Cricket World Cup: Cup more than a one-day wonder

One-day internationals have donned their best suit, had a haircut and brushed off their CV in a bid for future employment as a credible cricketing format. With 30 of the 42 World Cup pool games complete, ODIs are making a strong argument for being cricket's preferred shorter form.

The entertainment over the past three weeks has been worthy of a wider global audience.

A regular moot point in cricket circles is whether the sport can sustain three international formats. Tests are an immovable object (although a debate has arisen about whether the duration should be dropped from five days to four).

But what about 50-over and 20-over versions? Common thinking had been that cricket would morph into the shortest form, and 50-over cricket would become redundant.

However, the evidence of the past three weeks suggests T20s might be a more suitable sacrifice. If 50- over matches continue to excite, T20 cricket might best be restricted to domestic showpieces like the IPL, perhaps supplemented by a biennial world championship.

What we have seen

1

Regular totals in excess of 400 and the dismantling of the double century-barrier have reduced the boredom quotient.

Batsmen such as Glenn Maxwell (88 off 39 against Afghanistan) and AB de Villiers (162 off 66 against West Indies) have less fear of failure and are also capable of 360-degree wagon wheels after years in the T20 laboratory. The average run rate throughout the tournament has been 5.62-compare that with 5.03 in 2011, 4.95 in 2007 and 4.76 in 2003. It's a substantial leap.

2 Despite bigger bats,smaller fields and restrictions always requiring at least five fielders inside the circle, bowlers have dominated batsmen on several occasions.

The performances of Tim Southee (7-33 v England), Mitchell Starc (6-28 v New Zealand) and Trent Boult (5-27 v Australia) have been among the finest swing bowling displays ODI cricket has seen. They have been helped by the use of two newballs for each innings but add in variations like cross-seamers, slower balls, slower ball bouncers and wide yorkers and bowlers still have a decent armoury.

However, as Martin Crowe observed sagely on cricinfo.com last month, "the overriding problem here ismost bowlers are now trying to use the mall, and have become masters of none".

3 This World Cup has exceeded expectations, thanks largely to the sustained competitiveness of the teams ranked 9-14. Before last night's Ireland-Zimbabwe match, eight games out of 18 involving those six teams had finished with a result margin of less than four wickets or 62 runs.

This tournament has shown the only area which requires urgent compromise is the ICC's desire to earn revenue from extra games versus the public demand for a faster-moving tournament.

Twelve teams (eight automatic and four qualifiers decided at a curtain-raiser to whet the appetite) could be a suitable middle ground for those demanding the status quo against the establishment trying to reduce the World Cup to 10 teams. A dozen teams could be broken into two pools of six, with each team playing every four days or less.

Fitness and squad depth should be rewarded. Ideally, the top two from each pool would qualify for the semifinals. But the ICC (and broadcasters) need more games, so build in more quality cricket at a 'Super Six' stage with carry-over points from the pool. With the lesser-ranked teams justifying their ICC investments, four shouldn't be sacrificed.

If football's 32-teamWorld Cup is completed within a month, cricket's showpiece should, too. The 1999 tournament (12 teams, a Super Six stage and duration of 38 days) could be a sound template.

For more coverage of the Cricket World Cup from nzherald.co.nz and NZME check out #CricketFever.