ODI will stay till cricket lives..Maybe its format will change.

May your words come true.

We should go slow in order to make changes. Cricket is the most changing game. Thanks to ICC who it self not sure about own policy.

[zman]

What these threads have in common, I've noticed, is that they start off by defending the ODI format and then some how end up bashing T20. If you ask me I'd say currently I see no problem with all three formats co-existing peacefully by catering to the demand of three different types of audiences. The old adage "Excess of anything is bad" holds true for all formats. This is where I felt you hit the nail on the head...

Originally Posted by nahaz
The main problem in ODI cricket is not the quality of cricket, but rather the quantity. Did we really have to endure 7 boring one-day matches straight after a Test Series such as the Ashes? What is the purpose of all the 5 and 7 match series between India and Sri Lanka? Why do all big teams have to play 3 tests and 5 ODIs on a tour, and then have to repeat the same routine when the other team tours them in 4 months' time?

Originally Posted by nahaz
I, for one, couldn't say which team won the last IPL.

The fact that a skeptic like you even mention IPL, the domestic T20 event which is only two years old, as opposed to say the domestic English ODI tourney, which is supposed to be the crown jewel of all domestic ODI tournaments--I for instance don't know anything about--is barely discussed in any conversation is a testament to the growing popularity of the format.

With regard to defending the validity of T20, I've combined the following three paragraphs from my old posts which I feel are relevant to this thread as well...

T20 is to test cricket what hundred meter sprint is to marathon, and ODI can be compared to the five hundred meter race. If you really think you can win the hundred meter sprint without having real skills, try explaining that to Usain Bolt and the rest of the sports world. If quick scoring and hard hitting on a day in day out basis didn't require extra-ordinary skills, then Viv Richards must've been an average batsman who just got lucky every time he batted. If one thinks it's easy to score 160-170 runs in 20 overs against quality bowling attack, that's because they've never played competitive cricket.

If cricket is to remain confined within the boundaries of the nine test playing countries, and a few associates in limited capacity, then we should ban T20 and persist only with test cricket and ODI. If we believe cricket is destined to become a globalized sport spanning five continents and 100+ countries in the next 20 years then T20 is the way to go, period. Fifty years ago test cricket was played over 8/9/10 days until a result was acheived. Today how many would go to the stadium to watch a 10 day test match?

It's a sign of the times. Time has become more valuable and people have got less time to spare on leisure and entertainment after working 40 hours a week or may be even 60-70 hours, such as in my case. We represent a generation (X, Y, Z) that grew up with ODI and test cricket--these formats make sense to us. The new generation doesn't get it as much and it's clearly reflected in the falling demand. Expecting more of the same from the next generation is not fair either. Cricket will keep evolving in order to remain competitive against other sports that are growing in popularity. There's no point resisting this change, resistance will be futile. Just a year ago, I was in the "T20 is crap" camp. Then I realized, by opposing the inevitable I was just missing out on loads of fun and tons of excitment just because it seemed alien to me.

[zman]

For those who don't want to read the previous lengthy post, the following should suffice...

I consider myself a die hard fan who grew up playing cricket. These days I get to play only in summer time, although I do spend at least a few hours on weekends catching up on news related to test cricket, ODI and T20. Unfortunately it's no longer feasible for me to watch test cricket on a regular basis, nevertheless I make every effort to catch the last day of all test matches that involve Bangladesh. I get to watch ODIs between my favorite teams only when they fall on weekends, unless they are a must watch world cup match when I'll stay up all night if I have to. On the other hand, when there's the prospect of a competitive T20 match it's much more feasible for me to watch even on a week day if it airs early morning or at night before I go to sleep. I feel once the spectator realizes that the format is merely a microcosm of the longer version of the game and learns to appreciate the cerebral thinking, physical strength, control, finesse and other skills required for the making of a great T20 player, they can enjoy the heart stopping excitement and thrill of T20. I'll admit I've spent quite a bit of money to watch these games, whereas I just can't justify spending the same amount on tests or ODIs where I'd be watching only 10-20% of the entire match. T20 is still in its infancy and some of the best teams in the world are still working on figuring it out. As expected, T20 will face resistance and criticism just like ODI did when it was first introduced, but make no mistake it's here to stay and eventually it will become the most popular format of the game.

[Abid_Khan]

Why can't we just keep all 3 formats and play less ODI games.. problem solved

[bharat]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan

no one would watch a 50 overs match between west indies and zimbabwe in karachi, but oh a t20 clash between ireland and bangladesh will pull crowds by the drove in the kotla or madras?

who the hell are we kidding?

You missed one point though .. the convenience for a cricket Fan to be able to watch a 20-20 against an ODI.

If you look at the current Champion's trophy a good game between SL-Eng is greeted by empty stands .But the 20-20 WC games in 2007 in SA were completely booked (even the ones not featuring India or SA) not because an average cricket fan prefers one format over the other but because he can go to work and come back to watch a game of cricket in the evening !

The same goes with the TV audiences ..an average Indian *can* (and will) watch a 20-20 game between Zim-BD but **will not be able to watch** a ODI game between Pak-India because he has to go to work !

This ODI -20-20 debate has nothing to do on which format is better but rather an indication of changing times.

Its changing times ..first the ODI now 20-20 a reflection of what the "Fan" can afford to spend time on .

Personally I think without 20-20, cricket might die a slow death ..again not because a "fan" does not care for cricket but because he cant afford to spend an entire day watching cricket.

[Raynman]

Originally Posted by bharat
This ODI -20-20 debate has nothing to do on which format is better but rather an indication of changing times.

A good point lost on many on this forum.

ODI and Test are not losing popularity because T20 is in the picture but rather T20 came into the picture because ODI and Tests started losing their popularity.

This leads to the obvious question which so many are quick to dilute with the pitchfork mentality towards T20, which is, "what can be done to the Test and ODI formats and/or scheduling to gain commercial viability."

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by bharat
You missed one point though .. the convenience for a cricket Fan to be able to watch a 20-20 against an ODI.

If you look at the current Champion's trophy a good game between SL-Eng is greeted by empty stands .But the 20-20 WC games in 2007 in SA were completely booked (even the ones not featuring India or SA) not because an average cricket fan prefers one format over the other but because he can go to work and come back to watch a game of cricket in the evening !

The same goes with the TV audiences ..an average Indian *can* (and will) watch a 20-20 game between Zim-BD but **will not be able to watch** a ODI game between Pak-India because he has to go to work !

i disagree heartily. either that or you have to say the BCCI is bullshitting when they claim BD will only get "meal allowance" when they play the HOME side in india - which is true btw. so a match between bd and any non-indian side will be even more poorly attended. the average indian fan will NOT watch a 20-20 match between bd-zim. and the average indian fan WILL still jam pack a stadium to watch a 50 over match between pak-ind. they've packed stadiums to watch ind-aus in 2006 or 2007, they will do so for pak-ind even more.

the only way in which south african fans would attend a 20-20 match between new zealand and sri lanka is if that was the only cricket match in the world. which clearly is not the case.

if you drew out 20-20 cricket into lengthy bilateral series, like current ODIs, you would see interest and attendence wane just like ODIs do. if all else is equal, you might as well keep the universally-regarded higher format - the ODI.

as for the current england-SL game, this game was not supposed to be close given englands near whitewash last week and SL's domination of recent months. its a neutral venue, and only became a good game once SL managed to post 213, people aren't going to pay full price tickets and travel all the way out to the ground to watch half of a "good game" against two sides they really don't care about.

same thing would happen if this was a 20-20. had SL posted 135 or whatever 213's twenty over equivalent is, people wouldn't come to watch just because england could possibly chase it down and win.

This ODI -20-20 debate has nothing to do on which format is better but rather an indication of changing times.

Its changing times ..first the ODI now 20-20 a reflection of what the "Fan" can afford to spend time on .

its true times have changed. but times haven't recently changed. the 40 hour work weeks still existed in 1971 when the first ODI was played. this indicates that the fans themselves have changed. at least in the developed countries like england, australia, and new zealand, lifestyle of 1970s is not that different from today. of course now we have internet and cell phones, but that doesn't impact the ability to watch a cricket match, if anything it should make it easier (think online streaming).

Personally I think without 20-20, cricket might die a slow death ..again not because a "fan" does not care for cricket but because he cant afford to spend an entire day watching cricket.

i agree, but its not that fans suddenly can't stop watching cricket all day in 2005, when they could afford to do it in 1995. fans perspective has changed. part of this has to do with them perceiving ODIs as boring. i still think ODIs are just as exciting (or boring) as they used to be. people haven't gotten any busier, they think they have because they've gotten bored by one day cricket. hopefully the new PP rules and such will infuse excitement back into it.

in the end the fact remains that t20 is the lesser form of cricket, and that most of its fans are indeed believers that t20 > ODI, and that these "revenue" issues are BS that seems believable on the surface. but in reality, once 5 and 7 game bilater 20-20 series are played, with a world cup every 2 or 4 years, we'll see that no one cares much about the neutral games, especially if its between minnows.

[al Furqaan]

check out this link:

match threads at ICF

SL-NZ compaq cup match: 31 posts, 361 views
IND-NZ compaq cup match: 500+ posts, 3000+ views
IND-SL compaq final: 1300+ posts, 7000+ views
most matches between BD-ZIM don't even have threads until the series is over, or until coventry cracks 194*

match threads at PP

SA-NZ champions trophy: 48 replies, 400+ views
PAK-WI champions trophy: 800+ posts, 9000+ views

now, posters are usually average to hardcore fans. how much time, money, effort does it take to post on a thread? you can even do it while on the job (many jobs), and nowadays with blackberries, iphones, and wi-fi, etc its even easier.

it should suffice that even amongst die hard cricket fans (or any sport), there is less passion for neutral teams than the home team. thus on a neutral venue, given all things equal, t20 matches will get the receive more or less the same blaise response as ODIs. key word being all things are equal. t20s may rope in a few more fans due to its brevity, but that should not be confused for quality of play. and i hardly think they will increase at all, especially for neutral matches. IPL was a success because all games featured a home side. secondly, most players were indian. IPL was popular in all other countries because all or most of the top players from foreign countries were also there (ponting, flintoff, asif, gayle, etc). even then i'd say overall fanbase of IPL in england would be less than the overall fanbase of any of the england-aussie natwest matches (fanbase = ppl who attended matches + those who watched live on TV + those who watched live on internet).

[bharat]

Well I am not arguing on the point that people *will* come to watch a BD-Zim match .Within a format there will be disparity .I am talking about across formats !!

Repeating myself , 20-20 WC in SA had near full stadiums for almost all the matches while this tourney of the "Champions" is hardly able to fill one stand ! Its not so much about whether an average South African prefers one format over the other rather teh average SA wont have teh time to "laze around" and watch the game for the entire day either on TV or the ground.

I am not sure if you grew in BD..but if you have you would see that the '90 are not the same as 2000's (I am assuming BD is similar to India )

Cricket then had the undivided attention of the average Indian ..skipping school./coolege/job was no big deal .There is a sea change now ..with the corporate culture seeping in I cant see my cousins or friends skip a day of work for cricket !
But yes , give them the option of having a beer and watch a game of cricket that lasts 3 hrs ..they are all for it ! And the ardent fans who would never imagine watching a Zim-BD match would watch it as well as it fits his schedule

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by bharat
Well I am not arguing on the point that people *will* come to watch a BD-Zim match .Within a format there will be disparity .I am talking about across formats !!

its true this is essentially an argument of format 2 vs format 3.

in your earlier post, you quite unequivocally stated that a BD-ZIM match (format unspecified) would be heavily attended in india. i say that it won't regardless of format and it appears as though you are now agreeing.

now you are saying that there will NOT be disparity across formats, and whereas it may be true that t20s are more popular than ODIs (cricinfo's recent poll seems to suggest otherwise, or at least it did initially, where at one point 53% of the respondents voted for ODIs), the fact remains that the "lesser" t20 clashes will have the same attendence/revenue problems that the current ODIs do. similarily, big name ODIs still pull crowds. the champions trophy is a "lesser" tournament, and many have even questioned its validity. the world cup and asia cups still get decent attendence.

here is the last world cup highlights, and from sound, it appears that attendence is decent since most caribbean grounds are relatively small - 10-15K capacities. notice the neutral games SL-England, and minnow matches SA-holland.

Repeating myself , 20-20 WC in SA had near full stadiums for almost all the matches while this tourney of the "Champions" is hardly able to fill one stand ! Its not so much about whether an average South African prefers one format over the other rather teh average SA wont have teh time to "laze around" and watch the game for the entire day either on TV or the ground.

the champions trophy is considered by many to be a extraneous set of matches due to the presence of a 50 over world cup. further having it every 2 years takes some of the speciality out of it. hardly anyone takes it very seriously.

in contrast, the world t20 is a pretty rare event, it basically is the format at this point and since its so new, it has enjoyed considerable hype. if it had a world cup every 4 years, it would be a considerably more drab affair.

I am not sure if you grew in BD..but if you have you would see that the '90 are not the same as 2000's (I am assuming BD is similar to India )

Cricket then had the undivided attention of the average Indian ..skipping school./coolege/job was no big deal .There is a sea change now ..with the corporate culture seeping in I cant see my cousins or friends skip a day of work for cricket !
But yes , give them the option of having a beer and watch a game of cricket that lasts 3 hrs ..they are all for it ! And the ardent fans who would never imagine watching a Zim-BD match would watch it as well as it fits his schedule

i didnt grow up in BD, but you are correct, times have changed here. and maybe, since india alone is 75% of the cricket market, thats a key issue on the viability of the formats. but then again, neutral and minnow matches, would still have poor attendence. perhaps a clash between australia and south africa would be different. but there are very few such clashes.

the bottom line is that fan interest is most definitely less in neutral matches than in ones involving the home side - as proven by the match thread disparities. at least some of that is applicable to actual cricket match attendence statistics. and fan support drives 100% of the revenues - there is no revenue without direct or indirect consumption of the product by the fans. hence the same thing will happen regardless of t20 or ODI format. so why not keep the "greater" format?

in the case of ODIs, bilateral ODIs in the subcontinent are still fairly well attended in BD, but they are also fairly well attended in India, aren't they? of course that might be because India only plays home games against england, SA, and australia - but do you honestly believe that home t20s with india versus zimbabwe or bangladesh would pull in big crowds whereas ODIs wouldn't? then why go gaga for this newer and "lesser" format? add to that india won't play t20s against lesser sides at home so its a moot point anyways.

its true that spending 3 hours to watch cricket is more likely than watching 8, but is cricket really struggling that much financially? BCCI has made a ton of money even without IPL, and they don't play that many T20Is. PCB, WICB, SLC and other boards' financial struggles have other reasons that simply not having t20 access.

in my opinion, ODIs lost their flavor because of the flat nature of most pitches. teams could easily pile up 300 runs and bowlers took a beating, add to that the t20 innovation of free hits, and bowlers really took a beating. instead of having a total contest, the contest became batsmen vs batsmen, with no part for the other half of the game: bowling. the SL-ENG match was a good once because there was a true contest. it wasn't just a 600 run game which gets boring after the first several boundaries. thats not too say low scoring matches should always be the norm, but having sporting wickets will definitely bring excitement back.

[al Furqaan]

actually, now that i think about it, you're probably right in saying that T20Is as a whole will earn more revenue than ODIs as a whole. but this should not be mistaken for T20 cricket being better or requiring better skill sets or offering more entertainment value. cricket is by nature a "slow" and tedious affair. if its over inside 3 hours, its not *really* cricket anymore.

however, in terms of neutral matches, etc there won't be any change. at any rate, people still enjoy and follow ODIs. i have yet to meet any cricket fans who absolutely don't care about ODI cricket.