4 things that cricket needs to get rid off to stay relevant

#3 Scrap mindless bilateral ODI series

Multi-nation tournaments are a need of the hour.

ODI cricket thrived in its nascent days and went onto become what it is today because of the triangular/quadrangular tournaments. We remember Javed Miandad's last bowl six off Chetan Sharma, Sachin's sandstorm innings at Sharjah in 1998 and many other pulsating moments during that era- all of it came in a multi-nation tournament.

Up until the late 2000s, England and Australia used to stage a tri-nation tournament every season.

England stopped staging them post 2005 while in Australia, a tri-nation series is held every time India visit their shores (2008, 2012 & 2014-15).

The reasoning behind administrators' reluctance towards staging multi-nation tournaments is the lack of crowds in a game not involving a home side but context is a big thing in any sport; not only it drives fans' interest in it, but it also spurs on a sportsman to perform to the best of his ability, when he knows a lot is at stake and millions around the world are watching him.

Bilateral ODI series that are constantly forced down the throat of cricket fans these days have little context attached to them which is why ODI cricket is constantly facing a battle to stay relevant against the onslaught of the rising popularity of T20 Cricket.

Very few bilateral series force a decider as in most cases one team wraps up the series in the third or the fourth game, meaning the remainder of the matches ends up as being dead-rubbers.

Take this year for a reference. India wrapped up the 6-match bilateral series in the fourth match, England did the same against Australia twice both home and away while South Africa clinched the 5-match ODI rubber in the first three games, essentially rendering the remainder of the matches as 'dead rubbers'.

If ODI cricket needs to survive, we need to go back to the multi-nation tournament concept which has context riding over it in every single game.