The problem is that there is just too much cricket on for the Australian spectator to digest. The ill-conceived ICC ‘super series’ started the Australian summer in October, and since then we’ve had six Tests between Australia and West Indies and South Africa. This comes on top of a very busy 2005, where the national team was pitted in an epic battle against England. So the passionate cricket lovers of Melbourne have half their attention turned to the return bout against England, which is only nine months away now, and the rest of Melbourne is waiting for the AFL football season to start.

So to make an ODI fixture attractive to the paying public, it has to have some meaning in the greater scheme of things. A preliminary round of the VB series, in the greater scheme of things, means…

Yeah, exactly.

The Australians haven’t done the public much favours, resting key players at various points in the tournament. Given the punishing schedule that they’ve been under, that is understandable, but it still sends a message to the viewer about exactly how highly they rate these games.

Limited overs cricket has revolutionised the game, and, from an administrator’s point of view, have revolutionised the game’s finances. However, there is always a danger of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. And the fact is, that in Australia anyway, the goose is a bit green around the gills just lately.

Point to be noted indeed Scott. This season even people quite used to singing hosannas of ODIs (or Tests) secretly feel even teh freshness of that 'blasphemy' (as viewd by some) called Twenty20 can be something of a welcome relief to the ovedose of the 2 old forms.

Taking up a related but slightly different issue, what makes a chunk of them even more insufferable is the lack of double tier structure to avoid fixtures involving uneven matches.

I mean, barring the odd upset per decade those results are known beforehand to even those commentators who are paid to start the telecast declaring the 'scene to be just perfect for a cracker of a match'.

Introduction of multi-tier system (with relegation / promotion) should be the need of the hour. Can go a step further on this: The ages that are being taken by so many teams to improve level of their domestic cricket (approaching international standards) should mean such a system be adopted quick for betterment of the world game.

And I did not mean just Bangla / Zim there - it was about any team where improvement of domestic cricket is not at the top of the agenda.

2 points. First, tri series involve too many matches between sides. Better to invite one of the lesser teams and make it a 4 way league. Play only 2 matches between each team and a single final.
Secondly, I believe the reason there is an uneven standard is not just the domestic game. It is also lack of serious matches. No team that only plays 5-6 ODIs a year will ever compete with one that plays 30 odd. Anyone that suggests different is more of a goose than the one Scott reckons is sickly.

How about scrapping meaningless tournaments like the VB Series from the calender and introducing a centralized "season" in international cricket. And please don't bring up the historical prominence of the tri-series in the Aussie summer because it's less than 30 years old.

Let's get each team to play the same number of games every year. Let's also have a year-end champ like the ATP and a World Cup every four years. Sounds outrageous? Well, it shouldn't. If someone had mentioned the idea of "having SuperSubs" in cricket I would have told them instantly that cricketers, being professional athletes, need more than just Subway sandwiches for lunch. That would have been me then, but today I'm used to watching 12 men play a game of cricket. Sounds disgusting right? 12 men? Playing cricket? Well, it doesn't look quite as awful. 'Coz we're human: we get used to just about anything as long as its an improvement. Centralized season is definitely an improvement.

South Africa came to international cricket in 1991 after over 20 years of absence from international cricket and went into the 1992 world cup with 'internatioal' experience of 3 odd international matches since their return. remember their result in the tourney? That was a reflection of their domestic ODI structure and not their match practice.

Teams can play as many matches as you like at the top level. But as long as the players are having a 'lower' level back home to retreat after the trauma of international hammering and again plunder easy runs / wickets they are going to come back next season the same old weak team, barring a few individual exceptions having a different constitution.