What if I told you that the future of cricket isn’t just about who wins but how we watch it? Sanjog Gupta, the ICC’s CEO, recently dropped a bombshell: the chaotic, calendar-cluttered bilateral ODI series we’ve grown accustomed to are dying. But here’s the twist—this isn’t just about scheduling; it’s about the soul of the game itself. Let me unpack why this matters and what it says about our obsession with structure in sports.
The phrase ‘randomly scheduled’ bilateral series sounds like a joke, but it’s a symptom of a deeper problem. For years, teams have shuffled ODI matches like a deck of cards, creating a haphazard calendar where fans are left scratching their heads. Gupta’s declaration that this era must end feels less like a statement and more like a sigh of relief. Why? Because context matters. When a team plays an ODI against a rival, it’s not just about the score—it’s about legacy, rivalry, and the stories that make us care. But without a clear narrative, even the most passionate fans tune out. Personally, I think this is where the ICC’s vision of ‘context, culture, competition, and competitiveness’ becomes a lifeline. It’s not just about games; it’s about creating moments that stick.
Now, let’s talk about the World Cup. The ICC’s new 2027 format, with its Super Series and Super 7 rounds, has sparked outrage among Associate teams. But here’s what’s fascinating: the World Cup has always been the gravitational center of ODI cricket. It’s the equivalent of the FIFA World Cup in soccer—a once-in-a-lifetime event that defines eras. However, the ICC’s latest tweak feels like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. By making the qualifiers a tri-series, they’re essentially saying, ‘We’ll let the underdogs fight it out, but only one gets to play.’ This raises a deeper question: Is the ICC prioritizing spectacle over inclusivity? From my perspective, the criticism from Scotland and the Netherlands isn’t just about fairness—it’s about identity. These teams see the World Cup as their chance to prove they belong, not just to survive a lottery.
Then there’s the elephant in the room: T20s. Jonty Rhodes, a man who’s played in the most thrilling ODIs of all time, recently said ODIs might be ‘in trouble.’ But here’s the irony—T20s didn’t kill Test cricket, as many predicted. Instead, they coexisted, creating a triad of formats. So why would ODIs be any different? The answer lies in passion. ODIs have a unique rhythm, a blend of strategy and flair that T20s can’t replicate. Yet, the problem isn’t the format itself—it’s the lack of meaningful matches. If ODIs become a sideshow to the World Cup and T20 leagues, they risk becoming the undead, as one article put it. A detail that I find especially interesting is how fans still rally for their teams in ODIs, even when the stakes feel low. That loyalty is a goldmine, but it needs to be nurtured, not squandered.
What makes this all particularly fascinating is the tension between tradition and innovation. The ICC is trying to future-proof ODIs by tying them to the World Cup, but at what cost? If the calendar becomes too rigid, will we lose the spontaneity that made ODIs magical in the first place? I’m reminded of how the World Test Championship added structure to Test cricket, but it also created a hierarchy that marginalized smaller teams. Is the ICC repeating the same mistake with ODIs? And what about the media rights? The next FTP cycle will determine how much money flows into the game, which means the ICC is essentially gambling on a format that’s already feeling the strain of relevance.
Let’s not forget the human element. Players like Jonty Rhodes and Graeme Smith aren’t just commenting—they’re living the evolution. Rhodes’ warning that ODIs might ‘be in trouble’ isn’t a death knell; it’s a call to action. The format needs to evolve, but not at the expense of its essence. What this really suggests is that the ICC must find a way to make ODIs feel urgent again. Maybe through more regional rivalries, or by integrating them into the T20 calendar as a bridge between formats. Or perhaps it’s time to embrace the chaos—after all, the best ODIs are often the ones that feel like a gamble, not a chore.
In the end, the fate of ODIs isn’t just about cricket. It’s about how we consume sports in an age of infinite options. Will we cling to the past, or dare to reimagine the future? The answer might lie in how the ICC answers the question: What do ODIs stand for in 2027? If they can’t answer that, the format might not just be undead—it could be forgotten.
