With the Champions Trophy in June, playing just a three-match ODI series makes absolutely no sense

In October 2015, South Africa thrashed India by 214 runs in the fifth One-day International in Mumbai to take the series 3-2. Twelve months later, in Vizag, India blanked out New Zealand by 190 runs in the fifth and final ODI to claim the series 3-2. The winners of each series may have been different, but the similarities between the two were striking. The results see-sawed through the course of both series, setting up a fitting 2-2 climax ahead of the final game. Both series were succeeded and preceded respectively by Test series bossed by India. South Africa ended the tour after a miserable Test leg, but had their limited-overs wins to shout about. New Zealand may not have taken back any silverware, but at least they stretched the hosts in the one-dayers after losing all three Tests.

India extended their dominance in the Tests against England last month, taking the five-match series 4-0. England are expected to be more competitive in the one-dayers, set to begin on January 15 in Pune. However, the itinerary includes only an underwhelming three games instead of five, followed by three T20Is. Previously, schedules would normally include just the one-off T20I, but there seems to be an effort to give each format its due. With the Champions Trophy in June, it would be logical to play more ODIs, but three is all India have.

If India are to be tested ahead of the Champions Trophy, England are the best team to do it. They realised after a pathetic 2015 World Cup that their approach to ODIs was backdated and to move forward, they had to identify the best attacking players in the country and shed their obsession with “data”. This England ODI and T20I unit has some of the biggest hitters in the game today and the approach has reflected in the results. Since their World Cup washout, England have the best win/loss ratio of 1.727* (19 wins and 11 losses) among the top teams in ODIs. India are sixth with 1.181 (13 wins and 11 losses). India, rebranded under Virat Kohli, will start off as favourites, but a three-game series between two competitive sides doesn’t make sense.

ODIs vs T20Is

Looking at the larger picture, we don’t know if the idea of shrinking one-day series to accommodate more T20Is is going to be a template for the future. The rise of T20Is has affected the relevance of one-dayers in this climate. The one-day format has already undergone so much tinkering to its rules to make it more appealing to fans, especially regarding field restrictions and the Powerplay. If five games per series is too much (seven is meaningless and excess), then nothing less than three. The fewer the games, the higher the stakes. An early defeat for India would crank up the pressure ahead of the next two games.

The concept of three-match bilaterals has been embraced more by less fancied teams such as Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. In the last 10 years, there have been 78 three-match bilateral series featuring the 10 Test teams. Of these, more than half – 42 – have involved either Zimbabwe, Bangladesh or both. Three-match series are a regular fare when teams visit Bangladesh. In the last two years, Bangladesh have meant business, winning series against Pakistan, India and South Africa, and qualifying for the Champions Trophy, knocking West Indies off.

In July 2015, ICC CEO David Richardson highlighted the relevance of bilateral series in today’s changing cricketing landscape. He suggested a “less is more formula”, culling seven- and five-match ODI series and replacing them with tri-series, as a way to generate more interest and raise the stakes.

Why not tri-series?

Australia had pioneered the tri-series concept and it continued as an annual event at home for several seasons till 2007-’08. Since then, Australia have hosted tri-series only when India are in town and the rest of the while playing bilaterals. In the last 10 years, there have been only eight tri-series featuring the top sides (minus Bangladesh and Zimbabwe). Given teams’ packed schedules these days – and the presence of T20 leagues – finding a top side free of international duty is a challenge.

One solution is to invite top Associate teams such as Ireland and Afghanistan to participate. They may not be commercial drawcards, but from their point of view, playing big sides regularly is crucial to their growth. They are understandably peeved with the ICC for clipping their wings by keeping the 2019 World Cup to 10 teams. All is not lost though, with the ICC introducing a qualifying tournament in 2018 (the top-eight ranked teams on September 30, 2017 qualify), giving Ireland and Afghanistan a shot at competing with bottom-ranked Test teams for the last two spots.

Ireland and Afghanistan rarely get to play top sides outside of global tournaments like the World Cup, or the Asia Cup. The Board of Control for Cricket in India, even with its deep pockets, for several years didn’t consider it worth its time to call Bangladesh over. The upcoming Test in Hyderabad will be Bangladesh’s first ever in India. The top Associate sides are capable of pulling off surprises. In 1998, India experienced it in Gwalior when Kenya beat them by 69 runs in a tri-series also featuring Bangladesh.

A tri-series at this stage may have been difficult to organise, given India’s Test commitments immediately after England depart. In future, if administrators share Richardson’s concerns about one-dayers, they could act on his suggestions.

* The stats in this piece do not include the ongoing one-day series between Australia and Pakistan.