The Cricket Conundrum: Why Random Bilaterals Are Dying and What It Means for the Sport
Cricket, like any sport, thrives on structure, rivalry, and meaning. But what happens when its schedule feels more like a chaotic jumble than a carefully crafted narrative? That’s the question ICC CEO Sanjog Gupta is grappling with, and his recent remarks about the end of ‘randomly scheduled’ bilateral series have sparked a much-needed conversation. Personally, I think this isn’t just about tidying up the calendar—it’s about the very soul of the sport.
The Problem with Randomness
Gupta’s assertion that the era of haphazard bilaterals ‘has to come to an end’ isn’t just bureaucratic jargon. It’s a stark acknowledgment of cricket’s evolving landscape. What many people don’t realize is that these series, often shoehorned into the calendar without context or purpose, are becoming increasingly unsustainable. From my perspective, the issue isn’t just financial—though the costs are staggering—it’s about relevance. Without a clear narrative, a rivalry, or a stake, why should fans care?
If you take a step back and think about it, cricket’s appeal has always been tied to its stories: the Ashes, India-Pakistan clashes, or the World Cup. Random bilaterals, on the other hand, often feel like filler episodes in a TV series—skippable and forgettable. This raises a deeper question: Can cricket survive if its schedule lacks the drama and structure that fans crave?
ODIs: Undead but Not Unloved
The debate around ODIs is particularly fascinating. Jonty Rhodes recently remarked that the format ‘might be in trouble’ but isn’t going anywhere. I find this especially interesting because it reflects a broader truth: ODIs aren’t dead, but they’re in a strange limbo. With T20 leagues exploding globally and Test cricket finding new life through the World Test Championship, ODIs seem stuck in the middle.
What this really suggests is that the 50-over format needs a purpose beyond nostalgia. Gupta’s argument that ODIs are ‘inextricably linked’ to the World Cup makes sense, but it’s not enough. The World Cup is a once-every-four-years spectacle, and ODIs need to stand on their own two feet the rest of the time. One thing that immediately stands out is the need for innovation—perhaps fewer bilaterals but more meaningful tournaments that build toward the World Cup.
The Super Series Twist: A Step Forward or a Misstep?
The ICC’s decision to introduce a Super Series round in the 2027 World Cup is bold, but it’s also divisive. On paper, it adds complexity and stakes, but the backlash from Associate nations like Scotland and the Netherlands is hard to ignore. From my perspective, this is a classic case of innovation without inclusion. While the Super Series might create drama, it also risks alienating smaller teams, who are already fighting for visibility.
What makes this particularly fascinating is the tension between commercial appeal and cricketing equity. The ICC wants a blockbuster event, but at what cost? If you take a step back and think about it, cricket’s global growth depends on giving Associate nations a fair shot. Otherwise, we’re just perpetuating a two-tier system.
The Bigger Picture: Cricket’s Identity Crisis
Cricket is at a crossroads. The rise of T20 leagues, the resurgence of Test cricket, and the uncertainty around ODIs all point to a sport struggling to define itself. Personally, I think this isn’t just about formats—it’s about identity. What does cricket want to be? A global spectacle, a purist’s game, or a mix of both?
The end of randomly scheduled bilaterals is a step toward clarity, but it’s only the beginning. In my opinion, cricket needs a narrative framework that ties everything together—from the IPL to the Ashes. Without it, the sport risks becoming a collection of disjointed events rather than a cohesive story.
Conclusion: The Future Isn’t Random
Gupta’s call to end random bilaterals is more than a scheduling tweak—it’s a call to arms. Cricket needs to rethink its structure, its priorities, and its purpose. From my perspective, the sport’s future depends on its ability to balance tradition with innovation, inclusion with spectacle.
One thing is clear: the era of randomness is over. What comes next will define cricket for generations. And if we get it right, the sport could enter a golden age. But if we don’t? Well, that’s a story I’d rather not see unfold.
