World Cup 2023: A thrilling ride for India, but can ODIs reclaim their edge?
Games lost with a whimper, the lack of a competitive edge, could be fatal for an already ailing format. Yet there are ways to fix this, says Rudraneil Sengupta.
The 2023 ODI World Cup has been a breath-taking stage for India to flex its cricketing prowess on; a place where Rohit Sharma and Co can’t seem to put a foot wrong. There has been spectacular batting right through the order, chase masterclasses, a fast-bowling unit that has eclipsed even the batting maestros, spinners who have made a mess of the opposition, and canny, sharp captaincy. With an air of inevitability, India are in the final.
Taking nothing away from the team’s supreme performance, though, there is another thing that has typified this World Cup, something that may eventually prove to be the final blow to a long-ailing format — the lack of a competitive edge. This is a World Cup in which the games have been lost with a whimper. The whole point of elite sport is heightened competition. The World Cup has drawn a blank here.
Take India. We’ve had nine wins in nine games in the group stage, eight of them wrapped up at resting heart rate: Australia beaten with six wickets in hand and almost 10 overs to go; Afghanistan by eight wickets with 15 overs remaining; Pakistan by seven wickets; Bangladesh by seven wickets; England by 100 runs; Sri Lanka walloped by a 302-run margin; South Africa by 243 runs; Netherlands by 160 runs. The team’s only remotely competitive outing was against New Zealand, where the chase came down to the 48th over. And then in the semi-final, New Zealand failed to make a game of it, losing by a yawning 70 runs.
Admittedly, India have had a stellar run. How about the other semi-finalists as they made their way through the group? South Africa’s victory margins include 229 runs, 190 runs, 149 runs and 134 runs. New Zealand have won games by eight wickets, and by 149 runs. Australia have set the record for the highest victory margin in ODIs, with a 309-run win. In fact, two of the top ten biggest victory margins in ODI history have been recorded at this World Cup. Even the “upsets” were not close matches: Afghanistan beat England by 69 runs, Netherlands got the better of South Africa by 38 runs, and Afghanistan beat Pakistan by eight wickets.
The only match that saw a gritty, thrilling battle between bat and ball was the Australia-South Africa semi-final. Tellingly, it was a low scoring game, and as Australia held their nerve to overcome South Africa’s total of 212, it was a game that crackled with electricity from beginning to end.
The facile wins are not good news for a format already struggling to solve the “problem” of the middle overs. The issue, in a nutshell, is this: The first 10 overs in an ODI see heated action as the batting team throws its full arsenal at the bowling team to take advantage of the fielding restrictions. The last 10 overs promise another round of helter-skelter action as the restrictions come back on. What then is the use of the 30 overs — the bulk of the game! — in the middle? In other words: What good are ODIs when we have T20s?
In an era of close contests, the argument has been that with the ODI, you can never say where the game will go. Which is also what elite sport is about. Well, teams seem to now look at a 300-plus chase in an ODI and simply give up.
Two teams — Sri Lanka and South Africa — have been bundled out for two-digit scores chasing 300-plus totals. It’s like the middle overs have become a mystery to the cricketers themselves, now that they are steeped in T20s.
T20s have clearly swallowed the space for the limited-overs format in cricket. The game’s custodians have helped this along, partly by the T20fication of ODIs. The One-Day game has long been pushed towards a place where batters are far more important than bowlers. Over the years, rule changes have focused entirely on making ODIs big-scoring affairs — basically, a sort of elongated T20. In the process, the One Day game’s unique identity has eroded to the point where no one — not the officials, players or spectators — has a clear idea of what to really do with it.
Take defending champions England. Their utter collapse at this World Cup was hardly a surprise, given that only eight of the squad members had played 20 or more ODIs between their 2019 World Cup triumph and this World Cup opening. England’s focus has been on Tests and T20s, as it has been for every major cricketing nation. Even the Marylebone Cricket Club has called for ODIs to be “significantly reduced” outside World Cup years.
The late great Shane Warne, always a visionary when it came to the game, was one of the first to speak up about how ODIs were losing relevance. In an article on his website, he had expounded on some typically Warne-ish (read, radical) ideas about how to resurrect the format: Do away with all field restrictions, and introduce a ball that does more — either with a more pronounced seam, or intentionally weighted on one side to make it swing. Both sound like good ideas now. After all, bats have changed so much that they’re almost unrecognisable from those that were used even 10 years ago, but the ball has remained the same.
An India win could change things too. The death of ODIs had been heralded before, perhaps most loudly in the late-Aughts. Then, in 2011, MS Dhoni and his men made magic, winning the ODI World Cup in front of an adoring Wankhede crowd. The defining image of that final, Sachin Tendulkar being carried on Virat Kohli’s shoulders, alone gave the format a new lease of life.
It seems to have fallen to the Indian team, yet again, to perform CPR, as they stand on the cusp of another home victory in the World Cup.
The 2023 ODI World Cup has been a breath-taking stage for India to flex its cricketing prowess on; a place where Rohit Sharma and Co can’t seem to put a foot wrong. There has been spectacular batting right through the order, chase masterclasses, a fast-bowling unit that has eclipsed even the batting maestros, spinners who have made a mess of the opposition, and canny, sharp captaincy. With an air of inevitability, India are in the final.
Taking nothing away from the team’s supreme performance, though, there is another thing that has typified this World Cup, something that may eventually prove to be the final blow to a long-ailing format — the lack of a competitive edge. This is a World Cup in which the games have been lost with a whimper. The whole point of elite sport is heightened competition. The World Cup has drawn a blank here.
Take India. We’ve had nine wins in nine games in the group stage, eight of them wrapped up at resting heart rate: Australia beaten with six wickets in hand and almost 10 overs to go; Afghanistan by eight wickets with 15 overs remaining; Pakistan by seven wickets; Bangladesh by seven wickets; England by 100 runs; Sri Lanka walloped by a 302-run margin; South Africa by 243 runs; Netherlands by 160 runs. The team’s only remotely competitive outing was against New Zealand, where the chase came down to the 48th over. And then in the semi-final, New Zealand failed to make a game of it, losing by a yawning 70 runs.
Admittedly, India have had a stellar run. How about the other semi-finalists as they made their way through the group? South Africa’s victory margins include 229 runs, 190 runs, 149 runs and 134 runs. New Zealand have won games by eight wickets, and by 149 runs. Australia have set the record for the highest victory margin in ODIs, with a 309-run win. In fact, two of the top ten biggest victory margins in ODI history have been recorded at this World Cup. Even the “upsets” were not close matches: Afghanistan beat England by 69 runs, Netherlands got the better of South Africa by 38 runs, and Afghanistan beat Pakistan by eight wickets.
The only match that saw a gritty, thrilling battle between bat and ball was the Australia-South Africa semi-final. Tellingly, it was a low scoring game, and as Australia held their nerve to overcome South Africa’s total of 212, it was a game that crackled with electricity from beginning to end.
The facile wins are not good news for a format already struggling to solve the “problem” of the middle overs. The issue, in a nutshell, is this: The first 10 overs in an ODI see heated action as the batting team throws its full arsenal at the bowling team to take advantage of the fielding restrictions. The last 10 overs promise another round of helter-skelter action as the restrictions come back on. What then is the use of the 30 overs — the bulk of the game! — in the middle? In other words: What good are ODIs when we have T20s?
In an era of close contests, the argument has been that with the ODI, you can never say where the game will go. Which is also what elite sport is about. Well, teams seem to now look at a 300-plus chase in an ODI and simply give up.
Two teams — Sri Lanka and South Africa — have been bundled out for two-digit scores chasing 300-plus totals. It’s like the middle overs have become a mystery to the cricketers themselves, now that they are steeped in T20s.
T20s have clearly swallowed the space for the limited-overs format in cricket. The game’s custodians have helped this along, partly by the T20fication of ODIs. The One-Day game has long been pushed towards a place where batters are far more important than bowlers. Over the years, rule changes have focused entirely on making ODIs big-scoring affairs — basically, a sort of elongated T20. In the process, the One Day game’s unique identity has eroded to the point where no one — not the officials, players or spectators — has a clear idea of what to really do with it.
Take defending champions England. Their utter collapse at this World Cup was hardly a surprise, given that only eight of the squad members had played 20 or more ODIs between their 2019 World Cup triumph and this World Cup opening. England’s focus has been on Tests and T20s, as it has been for every major cricketing nation. Even the Marylebone Cricket Club has called for ODIs to be “significantly reduced” outside World Cup years.
The late great Shane Warne, always a visionary when it came to the game, was one of the first to speak up about how ODIs were losing relevance. In an article on his website, he had expounded on some typically Warne-ish (read, radical) ideas about how to resurrect the format: Do away with all field restrictions, and introduce a ball that does more — either with a more pronounced seam, or intentionally weighted on one side to make it swing. Both sound like good ideas now. After all, bats have changed so much that they’re almost unrecognisable from those that were used even 10 years ago, but the ball has remained the same.
An India win could change things too. The death of ODIs had been heralded before, perhaps most loudly in the late-Aughts. Then, in 2011, MS Dhoni and his men made magic, winning the ODI World Cup in front of an adoring Wankhede crowd. The defining image of that final, Sachin Tendulkar being carried on Virat Kohli’s shoulders, alone gave the format a new lease of life.
It seems to have fallen to the Indian team, yet again, to perform CPR, as they stand on the cusp of another home victory in the World Cup.