Football fans, this one’s for you!  

Football, unlike cricket, runs on a league system. International tournaments have a set window, so teams play friendlies—part practice, part entertainment—to prepare. Players are picked based on past merit or current club form.  

Now, here’s where things get interesting.  

I see this pattern sneaking into bilateral ODI cricket.  

Could you please tell me why?  

Last year, ODIs practically vanished. India, the heart of cricket, played just three ODIs in 12 months. Why? Two big reasons:  

1. The T20 World Cup in 2024—so teams focused on T20 cricket for preparation.  

2. A packed Test schedule, leaving ODIs with no breathing room.  

Fans and experts saw this coming. Many even wanted it. Let’s be honest; a lot of bilateral ODIs felt pointless. No stakes. No real reward. Maybe our short attention spans played a role, too.  

So, it's a win-win, right? Not quite.  

The ODI World Cup is cricket’s biggest event. If we toss aside bilateral ODIs, we create a new mess for a sport that is already juggling enough problems.  

What’s the problem?  

First, how do teams pick their squads if they barely play ODIs?  

You might say, “Just pick T20 stars and let them whack the ball!” But that’s not how One Day Internationals work.  

Without regular matches, teams keep picking the same old players, even if their form dips. And when injuries hit, who steps in? If no new players have been tested in ODIs, teams will struggle to find suitable backups who have been tested at the international level.

Case in point

Shreyas Iyer scored a blistering fifty against England in the first ODI after walking in at 19/2. The best part? He only played because Virat’s knees couldn’t handle it. Naturally, this sparked a whole lot of noise online—lousy Twitter folks, eh? But this time, they have a point. Iyer averages 48 at a strike rate of 102 in his 63 ODIs. He was well prepared to tackle short-pitch bowling by English pacers. 

This is a classic case of recency bias and poor data-driven selection—or maybe just India testing new players ahead of the Champions Trophy. There isn’t enough time to test the players but the strategy. 

Another factor? India’s top order was on fire during the 2023 World Cup until they ran into the mighty Aussies in the final. Their loss came down to poor strategy, not the failure of the top six. 

Strategy in cricket isn’t just about selecting star OR TRENDY players—it’s about building a coherent game plan. 

Second, what’s the game plan?  

A well-prepared team exudes confidence and composure. On the other hand, an unsure team can find itself in a bit of a brain fog, coughs bazball.

Do you pick players to fit the strategy or build a strategy around the players? For example, should a team heading to Pakistan for the Champions Trophy bring in a spin-bowling all-rounder or stick to their usual batting-heavy lineup?  

Bilateral ODIs may feel pointless, but they’re the only real test ground before a major tournament.  

I’m not saying we need tons of ODIs. But we need enough so teams and fans don’t forget what the format feels like.

This is a good problem as it, by virtue, eliminates meaningless bilateral cricket and focuses on tournament-specific matches. The tough task is to solve the volume problem- how many ODI matches are too few or too many?

ODI cricket—the middle child—often gets ignored while Test and T20 fight for attention.  

But let’s be real—we all dream of lifting that ODI World Cup trophy.  Odi tournaments are still the prized crown of cricket. 

What do you think of the present and future of ODI cricket?

If you like the above idea, could you share it with your mates? I will appreciate your hard work.

If this was indeed forwarded to you by your special friend: