Bowlers, especially medium pacers in the early days, focused on not giving
away runs rather than taking wickets. Then came the pinch hitter. But all
these changes took time. Generally, it was the World Cup that showcased
new tactics, which meant that the game evolved gradually over four years,
and then got it all together on its biggest stage.

But now Twenty20 has accelerated change, and appropriately enough, it is
India, the world champions who are spearheading the new revolution. They
have used the essence of the new format - with its frenetic hitting - and
adapted it to the one-day international. It has worked so well that the
threat of the extinction of the ODI has become very real.

For, if the 50-over game is identical to Twenty20, then one of
the two formats will become redundant, and the one most likely to be scrapped is the longer version. Survival for the three formats depends to a large
extent on keeping themselves distinct, separate from one another.

Can we really say all this after just a handful of matches? Yes, sometimes
you see a world in a grain of sand.

It is ridiculous to conclude that ODIs are being driven to extinction by T20s on the basis of a few matches on absolutely flat wickets and the smallest grounds in international cricket. If you care to cast your mind to the two international series just prior to this one-Aus-SA and Aus-NZ- teams found totals of 250 difficult to chase.

What determines whether an ODI will boil down to an extended Twenty20 is the pitch. The Chappell-Hadlee series in February 2007 was held before the Twenty20 boom and yet Australia failed to defend 340+ targets twice just as they failed to defend 430 in Jo'burg in 2006. The current games are in no way dissimilar to those and thus the Twenty20 causal connection is untenable.

Nice Article. I completely agree with you. The displacement of ODIs by T20 had already been predicted by some international players. But more recently has been highlighted by the small grounds in New Zealand, The Joburg ODI game and the change in tactics and methods of play since 2005 and the advent of the powerplay. However, Test cricket still Rules!!!!

I would disagree to some extent. Leave some ( not a whole lot ) grass on the pitch and allow some seam movement to the bowlers. More than the bats, I think hitting techniques have become far superior and the combination of eye, shoulder, arms and wrists are working superbly together.This means boundaries must clearly made appropriately longer to ensure that mishits do not carry all the way. In the last match at Hamilton, Ishant should rightfully have snapped McCullum off the first ball when an outside edge flew over the third man, and so should Vettori have snapped Sehwag on 98. Outfields must be made slower to ensure that there are more twos and threes in the game. Every shot that beats the infield cant be a boundary. I think 50-50 has relevance, provided administrators tweak the game to bring bowlers back into it. Its a disgrace that good bowlers are regularly hit out of the park simply because of short boundaries, greased lightning outfields and heavy bats.

I don't think this comment is valid, not yet. The grounds in Australia, South Africa and England are pretty big, compared to the ones in New Zealand.

Also, the pitches may also be better. South Africa found it tough chasing 270 in the recently played ODI series against Australia.

India needs to show their six-hitting prowess in those grounds and then only can the ODI become redundant, atleast with respect to India.

The recent show of batting power by India is a mark of the quality of the Indian batsmen combined with the fearlessness of T20, IPL etc.

But, that does not mean all countries can replicate it easily. It's not mindless hitting- it's quality hitting you see from quality batsmen.

England have been playing more domestic T20s than the whole world. How many clean-hitters of the cricket ball (like Yuvraj, Raina, Yusuf Pathan, Dhoni) has their tournament produced?

I disagree with you that the Indian performance is a global phenomenon.

Give some credit to India!

TYPICAL ARMCHAIR CRITICS. I AM HONESTLY GETTING SICK AND TIRED OF UR WHINGING. INDIA PLAYED WELL AND THEY DESERVED TO WIN PERIOD.

Good article... I see 50-over ODIs becoming extinct within next 10 years. Test cricket will remain as it has done over so many years, but T20 with its fast-pace,excitement and lack of 'one-sidedness' (which happens a lot with 50-over ODIs) will see T20 kill off ODIs. Maybe a good thing.

Hello sir,
21st century totally belongs to 20-20 cricket.As it is the latest format of cricket for entertaining the crowd .Its just like watching a movie for 3 hours with full suspense and excitement.Its a game for the youth and younger generation as one has to be fully fit and fine in the field.And as you rightly said "That it has brought the 50-50 over match to extinction." It was evident in the recent matches played between India and NewZealand.Where we saw empty stadium and not much people coming to watch the match except a few indian supporters coming to cheer up their team.

You are making these judgements based on just a few matches of India against NZ. You can be quite sure that India will not be able to carry out this effortless aggression against strong teams like SA or Australia. They WILL have to adjust because unlike NZ, these teams will not just roll over.

I really wish India and Australia play a series of five-match ODI's in Australia now. It would be really really interesting *slurp*. Just imagine, Mitchell Johnson running at Gabba to Virender Sehwag...

But ODI cricket will survive...

I think we are reading too much into this one series.New Zealand have tried to compensate for their blunder in 2002 and have ended up overcompensating.Even a decent pitch would have yielded 300 at Christchurch as it is too small.Suresh Raina would have been caught out at least twice in that innings but those shots went for six.MAybe they should bring 3 runs (given) as in gully cricket for those grounds.

Suresh Menon, three words: Live theatre, TV, cinema[sorry those were 4]. But don't these three mediums co-exist? Would we not watch romeo and juliet on all three and still be enthralled? Why do we need to be so paranoid about T20. All games need to evolve and ODIs will too, and at the cost of being condemned by cricket purists, so will 5 day games. Basically purists boggle my mind, they talk of the game being played true to its character. Well how many people do you think would enjoy watching Brett lee bowl girly underarms at sachin? 'cos that was how it was played long before overarm. Let the good times roll Suresh, for cricket now has something for all types of people and nationality. And yes! I am one of those who enjoys the sixes, it does take special ability to hit those. My lack of that ability was why I never even made it in this game.

It's reminds me of Survival of the Fittest, or rather, shortest. Everything is getting shorter these days. People can't go through the hassle of sitting for an entire day and watch matches. 24 hours aren't just enough. But then again, don't predict doomsday. Cricket has continuously evolved, and if this is the way of new cricket, then so let it be. Overarm replacing underarm, was a huge change, and today we see the difference(At least the NZs did!!). 50-over cricket introduced a whole new dimension in the 60s and 70s. A few years later, you'll see the results of this revolution. Meanwhile, just adapt and see everything with a positive outlook. If the 50-over format was just a mediocre format, neither this nor that, then its evolution is good.

Over reacting I would say. I'm sure this approach would never happen in ODI matches once they leave New Zealand. Maybe they would be in over drive mode for one game, which essentially would be the after effects of playing on miniature grounds in Kiwiland, but India will revert back to the tried and tested strategy of slam bang at the top, the consolidation in the middle and the big slog again at the end to play the ODIs. This is just crying wolf based on the conditions. A statistics article on this same site shows New Zealand as the only country where higher runs rates and more sixes have been a norm than the exception in recent years.

man relax and enjoy what the game has to offer. Why get so philosophical and uptight about everything.

People always wanted to globalise the game, and see progression. now thats its happening...your scared and pessimistic about it. RELAX and let it take its path. uneccessary complaining. chill out man.

On the contrary to what is said here, I feel ODI's are adapting to the demands of the t20 audience. Ofcourse the pace is frentic but so it was supposed to be in ODI's. Infact it should be noted that its not easy what teams like India are doing, you have to be consistently aggressive which could also mean ur downfall inside the full quota of overs and since India manage to pull it off is testimony to there ability and fearlessness. I think India are taking the West Indies route when they used to intimidate the opposition teams with there hard and carefree batting. I am sure with time other teams would also come up with there startegies to catch up and thus it makes for very exciting times for ODI cricket.

I believe that the extinction might not be that quick. What we are seeing now is the use of 20/20 tactics in 50 over game, much like what test cricket underwent. The marginalisation of 50 over games will be slower due to the basic difference in the number of overs.
About whether these few matches point towards a future, I think thats a crude generalisation. What was needed was better pitches, balanced pitches rather than the flat, one dimensional pitches. If better pitches are produced, bowlers will have a better chance that they had in this series.
On the other hand, it could be interesting to limit the test matches to say 80-90 overs per side and have 2 innings per side as is. That could make them more interesting at the same time keeping differentiating it from one day and 20/20.

I think a full day cricket game is still worth preserving but the only way to do it is to provide additional incentives for bowlers so it is a more even contest. Getting rid of over restrictions on bowlers might be a step towards this.

For the one day WC to be taken over by a 20/20 WC is really pushing logic and common sense to the extreme. What makes you think people would watch a game where bowlers and fielders are servants to batting masters? Cricket is nothing without bowlers, one look at your three pace seamers in the current series against NZ will tell you that.
20/20 is only half a game of cricket. Boys will grow up only wanting to be batsmen if 20/20 were to take over from ODI's. Therefore, anyone that cares abbout cricket will do everything in their power to ensure this does not happen. A game without bowlers, I have never heard such nonsense.
8 a side cricket has also disappeared, nobody cares for an uneven contest, Mr. Menon.

At its heart, your piece has a point. However, it is full of inconsistencies. Firstly, you say that 20/20 reduces cricket to hits into the stand. But just because 20/20 does not have the complexity of test (or even ODI) cricket, it does not then follow that it is without complexity of its own. This is straw man stuff. Bowlers have had to find new methods to halt the onslaught. Batsmen have had to conjure up new ways of maximising on their limited time in the middle. Captains have had to think harder about how and when they use their bowlers; where they place their fielders; should they bat first or bowl first? Do the conditions matter in a 20/20? They might. And so on.

Secondly, you contrast 20/20 with ODIs to finish up delivering your conclusion – that ODIs must needs disappear – on the premise that the two formats are becoming conflated. Which is it? Are 20/20 and ODIs too alike or are they too different?

20-20 may become more popular, but will never lead to extinction of ODIs. During the 90s, the ODIs became a lot more popular than Test Cricket, but today Test Cricket has once again regained its popularity and now every Team plays test cricket for more number of days than the ODIs.

20-20 is very new and people are really very excited about it. For globalisation of the sport, this shorter version of the game will be very helpful.
ODIs is different from T20 as well as Test Cricket and requires altogether different match strategies and should stay.

Infact during the IPL-2, one might have observed the change in strategies for a 20-20 match. The innings are now being build the way it is done in an ODI. Focus is increasing on retaining the wickets and start hitting only at the end.