ICC Cricket World Cup 2023 On Notice?

As focus shifts from the Border Gavaskar Trophy and Test cricket to the one day internationals, once again the issue of the endangered species status that has been accorded to the limited overs internationals is back under the radar. Some within the cricket fraternity are even sounding the alarm as far as the ICC Cricket World Cup is concerned.

Could the ICC Cricket World Cup 2023 be the last? Could the one day internationals be near their end? These are not grim rumour mongering but rather serious debates and discussions being waged as India take on Australia in the fifty overs a side format.

The speculation has been so intense in the once enigmatic format that there is even talk to the extent of suggesting that the ICC Cricket World Cup as the traditional cricket World Cup is known might not see the light of day beyond an edition or two.

This is not the first time that the fate of the one day internationals has been discussed with a warning of dire straits. So what makes this so grave? Or pertinent that it should be taken seriously enough?

The ICC Cricket World Cup returns to India. The platform could not be louder in terms of spectators, an audience who are often the barometer of where things stand. That said, the sparse crowds at Test cricket cannot be attributed to consumers’ narrowing attention span, as or why the ODI’s have now lost their place on the cricket calendar.

There are several factors that go into the making of a particular sport. It might have been forgotten that before the inception of the Twenty20 format, the ODI’s used to be the bread and butter of the sport, and even then labelled as a circus in coloured clothes.

That the one day internationals have had to undergo changes to keep with the times, to allow for experimentation, to allow for that experimentation to fall flat on its face and still keep its space on the calendar is a testament to its survival spirit. There is little doubt that the ODI’s, once the embodiment of limited overs format, are the conduit bridging the gap between the slap dash affair that is Twenty20 and the test of temperament that is Test cricket.

Former cricketers like Ravi Shastri have a point when they talk about the game needing to adapt itself to the times, citing the example of the one day internationals having already undergone a revision from 60 overs a side to 50 when they touched base in the subcontinent for want of time for both, lunch and tea.

Over time the one day internationals have been experimented with, sometimes rather tastelessly and sometimes without having given them a real trial at the domestic level, complicating it in real time with the application of rules. One of them that has survived has been the power play but while the power plays have also been incorporated into Twenty20, the one day internationals barely resemble Twenty20.

If anything, they seem to have more in common with Test cricket in terms of building an innings, adapting with either blustery action or consolidating strategy, and pushing when it matters.

However, there are far deeper implications with doing away with the one day internationals or the Twenty20 series in bilateral series. For one, it is the only time when teams play as a unit and would not want to be found wanting when a World Cup comes around.

Second, they provide context to the World Cup which would only be an exhibition otherwise given the chasm of quality and exposure between various teams.

Third, and more important, from cricket’s global perspective, the governing body, the ICC, depends on the World Cup to raise the funds that further the development of the sport. The World Cup is the only opportunity where associate nations have a chance to make a name for themselves, with their ultimate agenda being to represent their nation in Test cricket, which is a far more difficult entry.

Without the World Cups, or the bilateral series practice as it were, the ICC is reduced to hosting what would be exhibition shows. That is where the problem for the ODIs comes from. They do not fit into the Test mould in terms of traditional responsibility nor do they fall into the irreverence bracket where Twenty20 does not mind being given the status of a World Cup worthy format nor does it mind being reduced to a regional or club format for easy access and serving the purpose of the lowest common denominator as it were.

The ODI’s need more than just a shaving off of another ten overs. While some of the previous changes have been harsh, imprudent and sometimes hasty for want of time for refinement which a domestic tournament could have allowed, the ODI’s need leverage, to enhance the nuances that make them unique.

The ODIs allow for a far larger time than Twenty20 where fielding teams can recover from an onslaught or the batting time can bat its way into a position from which it can launch. There is scope in the middle for slowing the game down or picking the scorecard consistently. The end is all about the art of death bowling and finishers.

Twenty20 does accord some of those variables but is too fast sometimes to implement the changes or too fast to pick up the subtle shifts.

That players personally don’t have a problem playing the format is of notable interest. How the cricket calendar is shaped might go more in telling whether a format dies a slow, unceremonious death or enjoys a revision of interest. Perhaps there is a need for a better balance, beginning with spacing between World Cups, and also, to create that build up.

To that end, the ICC has tried to inject interest with the ODI league contest where beyond a point teams will have to work their way towards points into automatically qualifying for the next edition of the ICC Cricket World Cup. South Africa were the recent recipients of that challenge, though a more consistent approach to scheduling tours is required so cricket fans on the whole are aware of the context at large while focussed on the contest at hand.

Players like Ben Stokes make the debate more complicated though all rounders like him are often cited for why cricket needs to clamp down on its format. Stokes’ retirement from one day international cricket made waves.

But this cannot be the sole criteria on which the fate of the one day game can be decided. Several factors including mental make-up, personal preferences and demand for one’s talent in a particular format or league do go into making these decisions in the modern era.

There are players who have given up Twenty20 cricket in a bid to lengthen their Test career with the ODIs becoming an easier platform to keep playing the game.

While the debate around the one day internationals is being drawn around the fact that the international cricket schedule is packed and therefore, something must give, since one day internationals, while being a revolution in themselves in the sport, have not had the kind of godfatherly support to form the kind of club and franchisee game that Twenty20 has, they are the first and easy to boot.

In that regard, it would seem that even Twenty20’s have lost their place in the calendar as being worthy of something of a bilateral seven match series or a triangular series which the one day internationals were sometimes incorporated into as part of the scheduled bilateral tours.

There has also been the suggestion that perhaps Twenty20 was best left to the mushrooming leagues, since now most teams play a mandatory 3 match series either in one day internationals or Twenty20 internationals depending on what World Cup is around the corner, unless the tour can afford the luxury of both.

With the ICC Twenty20 World Cup now scheduled every two years, it has practically shut the door on the one day game and its ability to keep up the intensity although the logic is understandable because four years is too long a gap for the governing board to encash its revenue while Twenty20 plays roulette with the various cricket boards season after season.

Overloading the schedule is perhaps the better place to look at then at the cutting board or the chopping block, as the case may be.

Twenty20 has thus far stood up to the background noise of the Hundred in England, where Twenty20 also evolved but did not catch on sufficiently enough as a cash cow, and also, T10 tournaments as well.

With the call now for the one day internationals to now be sliced down to 40 overs a side, and to be made more relevant on a bilateral tour, the question becomes whether this is one day internationals’ only lifeline in the game of survive, thrive or perish or it is also a warning to T20 to never think it to be the be all and end all of sport as ODIs used to be.