Back in 1990-91, I covered one of these tournaments. I had been a cricket correspondent for a year and it was the first time I had found the game uninspiring. The itinerary had been designed to sap all energy and enthusiasm. I remember writing that the tournament was making geometric history, since it was both triangular and one-sided. That feat has been repeated many times since, and most of all now. Australia lord it in their own backyard to a ludicrous degree. The other teams are like a couple of small boys who get asked round to a bigger kid's house purely so he can trounce them at Call of Duty 3.

The Aussies can't help being good, but they could stop organising so many matches. Brevity is the soul of one-day cricket. Staging each fixture four times defeats the point. As it happens, the present series has stayed alive right through to today's final qualifier - depending on your definition of alive. And England have done their best to make it compelling, in a macabre way, by finding new depths to plumb. But that doesn't mean the tournament is the right length.

Not that Cricket Australia is the only culprit. The 2003 World Cup was way too long, sprawling to 54 matches. This time, our friends at ICC have learnt their lesson and cut it back - to 51 matches. In terms of time, it has somehow got longer, expanding from 43 days to 47. Even Fifa, which is not noted for underdoing things, manages to get a World Cup finished inside a month.

English fans used to be able to be "a little bit superior", as we are described in Tom Stoppard's Rock'n'Roll, about one-day scheduling. Not any more: this year England will host their first seven-match home series against a single opponent, India. This is part of a reciprocal arrangement hammered out by two boards who always disagree about scheduling. England played seven one-dayers in India last year, so the same must happen here. The fact that the series in India was the dullest piece of popular entertainment since the second Star Wars trilogy is neither here nor there. And yes, I know England were rubbish in that series, but the itinerary - a breakneck spin around some of the subcontinent's more obscure venues - was stupid, verging on sadistic.

With the World Cup only five weeks away, Test cricket has now taken a break. But one-day international cricket hasn't. South Africa v Pakistan dribbles on till February 14; India v Sri Lanka till February 17. At the end of the month, Bangladesh, Bermuda and Canada will be cooking up a little World Cup appetiser, consisting of three games that count as official one-dayers.

No sooner will Australia have lifted the Commonwealth Bank trophy, than they have to jump on a plane to Wellington to play another three matches against their mate Lou Vincent and the rest of the Black Caps. Even Mr Cricket himself, Mike Hussey, may struggle to care about that one. The two teams will be playing for the Chappell-Hadlee Trophy. What was meant as a tribute to two great cricket families ends up as a bit of an embarrassment.

How did the short form of the game get so long-winded? It's partly Kerry Packer's fault, for abruptly expanding our idea of how long a series could be. It's partly the administrators' fault, for being greedy and blinkered and working the players to the bone. It's partly the television companies' fault, for not seeing that less would be more. But mainly it's our fault, for watching.

This is a public service announcement. You may find a cricket match on your television screen that is not very interesting. Do adjust your set. Press the off button. The good of the game depends on it.

what are you thinking mate theres not enuf cricket on tv bud. whats better then sitting round the tv on a hot day with the air con on full havin a cold one with ya mates an cheerin Punter all the way to his 100. so if ya think that gets borin then i think you should stik ur more exciting games like golf.

Turn off the TV while the cricket is on? Fat chance, Tim. It sounds to me like you can't wait for England's tour to finish and put this whole tour behind them. If this one day series was a lot closer I doubt whether you would have written such a negative piece. I wonder how many cricket fans will agree with you and not watch their favourite sport on TV when they have the chance. Too much is never enough for this cricket tragic - and bring on the World Cup!

If I supported the English Cricket team, like you do Tim, I would call for less too.

Let's "rebadge" (buzzword) the Chappell-Hadlee trophy as the Chappell-McKechnie trophy and throw open the tournament to all countries as an ICC sanctioned underarm event. Cos we need a new novelty tournament as we just don't have enough cricket.

Very True. In my opinion, players quitting the game with strange problems, ala Trescothick is a huge indication to the ones that matter that it really IS getting too hectic even for the players to cop up with the stupidly overcrowded itineraries.

Overall I woouldn't say theres too much ODI cricket. Tournaments involving 2nd tier nations are good for the game and maybe a case of DIVISIONS in international cricket is something to think about.

As for the current CB series, I think 4 matches for each side are more than enough to decide the top two. Eight is just stretching it too far and is boring to say the least. Aussies play more cricket in home conditions than any other side I can think of.

Absolutely! There is too much cricket played. What we are seeing is quantity at the expense of quality. The number of test matches every year should be limited as should be the ODIs. Human greed has no substitue and now there is talk of two Australian teams palying the annual One-Day tournament in Australia. This must stop, period.

Yah.Too much one day cricket is not good for cricket.Even five match test series is too long.

The first sensible thing you have written all summer. One day cricket is so dull for 80 of the 100 overs in a day. I would prefer Australia to play another test series in Jan Feb and have fewer one day games.

For the first time in my life I actually turned off a cricket match before the end of play this summer.
Not because I was tired of all the ODI's being played.
It was because England were all out for 110.
I can't help but wondering if this article would have been written if England weren't so hopeless in one dayers at the moment.
Tim, please don't assume that a dismal English summer makes cricket uninteresting for all of us.

I have wathced test cricket since 1972 and can recall the joy of individual matches or series throughout that period.

However one day cricket has become "if we lose on tuesday we'll get a chance on Thursday" and the results just merge into a meaningless tangle with very few one day matches memorable..... I could tell you all the results of the Ashes series from 2005 (unfortunately) but I'm damned if I can remember all of Englands results in that one day series..... and I'm even less likely to remeber events that have happened down under since November

With one day tests average players have the chance to be a star for 5 overs of batting or bowling and those players that have been promoted to the test team are usually found short of the skill necessary to make the grade in the 5 day match.

Even for the die hard cricket fan,like myself, who will watch tests from South Africa on SKY playing any team or the Kiwis playing any team, the amount of one day cricket is far far far too much and a special event like the World Cup is being down graded due to these meaningless series or ICC trophies

Absolutely agree with Tim, the last 2-3 summers in Australia have been very boring. And I hear a lot of hardcore fans feel the same way. But it's all about money these days and TV contracts etc. but deep down we are doing the game a lot of harm.
Thanks Tim,

Spot on Tim. I appreciate some teams want to get into shape for the World Cup, but the CB series, plus India playing Windies and SL, then NZ vs Aus - it's all just too much. The World Cup should be preserved as a spectacle (which is what it is at best - sorry, but I'm one of those die hard fans of test ('real') cricket, and by playing endless matches beforehand with the same teams involved then it kind of takes the shine (the limited shine I might add) off it. You mention the football WC, and yes they also play warm up matches beforehand, but mainly against teams that haven't qualified. I appreciate for cricket due to the limited numbers of teams that's not viable, so just scrap all these warm up matches and let the PR men do their work building up the excitement before the tournament. Cheers.

There was a time when to follow cricket wasn't too difficult, a match here and there and one can keep itself updated during the summer about what is happening all over the world. Now with lots of one-sided games (read, comprising Australia) or don't-matter-games (with Canada, Bermuda), it has become as mundane as it can be. As noted by Tim, now it is touching new depths everyday. For the sake of fans and players, and to make matches more interesting, administrators think again before scheduling any of these dead-encounters

There is far too much one day cricket. It has nowhere near the depth of test cricket and most games are only interesting for 20-30 overs, if that. ODIs have become repetitive and boring. I also think it has hurt test cricket as there are very few batsmen around in the world that are prepared - or able - to dig in and grind against good bowling or difficult conditions, and fielding teams have become too defensive-minded.

Instead of having 12 matches plus a 3 match finals series, I believe it would be in the best interest of all if the format was cut down to 2 3 match series'.

Not only would this mean there are less matches where much of the public could care less (NZ v Eng attendance records seem to indicate this) but in this particular case it could mean the Chappell-Hadlee series could already be over or nearly over.

With less matches on the calendar this could also result in a better spacing of matches. This could mean it would be less necessary to have 'rest matches' for incumbent players. I'm all for rotation in ODI's, but not resting just for the sake of resting and giving someone who doesn't deserve it a chance just because Ricky has played too much cricket.

The Administrators are killing the Golden Goose.They are caught in a vicious circle and are prisoners to the dictates of the TV and media companies.Players have no choice. Younger players donot want to let go anu opportunity and the senior ones just can not refuse the kind of money being offered to them.Sooner or later the 'fatigue factor'(for spectators) will come into play and the game will start losing its appeal, charm and romance. The popularity of 20-20 should be an eye opener for all concerned.The public wants innovation, short but more entertaining games.

I have to agree with the author on his comments. I mean, I open the sports page almost everyday, and invariably, I find 3 scorecards. Not only does this make cricket lovers lose track of happenings around the world of cricket (How many people would know that S Africa's record chase of 438 is NOT the highest ever ODI total by a team?!), but it really takes away a lot from the game itself.

Agreed: It is played for commercial reasons, and is a sport that is finding new adopters at least every year. But in the true sense of the game, where is the charm? Soccer did not grow due to increase in no. of matches. It grew due to increase in passion for the game.

If cricket has to be a topic of passion, then how do you mix true love for the game, sportsmanship, talent and interest into the format which has the highest marketability (20-20)?

Whatever they do, let them not deny cricket lovers their share of entertainment.

Oh, and please give the players a break. Let there be moderation in quantum and quality of matches. That way, everyone is satisfied, and matches are looked forward to.

Otherwise we may see Rahul Dravid or Andrew Flintoff going the "Trescothick" way.

I can honestly say that these bloated, endless series of meaningless matches that count for nothing are quite boring to me. So many of the international cricket which are played no longer has any sense of occasion. Variety really is the spice of life, and if you're playing the same opponent 7 times in one match after another then it really is tiresome. The reason we have all these trophy competitions is not to honour great cricket families or as part of some Olympian ideal, but just to make money. They stuff as much cricket in the schedule as they can in order to make money. The question is how much is the cricketing public prepared to just sit there and consume? If we didn't put up with it, they wouldn't keep dishing it up.

I agree with most of what Tim's written, except that I don't think ODIs are as irrelevant as he'd make us believe. His thoughts, I think, are particular to England, a country that has not enjoyed the shorter version of the game in recent times. And much of that is down to the fact that they've been so bad at it! Let's not forget that it is ODI cricket that attracts fans, sponsors, television companies and other groups necessary for the financial betterment of the game in MOST of the cricket-playing countries.

As for most of these games being inconsequential, lets look at some of these games for what they are - an opportunity for lesser known players/teams to build up some confidence before descending on the biggest stage possible!

The tri nations one dayers in Australia are often the only time people get to see a game live at the ground....as can be seen from the crowds over the years. A high percentage are from country areas. Viewers at home watching on TV have a chioce (eg Aust Open tennis) so they can switch off if they wont. It is not the Australian cricket team's responsibility to make competive matches alla Tiger Woods or Ferrari team a couple of years ago.

I would suggest that the english county comp could do with a reduction in comps or games.

I agree that the one day world cup has fundament problems, too many games in the second round & the lack of reserve days in the 1st round....all to cater for Indian TV viewers. After all it should only last a month as per all WCs. Let's hope India don't suffer from rain in the 1st round & get knocked out!!!

Tim couldn't be more right - it works against the nature of one-day cricket. Test cricket extends the drama over three whole days (or occasionally four if we get really competitive) but one day cricket has fewer intricacies and relies on conciseness. To extend a series over endless matches (yes often one-sided) seems more than usually perverse (of course it's greed). The worst thing is that it increases pressure on players' bodies and will cut short careers. I wouldn't moan that it's only in test arena we want to see the best players' skills, but surely nobody wants to see them wasted in pointless series of ODI's.

Dear Mr.Tim De Lisle,

You have hit the nail on the Head.If the ICC Care about the sanctity of The World Cup & need to sustain & develop interest in cricket they should :
1) Immediately Dump the Champions Trophy
2)Refuse to sanction Triangular /Quadrangular One Day Tournaments
3) Ensure that outside the World Cup one day cricket should only be in the bilateral format with a minimum of 3 & maximum 5 matches
4) Persuade Cricket Boards to initiate trophies on the line of the Chappell-Hadlee Trophy for their bilateral series which ideally should be played every two years

Reduce the series to a two round affair and then play just one final. It should be over in 15 days - but then the Boards are greedy they want more and what about the players would they agree to less if they less by way of match fees. It is a chicken and egg situation. Who is going to give up?

A reduction by at least half would be welcome. The volume of games being currently played is ridiculous. In the end it just becomes background noise.

Could hardly agree more. Though Cricket Australia feel it necessary to gove each state association two ODIs to keep the coffers topped up, one would hope they'll realise the triangular format is outdated. Perhaps a 5 ODI series either end of the tests?

This summer they almost managed to make the Ashes become a bit dull towards the end by cramming 5 tests into little more than seven weeks. Fortunately for CA Messrs Warne, McGrath and Langer ensured that (at least local) interest didn't wane. I suppose if Fletcher insults our traditionally strongest first-class team (NSW) by demanding to play 16 men then clearly all he wants is a few net sessions between each Test. What might have happened this summer if England had played a couple of first-class games (and taken them seriously) after the first and third Tests?

How soon before India hosts a nine-match "series"?

I resent the Star Wars comparison. But, yes, I do think that there has been too much cricket, both forms, and even one Twenty20 is too much. I enjoy a lot of cricket, especially ODIs. But not the way this is going. This is also dull. Only the Pakistan South Africa series has something of substance- that and Bangladesh vs Zimbabwe. Because the wickets in South Africa may help bowlers or batsmen, who have been getting too lazy.

Tim I couldn't agree more with your sentiments. Despite being a cricket trajic in every sense and a proud australian the monotony of the tournament is remarkable.
Australia only fail to qualify for the finals, (another mini-series) once every ten years. wWilst ricky ponting and his men seem to maintain motivation and desire, the lack of contested games largely due to poor English and New Zealand performances has resulted in my and other Australians contracting a new superbug called "cricketitis"

Oh Tim! Come on man....Reading this article you only give out one message. You are bored of English Cricket. If England plays exciting and competitive cricket there's much to see and enjoy. It doesn't matter how many ODI's they play these days. I do press the off button when England plays cos i've never seen such boring cricket in my life. Get over it...you will publishing more articles when England start winning matches!!

I totally agree with this piece. International cricket (both 1-day and test form) needs to be scheduled in a more structured manner. What we need is less international cricket and more club cricket. The Twenty20 format is the future of cricket (atleast at the national/club level) - sort of like the after-work baseball pasttime in the US. Perhaps ICC could also organize an "international" club cricket league (like champions league in soccer) - who wouldn't want to watch Mumbai v/s NSW? International cricket should be just limited to a world cup every 2-3 years and few marquee series between top countries (like border-gavaskar trophy).

Tim, you're 100% percent right. There's WAY too much meaningless one day cricket. I'm a 42 year old Aussie who has loved the game from the age of about 6, and seeing our side thrashing England (& other teams) in a test series still gives me great pleasure, but really, besides the World Cup, I can't find it in me to care who wins in one day contests. Anyone who knows anything about cricket knows that 5 day matches are the true test of which team is best. Besides, one day games tend to play out according to a predictable pattern most of the time, whereas tests provide more scope for surprises (provided groundsmen get on top of the trend towards batting friendly wickets around a lot of countries...I'm thinking particularly of Australia, but the sub-continent has the power to do something positive there too. The ICC Champions Trophy tournament in India should have been an eye-opener for the way the contest was evened up by good cricket pitches...why can't they prepare test wickets with something for the quicks as well? But I digress...). The most worrying thing about the current situation is that players are definitely being ground into the dust by the schedule. If international sides blooded more young players more regularly, there might be more meaning to it, but there's too much commercial pressure against that. The result is that we'll see the greats of the game bow out earlier because the schedule is too punishing.

Cricket now a days is not on the brink of boredom; but in it.

As an Aussie overseas I note the experience of cricket is very different to at home. I remember well the long, long winter Aussie Rules season and the excitement of a cricket summer ahead. The only way to watch cricket out of season in Oz is on pay-tv and that is not so popular. Now i agree that it was a blessing in disguise!

i think its good i could watch one day cricket everyday, its entertaining and a priveledge to watch the most talented team to ever play

i think the calling card lies with the cricketers themselves.they must raise their voice and let the world know in no uncertain terms about their sagging spirits.at times i feel the main reason for picking young turks who lack the requisite first class experience is to ensure that all cricketers are on their toes; the fear that they might not get picked or even thought of, gets instilled in their minds etc. and in this media savvy world, everything is worth only when it gets noticed. once they go out of the radar, no one knows whether they'll be featured even on cricinfo's history sheets.

Yes, there is too much cricket (posting from South Africa). Our boys have just played a very demanding test and odi series against India, now they have to play a full Test and ODI series against Pakistan, all before the world cup. Bob Woolmer has expressed his thoughts on this many times.

I agree about the too many matches for the tri-nations tournament in Australia. This is just greed and the fans should let the organisers know that we don't think this is how things should happen.

Could not agree more with your sentiments Tim. Tours should spread the Tests out and play the ODIs in between, with more tour games between the state sides and the tourists. Bring back a carnival feeling to the game played in pyjamas and to tours in general. Less is more.

I've asked it earlier on this site and I state the question again:
Why can't bi-lateral series be fixed at 3 tests and 3 or 5 ODIs? What is stopping the ICC from doing this?
Why are the powers-that-be not heeding the "too much cricket" comments that are beginning to pour in?
Trilateral series too can be limited to 2 or a maximum of 3 matches against each side. More is really painful.

The continuous schedule of one-dayers is grueling on the players. Let's give them a break so that the matches they do play are all the more meaningful.

Overdosed, i'm Comatose

>>This is a public service announcement. You may find a cricket match on your television screen that is not very interesting. Do adjust your set. Press the off button. The good of the game depends on it.

Who are you to say which is a service to the public and which is not. Now for you public out there I ve got one announcement. Cricket atleast comes up once in two days... THese people find a job writing ten articles about cricket a day. So arent we supposed to get bored by YOU people who are so ungrateful.... You earn because there's more one day cricket.

If cricket was boring because it spans all the year then i would not have missed my chennai match ticket at 9:20 the booking started 9:00... When someone is able to do something repeatedly and still get an audience learn to give the deserving credit. May be you could try to organise an event for one day an year and lets see you get .1% of what cricket australia gets

Less - far less!!! The viewer's know when the players stop trying to be competitive and just go through the motions to get over with another game. Its definetly the case with a lot of teams these days

I agree... I stopped taking an interest in one-day internationals a few years ago, as they took on the form of the movie 'Groundhog Day' ! I'm tired of watching from home on the TV, so I cannot imagine what it's like for the players trekking about the countryside. Still... the money's good for them I guess!

And if you are a sportsman SHOWCASE MY COMMENT and lets see what the public does.... If youve got the guts....

I could not agree more! Less will certainly be more in this case.

I admit, there is a lot of cricket being played at the moment. The only thing that makes me a little uninterested is the fact that Australia just keep winning, and when they lose one game they automatically fix what went wrong and then dont lose any more for a few months. I have enjoyed watching Eng and NZ becuase they have been less predictable and are on a more level playing field. I am going to enjoy watching the World Cup because in the one-day form, everyone except the Aussies, can beat or lose to any team. I must admit, this series I have stopped watching a few games because of the inevitabilty of the result, but I don't think this comes around from too much cricket. I think it's just a fact that there isn't a team who can consistently beat Australia. South Africa are close and are building good momentum, but apart from them everyone else just isn't consistent enough. But it makes the games they play against each other more exciting though.

You are absolutely right! A long series like the Commonwealth Bank Series beats the very purpose of one-day cricket. Thrill and Excitment. Instead, dull and boring. Really, it takes a toll on both the players and us( fans ). Its really bad scheduling, especially when the World Cup is just five weeks away.

I'd like to see far less one-day cricket. Three teams can play each other twice and then have a final.
Besides too much of it, one-day cricket can ruin a Test cricketer when he plays too much . I'd say Virender Sehwag is a prime example. Sehwag was averaging 55 in Test cricket until 12 months ago but that average is slipping below 50 now. His wonderful square drive has become a sliced drive thanks to the one-day format and the emphasis India puts on it. He is still one of India's best ever Test openers but you'd think he was a complete failure reading some of their press. They have no respect for the man just because he's failed in a few one-dayers of no significance. Less one-dayers and more of Sehwag in Test cricket is what most lovers of the game want.
As for this past 2006-07 series, it really should have been six Tests followed by six one-dayers between the three teams and then a final.

yes, there is too much One Day Cricket and ther's far too much One Day Cricket where England lose. So I turn off the TV because I just can't stand seeing England lose again. Ironic that we have therefroe won our last two games so we now muct play at least another two!

I am fully in accord with Tim..I really cant understand what these cricket boards or for that matter ICC want to achieve with so many one dayers going around. As far as commonwealth series is concerned it's more of a traditional one day tournament getting held in Australia year after year, so that make some sense to me, even though Aussie dominance has made it a little boring to watch and it has been a race between 2 horses...
but when it comes to series between India and WI or India and Srilanka or the chappel hadlee trophy ,it really don't make any sense to me..I mean all these cricket boards want to make money using these matches. To be frank I am fed up watching these stupid one dayers which does't make any sense to me..but I m sure it's not gonna end no matter what is our opinion...

Couldn't agree with you more. It's about time the administrators realized that 'less is more' as you say.

Cricket will die if we dont reduce the number of games, and STAR WARS is way more interesting than the current crop of cricket matches.

Wholeheartedly agree. Unlike most other team sports, cricket is played all year long. There is no "season" anymore, as in the football codes. The one-day series in Australia should have been played prior to the test series, so that it could cash in on the hype of the test series and also give the poms a chance to acclimatise. What we are left with is the most anti-climactic, boring one-day series ever, that has gone on far far far too long. The poms arrived here at the start of November, it is now February.. It is ridiculous that tours should last three and a half months in this day and age of the boeing 747.

its true that todays cricket seems to me repeatative and monotonous - not only in australia but elsewhere too. a lot of countries seem to be staging long tournaments with a single country so often that, the excitement that was there in the beginning gets worn down to excruciating boredom. the acb manages to take it once step further by staging a 3-team tournament which in all honesty is so boring because the result is as predictable as saying the sun will rise from the east. its the the australian team's fault that they happen to be overpowering all the time, but infact the blame falls squarely on the australian cricket board and other boards for agreeing to a tournament that goes on for so long, only to knock out one team, so the remaining 2 yeams can battle it between themselves. i have do admit i enjoy watching australia lose a few games, but the 3-team series that take place every year make even the most exciting matches boring... pity though. what was though of to be the exciting for of cricket, is now just plain boring, especially here in australia.

Very well said.

Pyjama cricket will be a treat to watch only when the appetisers are kept as appetisers and not dished out as a mains meal. Right now public is bloating from overfeeding of these dishes....and we as a public need to say enough is enough.

Not only the public but also the big corporations who are willing to spend their marketing dollars should say they aren't willing to spend that amount if the public isn't interested. Less interest from advertisers, will amount to less interest from the cricket organisers.

Absolutely agree. Cricket needs to follow the NFL rule in America and keep it short and sweet. In South Africa we have only had this for 14 years and already we are sick of it. Our Domestic game has suffered because Cricket no longer has a season and trophies have become devalued - how it has managed to stay afloat in the rest of the world for this long is beyond comprehension. But at least we can rely on the ICC, instead of making tours shorter and restricting games they invent a shorter game, jam into already bloated schedules and create another world cup to devalue the existing ones. "Pure Genius" the game is good greedy hands and we feed it remorselessly. Thanks Australia for endorsing this mindless nonsense with your massive crowds.

The day I tire of seeing Australia win, whether by 10 wickets or 10 balls, is the day I hand in my passport. Iwatched every game I wasn't working during, and even then had the scorecard on the net.

Tim's piece couldn't describe the level of interest for cricket in English fans any better. And I wont blame him or other English fans after the (no)matches that we have been watching from the Down Under. But it is an entirely different story for the Asian fans. They are too passionate about cricket to find any match or series boring. I have a feeling that more Asians tune in to Sky for cricket in the UK than English. My Sky is purely for cricket. I would watch any contest involving bat and ball.
Can someone tell me why the matches played between SA women and Pakistani women not shown on any TV channel? Some channel must have televised the beach cricket world cup from Australia???

At times, watching England this winter has been like watching Jar Jar Binks...you end up feeling embarassed, patronised, short changed and constantly harking back to the good old days (Empire Strikes Back/2005). If George Lucas had played a few more warm up games, and England had spent a bit more time developing the script and storyline, we all might have had a bit more fun.

Totally agree with Tim. I have been a regular follower of proper cricket since the 1940's (not always easy while rattling around the world with the US Air Force for 30 years). When I finally wangled an assignment to England after incessant scheming for 22 years, I wound up conveniently close to Chelmsford and was curious to see this one day cricket that was supposed to be the game's salvation. My immediate reaction was "Why am I paying good money to watch first class cricketers play village cricket?" There may be some potential to develop motor skills, however, the way ODIs are played destroys the essential balance of the game. Financial greed is the main culprit. I understand there's a lot of money to be made in drugs and prostitution, however, maybe we shouldn't give the marketing people any more ideas. Even though I'm now officially a grumpy old man, I wholeheartedly support a strict limit of 3 Tests and 3 ODIs to a series with the ODIs scheduled as an appetizer rather than a "main event" after even successful touring teams have had enough.

Yes, Tim, there is indeed too much cricket being played today and that is all because of its commercial value. So much money is at stake and and players have far too many chances of making good money if they keep fit and IN form. I agree to the commercialism to a certain point keeping the average playing time of a player. Where any other professional could work for 30 or 40 years and earn money, a cricketer has , on average, 10 years to make an earning for a lifetime, provided they remain fit and keep on producing goods for their teams. Look at most of the past cricketers, they are all facing financial difficulties. So in a way the growing number of playing opportunities is good for the players as well as for the people who are running the business. Players are also being affected physically because of the high demands today's aggressive cricket puts to them.
On the other hand, it does get boring at times to watch cricket and that is mainly due to the length of the game even if it is a one day game. The game of football never loses its charm for its followers because its a much shorter game and tournaments can be played year round. Football players also get over with a single game in 90 minutes instead of having to play it for most part of the day or five days in case of a test match.
Nevertheless, for fanatics, cricket will never lose its charm and attraction. Atleast, playing 8 games in the qualifying round of CB series gave England a late chance to show some performance at last. Any lesser games, and England would have been back at home by now. So something for you to celebrate, Tim.

Hi,
I absolutely agree on this one. Hectic scheduling is not a new phenomenon though. This has happened in the last 10-12 years gradually, as the cricket boards have realized the enormous bounty they can earn by holding inconsequential one day matches. I mean the recent Ind-Pak matches have been a blatant exploitation of the current tensions between the two countries.

Cricket fatigue by playing is one thing; but cricket fatigue by simply watching is totally other!!

If you feel tired by just watching the game, think about the players, out there hopping from one city to another without families.

It is time we restricted each country to 20 one dayers and 10 tests per calendar year. ie 70 days of international cricket.

Let them participate more in the domestice competitions.

That is the only way we can ensure optimal performance from every playerand bridge gap between domestic and international cricket at the same time.

-Aditya

I must say, im not an Auzzie, but i loved watching the crowds in Aus durin the Ashes. It was great to see such a turnout for test matches-the real cricket. I agree there are lot of meaningless ODIs. We should have something like a season of ODIs that is played every year where all the teams are involved. Kind of like the leagues in other sports. If India play West Indies then that game should have an affect with a ODI in Aus or Eng. Who cares if SA is beating up on Pak right now? or Sri Lanka playing England. I used to like ODIs and im sure the craving will comeback during the World Cup; but I must say recently i've been finding ODIs boring. Either because the compitition between bat and ball isnt the same anymore or because Test matches are just more interesting. I rem when 250 could be a decent score..and if you scored 220ish you could still perform well to win.. Now forget it..even 300 is not enough which is Sad! Kudos to Test cricket

Yea Tim, I agree with you. With overdose of all forms of cricket, it has definetly taken a back seat. Now I no more yearn to watch matches that start early or go late into the night as it can be compensated by watching another match starting in the next couple days. Also, the quality of cricket dished out has become mediocre and thanks to ICC it has even become boring. No more Javed - Lillee type confrontations. Cricket slowly is losing its originality as well as getting repetetive.

Thats it... Its RIP cricket

Yes Tim, I agree with you. If there would be less cricket England would have not ashamed that much down under. If you find cricket so boring due to so much cricket being played why don't you cut down ashes to 3 tests. It was boring this summer. Surely cricket would be much attractive if England does not compete at all!

Tim, you're totally right - there's far too much international cricket being played at the moment, and the motivation is purely financial.

For example, the Super 8 round of the World Cup is a joke, taking 24 matches to reduce the number of teams from 8 to 4, where in football there would only be 4 games.

Allowing 6 non-test nations into the World Cup is nothing to do with it, though - in my mind they'll add a bit of colour to the 'usual suspects' we only saw a few months ago in the Champions Trophy, and might even pull off one or two upsets. After all no one complains when, say, England's football team plays part-time teams like Luxembourg in World Cup qualifiers.

"BANG" The sound of the hammer hitting the nail on the head.

I want to like more Twenty20 matches instead of One Day Internationals.

Totally agree with Tim, there is too much cricket at the moment and we are seeing the effects of it on players. Most teams are suffering from injures and there is no time for players to recover from them. If this trend continues, we will see more matches played without key players and the “beautiful game” will eventually lose the charm.

ICC is after money all the time and I believe its time for the fans of cricket to take a stand and make sure that cricket remains a favourite sport of millions.

I couldn't agree more with most of your sentiments Tim - it seems like overs 10 - 40 are a series of dull singles, and plodding bowlers trying more to stop runs than take wickets. Surely a variation of the game which encourages bowlers NOT to take wickets is defeating the purpose. What you have entirely missed the point on, however, is the average Australian’s passion for winning everything regardless of whether it's pretty, fascinating or fair. As you can see by some of the comments, there are many Australians who love nothing better than watching their team annihilate their opponents, and if it's 25 times a season all the better. How quickly they leap to the conclusion that you find this boring is a by product of your team being soundly beaten. Well, the last 3 series have been complete non events too and they didn't feature England. Even Ponting has declared several times that he finds this form of cricket dull and he'd be happy to play less. Surely the intellectual giant who loves to 'put up his feet and crack open a coldie' can just change channels and watch motorsport instead?

Yes Tim is right and I think so that is why lot of class cricketers are suffering from injuries.
This is the result of so many ODI's in a year. If it continues like this then it can heart the world of cricket.

Limited Overs Cricket is a contradiction in terms. It should be abolished entirely.

I think Krishna has missed the point. Funny that pretty much everyone else who replied does. And surely there are good intentions from as you point out Krishna a journalist who makes money from reporting on cricket to call for less? Anyway the reason Chennai was sold out was because one day matches in India FEATURING India sell out very quickly, due to the passionate support of India. I think you'll find many of the Champion's Trophy matches NOT featuring India had poor attendances.

what are you thinking mate theres not enuf cricket on tv bud. whats better then sitting round the tv on a hot day with the air con on full havin a cold one with ya mates an cheerin Punter all the way to his 100. so if ya think that gets borin then i think you should stik ur more exciting games like golf.

How very eloquently put Andrew, maybe you should learn the English language before ranting like that.

My opinion would be to structure all cricket tours/tournaments/series around a strict criteria to avoid player burnout and overloading the public.

I would like to see each country play a 5-test series every year and two 3-test series, totalling 11 tests per country each year. In 3 years, each country will have played at least one series against all other test nations. This also allows the ICC Test Championship to run over 3 years and not 4.

As far as the one day fare goes, a 2 nation series should be limited to a maximum of 5 matches(series will last only 2 weeks) and 3 team triangular tournaments to a maximum of 6 round robin matches (each team plays each other twice) and a final, making a 7 match series.

The two 3-test series I suggest could even be played back-to-back with a triangular one-day series in between.

Too much focus is centered around international cricket and it's diluting the quality and the excitement of fans. One-day and test matches should be sold-out regardless of the teams playing.

I would also suggest having a annual inter-franchise tournament, pitting the top domestic from all other test nations together in one tournament and inviting nations such as Canada, USA and Uganda to play in these tournaments. This could be a global series or divided into a Southern/Northern hemisphere format.

I believe this would generate a great deal of interest in much the same way as football's Champions League and the Super 14 and Heineken Cup of rugby.

If it's true that the Aussie players are making $10 to $12 thousand a game, you'll never ever hear them moan about 'too much' cricket. I'd much rather watch the Aussie A team again... but make them play for pride in their country and not cash !

like fruit in supermarkets, cricket is no longer seasonal. it needs to be cut down by atleat a quarter - better still - a third.

there's way too much pyjama cricket and soon the even shorter lingere cricket )Twenty20) will OD (as in overdose) us cricket fans. act now or lose cricket-interest.

it's stupid to have triangulars with a "final." no meaning whatsoever! it's just another way to make money which is fine but what the ICC and some cricket boards are doing is killing the goose that lays the golden eggs! i'm a die-hard cricket fan but even i've had too much of it lately. thank GOD for golf and lifestyle food channel!

I think the author has raised an interesting issue.

The Aussies, by playing at least 5 tests and 15 ODIs at home year after year in the same months at the same times, gaining unfair advantage over its opponents???

They play the same teams too often in a year, bludgeon them and have yearly statistics that read something like this:

Tests
=====
Played: 5
Won: 5
Teams played against: 1!!!

ODIs
====
Played: 15
Won: 14,
Teams played against: 2!!!!.

Cricket rocks......most tv now is rubbish...it is important that after coming home from a soul destryoing job...that people have cricket to watch every day...when you are at work and theres no cricket..people just walk aroun looking lost

I couldn't agree with you more. There was a time when i used to wait anxiously for days before a Pakistan ODI and talked about it with my mates for days still, after it was finished.
All has changed now. Its just too much. And by too much i mean TOO MUCH. People like Trescothick have already fallen prey to the hunger of the media, the organizers and the money makers. Lets hope against hope that the game of cricket doesn't become the next victim.

Good blog Tim, agree with most of it. Great to see England winning a few games though. Ha Ha Ha Ha, ho ho ho ho ho!!!

Yes too much cricekt is being played. Prolly ICC shoudl make it a standard of 3 tests & 5 ODIs. And a Ban on Tri-Series having n Round Robins. One or Two rounds would be fine. I rememebr tests being played with a gud amt of gap btn with (2 Tests in a month) and ODIs with 3-4 Dyas btn them. Gone r those days. ODIs r fast becoming batsmen oriented run feasts. Its time the groundsmen start giving bowlers a feast.

The proportion of one dayers to tests should be 1:1. Test cricket is the one test of cricketing skill. Play 1:1 and we might remember some one-dayers. One day cricket has become totally inconsequential and I couldn't care less if England lost every one dayer but won every test.

Well written, Tim! The amount of international one day cricket makes it uninteresting.

Some of the English cricket heirarchy & media have argued that England are poor at the 1 day game because they don't play enough of it, yet look at the amount that is played at the County level.

The only 1 day tournament that means anything is the World Cup. Let's make/keep it special by making it the only tournament that has more than 4 teams playing in it, & make the Champions Trophy into a 20/20 World Cup, also played every 4 years.

Every 2 team one day series should be over 3 matches, & 3 team series a maximum of 6 matches before qualification to the final.

Lets scrap all the artificial rules created to try & make one day cricket 'interesting' ie no restrictions on the amount of bowlers overs etc.

I might then start to take an interest - until then one day internationals are just like fast food - tasteless & instantly forgettable

Yeah, I agree. there is far too much test, & especially one day cricket.

More is not always better. Quality is sacrificed for quantity.

When I first started following Cricket in the late 1960s as a 12 year old, I couldn't wait for the next series to come around. In the meantime I savoured the series just past, recounting the scores, etc.

Today who cares. Miss one test or one dayer, don't worry, there's another tomorrow somewhere in the world.

Cricket salaries should be based on the number of people who are attracted through the turnstiles, not how many pay-TV subscriptions are sold.

Make the players accountable for the quality of play on the field. Reduce the number of matches & give the players adequate time to prepare for each big occassion.

But it won't happen. Mindless tests & one dayers muddling into each other is the modern day way.