Why have the Tri and Quadrangular ODI series become so rare nowadays?

[Proactive_]

My point is the same rule if used in bilaterals would not dramatically alter the course of the series to an extent where one team would be robbed and a undeserving team getting out of jail. That just aint happening in a bilateral series. Would be very very rare if that happened. If you do not agree with this then state that CLEARLY before arguing. Iam well aware of abilities to weasel by making ambiguous statements. So start by clarifying your position without being ambiguous.

You've obviously tied yourself up in knots by trying to ram in the rain point which has been clearly refuted with the India-England 2011 ODI series where EVERY match was affected by rain.

I had asked for an instance where rain altered the course of the series where a undeserving team got lucky and ended up winners. Not just merely rain affecting a bunch of matches... unless you think England were the undeserving winners in that series you quoted.

So you mean that rain affecting 5 out of 5 matches is not enough?

Those are your own criteria ... it helps to read your own post sometime ... start with the first post where you said this:

".... since the multi team series are a lot more fun and gave more meaning to each and every match, not just on the result but motivating teams to perform at their best every time "

Because you bumped a thread to shove in a argument we had months back which was completely different to the central idea of this thread. Duh.

 

[big_gamer007]

Tri-Series or quad series were fun in 90’s when Cricket was only source of fun for us.. Nowadays there is too much cricket and other options available.. In ODI’s bilaterals are as good for short term fun however only tournaments which matter is WC it’s the pinnacle of the sport..

Everything else is just meh.. Bringing back tri series/quad series won’t help much unless it’s between top 4 ODI teams without any minnows involved.. So eng, SA, Ind and Aus if they play it will be fun but then that will negate WC or CT so why would anyone host such a quad series?

End of the day people are missing the basic point, Cricket is not the same as before because of league cricket and emergence of cable TV and 20 sports channels showing every sport played in the world along with other forms of entertainment such as 20 movie channels and internet streaming.. Only quality cricket would be watched by masses and too much of quality cricket between top teams will kill that as well.. Inagine India playing Australia like we play SL every other day it will dilute the rivalry pretty soon..


Bilaterals like I said are good to watch but are forgotten eventually. Unless it’s a dominating performance like India vs SA recently or close matches like SA scoring 438 or epic innings or bowling performances.. [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] [MENTION=145164]Proactive_[/MENTION]

 

[Tusker]

You've obviously tied yourself up in knots by trying to ram in the rain point which has been clearly refuted with the India-England 2011 ODI series where EVERY match was affected by rain.


So you mean that rain affecting 5 out of 5 matches is not enough?

I did say Rain adversely affecting the outcome ... Nobody in his right mind thinks India were hard done by in that series because of rain.

Whereas 1992 WC ( and plenty other big tournaments ) was completely wrecked by rain ... Deal with it.


But no surprise to see that you completely dodged my pointed question again ?

Because you bumped a thread to shove in a argument we had months back which was completely different to the central idea of this thread. Duh.

and what has me bumping this thread got anything to do to my post which you are quoting ? Cant handle reality I suppose?

 

[Proactive_]

I did say Rain adversely affecting the outcome ... Nobody in his right mind thinks India were hard done by in that series because of rain.

Whereas 1992 WC ( and plenty other big tournaments ) was completely wrecked by rain ... Deal with it.
But no surprise to see that you completely dodged my pointed question again ?

Rain can adversely affect the outcome of any match in any format. Get over it. You've been provided with the proof you asked for. You can concede now, not the first argument you've got debunked on and surely won't be the last.

and what has me bumping this thread got anything to do to my post which you are quoting ? Cant handle reality I suppose?

"Can't handle reality"

Says the guy who bumped an ODI thread to highlight some top players skipping a T20 series. The desperation.

 

[Tusker]

Rain can adversely affect the outcome of any match in any format. Get over it. You've been provided with the proof you asked for. You can concede now, not the first argument you've got debunked on and surely won't be the last.

You provided no proof of anything that I asked for. All you did was find a series that was won by the deserving team with or without rain. The same is definitely not true with many a tournaments. Its you that needs to get over your fixation with multi-nation series that you cannot substantiate.

"Can't handle reality"

Says the guy who bumped an ODI thread to highlight some top players skipping a T20 series. The desperation.

The desperation is clearly visible when you are blatantly avoiding answering few simple questions :

1. Why were the Ind vs Pak Bilaterals in 90s just as equally fun ( your own criteria which you have tried to discredit lol ) with no NRR ?
2. Does rain equally affect the outcome of the entire series in a bilateral as it so often does in Multi-Nation tournaments ?
3. Does NRR come into play in EVERY match ?

And I checked the Run Rates of Bilateral matches vs Non-Bilateral matches ... guess who had a better Run rate : The Bilaterals ... So much for them proving extra motivation for teams to perform at their best every time to build up a good NRR. Even the Avg is better over more matches.

Bilaterals: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...;template=results;tournament_type=2;type=team

Non-Bilateral Series:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...tournament_type=3;tournament_type=5;type=team

 

[Tusker]

Tri-Series or quad series were fun in 90’s when Cricket was only source of fun for us.. Nowadays there is too much cricket and other options available.. In ODI’s bilaterals are as good for short term fun however only tournaments which matter is WC it’s the pinnacle of the sport..

Everything else is just meh.. Bringing back tri series/quad series won’t help much unless it’s between top 4 ODI teams without any minnows involved.. So eng, SA, Ind and Aus if they play it will be fun but then that will negate WC or CT so why would anyone host such a quad series?

End of the day people are missing the basic point, Cricket is not the same as before because of league cricket and emergence of cable TV and 20 sports channels showing every sport played in the world along with other forms of entertainment such as 20 movie channels and internet streaming.. Only quality cricket would be watched by masses and too much of quality cricket between top teams will kill that as well.. Inagine India playing Australia like we play SL every other day it will dilute the rivalry pretty soon..


Bilaterals like I said are good to watch but are forgotten eventually. Unless it’s a dominating performance like India vs SA recently or close matches like SA scoring 438 or epic innings or bowling performances.. [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] [MENTION=145164]Proactive_[/MENTION]

Pretty much exactly what I had said in a different thread. Infact some of the most memorable ODI performances are in bilaterals. Going by Proactive's drivel however it would appear as if all great ODI cricket took place only in the major tournaments and that 95% of ODI cricket today is all meaningless.

 

[Proactive_]

You provided no proof of anything that I asked for. All you did was find a series that was won by the deserving team with or without rain. The same is definitely not true with many a tournaments. Its you that needs to get over your fixation with multi-nation series that you cannot substantiate.

How did you ascertain which team is truly deserving when a grand total of ZERO out of 5 50 over matches could be contested without rain?

The desperation is clearly visible when you are blatantly avoiding answering few simple questions :

1. Why were the Ind vs Pak Bilaterals in 90s just as equally fun ( your own criteria which you have tried to discredit lol ) with no NRR ?
2. Does rain equally affect the outcome of the entire series in a bilateral as it so often does in Multi-Nation tournaments ?
3. Does NRR come into play in EVERY match ?

And I checked the Run Rates of Bilateral matches vs Non-Bilateral matches ... guess who had a better Run rate : The Bilaterals ... So much for them proving extra motivation for teams to perform at their best every time to build up a good NRR. Even the Avg is better over more matches.

Bilaterals: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...;template=results;tournament_type=2;type=team

Non-Bilateral Series:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...tournament_type=3;tournament_type=5;type=team

So, a better average = More intent? Who can ever argue with this genius logic

 

[Tusker]

How did you ascertain which team is truly deserving when a grand total of ZERO out of 5 50 over matches could be contested without rain?

Because the outcome was decided based on cricketing skill not dumb luck and so far you are the only person that I know has claimed Ind were hard done by rain in that series Besides there is no comparison between DLS and the 1992 rain rule which is a butt of jokes )


There is just no equal to the 1992 WC fiasco in Bilateral Cricket or even the 2017 CT where Aus got owned by rain ... the hilarity of the situation Aus faced was that they would have had to go home without losing a single match if rain had washed out their match vs Eng ... this just aint happening in bilaterals. Dont even bother looking.

So if I were you ... at this point I would accept reality and find ways to come terms with it. But you on the other hand will find ways to confront reality head-on get owned in the process, fall flat, stand up and claim victory

So, a better average = More intent? Who can ever argue with this genius logic

So once you have gotten over the rage from reading the above I suggest you re-read that post and you will find a mention to Run Rate (twice) before I talk about Avg...

 

[Oligochaetes]

Nidahas Trophy to the rescue!

Albeit T20

 

[Proactive_]

Because the outcome was decided based on cricketing skill not dumb luck and so far you are the only person that I know has claimed Ind were hard done by rain in that series Besides there is no comparison between DLS and the 1992 rain rule which is a butt of jokes )

How do you know cricketing skill determined the winner of a 50 over ODI series when none of the matches actually went 50 overs?

There is just no equal to the 1992 WC fiasco in Bilateral Cricket or even the 2017 CT where Aus got owned by rain ... the hilarity of the situation Aus faced was that they would have had to go home without losing a single match if rain had washed out their match vs Eng ... this just aint happening in bilaterals. Dont even bother looking.

Obviously an occurrence like that would garner more attention at a freaking world tourney than a bilateral series.. color me shocked. Still doesn't change the fact that rain can affect results of every match in any format. It's an unfortunate occurrence in cricket, nothing more nothing less. Get over it.

So if I were you ... at this point I would accept reality and find ways to come terms with it. But you on the other hand will find ways to confront reality head-on get owned in the process, fall flat, stand up and claim victory

Nice, whenever you start posting asinine stuff like this I realize you're begging me to stop refuting your nonsensical arguments

So once you have gotten over the rage from reading the above I suggest you re-read that post and you will find a mention to Run Rate (twice) before I talk about Avg...

Don't worry I'll address that too but first would you bother explaining how the hell does a better average equal more intent? Good grief.

 

[Executioner]

Thats because cricket is no more a popular sport these days as it was in the past.

10 years back, a Bangladeshi would follow India vs Lanka match. These days only the die hard cricket fans would follow India vs Lanka. Now such a match would obviously see a lot of empty seats in Bangladesh even.

I am sure India vs BD will be played in front of empty stands which will also lower the entertainment value overall and not so good for TV viewers obviously.

A bilateral series means all LOIs are likely to be sold out.

 

[Tusker]

How do you know cricketing skill determined the winner of a 50 over ODI series when none of the matches actually went 50 overs?

Because the DLS requires a min amount of cricket to be played in order to arrive at a decision and it is a widely acknowledged and back tested system. And ohh its the same damn thing that they use in the tri-series that you drool over.

The point here is about matches washed out that lead to the strong side getting robbed. Even worse when the stronger side has skittled the weak side cheaply and then rain intervenes and washes out the match leading to point sharing. Like what happened to Aus in CT 2017. But feel free to dig deeper and embarrass yourselves by pretending that the two situations are same, don't let me stop you.

Obviously an occurrence like that would garner more attention at a freaking world tourney than a bilateral series.. color me shocked. Still doesn't change the fact that rain can affect results of every match in any format. It's an unfortunate occurrence in cricket, nothing more nothing less. Get over it.

Why dont you show me a bilateral ODI series in which the strong side got trolled by rain and the weaker side finished ahead like Aus vs BD in CT 2017. Should be easy to find going by your theory that all matches have equal chance of being affected by rain.

Time to show some links of series. And I can tell you right now that you ain't even going to try - your best bet here is to shift goal posts and try stalling instead of admitting the short comings of the format and moving on.

Nice, whenever you start posting asinine stuff like this I realize you're begging me to stop refuting your nonsensical arguments

huh? I actually want you to NOT stop. there is mucho free entertainment to be had at your expense.

Don't worry I'll address that too but first would you bother explaining how the hell does a better average equal more intent? Good grief.

oye genius when did I say that ONLY better avg = more Intent ? This is where lying will come handy for you. You inability to comprehend the context and whats written is entirely your problem but look at the positives - it leads to some very amusing comedy shows. Dont ever fix your bugs. The world needs your types.

 

[Proactive_]

Because the DLS requires a min amount of cricket to be played in order to arrive at a decision and it is a widely acknowledged and back tested system. And ohh its the same damn thing that they use in the tri-series that you drool over.

The point here is about matches washed out that lead to the strong side getting robbed. Even worse when the stronger side has skittled the weak side cheaply and then rain intervenes and washes out the match leading to point sharing. Like what happened to Aus in CT 2017. But feel free to dig deeper and embarrass yourselves by pretending that the two situations are same, don't let me stop you.

Once again, tell me how was the result "fair" when none of the matches actually went 50 overs in a 50 over series? Seriously. Get better material. You asked for a series.. I gave you one where EVERY match of the series was affected by rain. Strong side, weak side is irrelevant even though India had just become world champions barely months before this series.

Why dont you show me a bilateral ODI series in which the strong side got trolled by rain and the weaker side finished ahead like Aus vs BD in CT 2017. Should be easy to find going by your theory that all matches have equal chance of being affected by rain.

Time to show some links of series. And I can tell you right now that you ain't even going to try - your best bet here is to shift goal posts and try stalling instead of admitting the short comings of the format and moving on.

I've already given you the proof of rain being a factor in just not multiple but ALL the matches in the same series. It's a fact that those matches were indeed affected by rain which entirely changes the proposition of the match so your weak-strong nonsense is irrelevant to the discussion.

huh? I actually want you to NOT stop. there is mucho free entertainment to be had at your expense.




oye genius when did I say that ONLY better avg = more Intent ? This is where lying will come handy for you. You inability to comprehend the context and whats written is entirely your problem but look at the positives - it leads to some very amusing comedy shows. Dont ever fix your bugs. The world needs your types.

What is even the "context" in you mentioning averages? I mean it has NOTHING to do with your point lol. It's another hilarious statement coming from a long line of hilariously nonsensical statements that you have churned out for months now.

 

[Tusker]

Once again, tell me how was the result "fair" when none of the matches actually went 50 overs in a 50 over series? Seriously. Get better material.

Because if it wasnt fair it would have been long since discarded - like the epic rain rule from 1992 WC. You being pedantic and stalling is nothing new.

So then you dont consider matches decided by DLS in the Tri-Series as fair results then ?

You asked for a series.. I gave you one where EVERY match of the series was affected by rain. Strong side, weak side is irrelevant even though India had just become world champions barely months before this series.

I've already given you the proof of rain being a factor in just not multiple but ALL the matches in the same series. It's a fact that those matches were indeed affected by rain which entirely changes the proposition of the match so your weak-strong nonsense is irrelevant to the discussion.

I asked for series that is equal to the rain affected tri-series such as the recent CT where Aus went home because of rain. Not just matches where it rained. So an equivalent hypothetical situation would be an Aus vs BD Bilateral series where BD are declared winners despite all matches are washed out.

So once again ... was this Eng vs Ind series that you harp about produce the same outcome as Aus vs BD in the CT 2017. A simple straightforward clear and unambiguous answer would be a good start. Unlikely that you will ever do that but we all knew that from the start.

What is even the "context" in you mentioning averages? I mean it has NOTHING to do with your point lol. It's another hilarious statement coming from a long line of hilariously nonsensical statements that you have churned out for months now.

context is your fixation for NRR as though it separates the Good from the absolute crap. Turns out they dont exactly produce higher run rate.

So any chance of answering the main question and how your supposedly Tri-Series matches have lesser Run Rate? or you going to keep waffling away further embarrassing yourself ?


BTW I suppose todays NZ vs Eng match was a useless bilateral and that Ross Taylor had no pressure while scoring 181 chasing 340 ...

 

[Bhaijaan]

Can we please have another Australia/England/Pakistan tri-series in England?

My favorite tri series till date.

The atmosphere, the matches and the skill at display qas all terrific.

There should be another.