Has One-Day Cricket Suddenly Become Meaningless?

To answer the question briefly, the answer is "yes." But this is so not because of some apparent deficiencies in the ODI format or because the players and the viewing public suddenly find it boring. The truth is that one-day cricket has seen its stock plummet since the inaugural T20 World Cup in 2007 because cricket's administrators have now identified a new cash-cow to replace the older one. From 1975 to 2007, one-day cricket happened to be the biggest money-spinner in the sport, and administrators basically maxed out on ODIs during this period. Subcontinental teams profited the most: between 1996 and 2006, South Asian teams routinely played an incredible 40-50 ODIs each year. Millions of dollars, especially in television rights, became the norm for international cricket, especially in the subcontinent.

All that, however, changed after India won the inaugural edition of the T20 World Cup in South Africa. Lalit Modi, who had earlier ridiculed the T20 concept, now became its top cheerleader with his IPL concept. Whereas the 2007 World Cup had raised USD 239 million, the latest edition of the IPL in 2009 raked in a whopping USD 2.16 billion, or nearly ten times the value of the leading ODI tournament in the world. With the likelihood of more IPL-like tournaments in England, Australia, and South Africa, economic logic dictates that the lucrative T20 format supplant the older ODIs as the leading money-spinner in the game. ODIs will, therefore, be scrapped altogether or replaced by a format that embeds the virtues of T20 cricket in the traditional structure of Tests (each team playing two innings of 20-25 overs each).

The logic of lucre certainly makes sense. But what is interesting is that no one is putting matters quite so bluntly. Commentators and players try to be diplomatic when they offer circuitous explanations for why one-dayers no longer excite. We are told that the middle overs of ODIs are "slow"; that many ODIs are one-sided affairs rather than close contests; that the toss can give an unfair advantage to one team in many countries. But curiously, no one complained about these apparent deficiencies for 32 long years between 1975 and 2007. To my mind, it's time to call a spade a spade rather than a bloody shovel. It's time people were honest about why T20 is winning out over one-dayers. Let's admit that it's got to do with moolah alone, and nothing else. The general public merely follows the latest fashion statement in the cricket industry, so simply generating media hype brings in millions nowadays. That's precisely where Lalit Modi & Co. come in. When the bania rules and sport becomes cheap entertainment, one can be assured that inferior products will be "chosen" by idiot consumers in the limited market of goods made available to them.