The ODI Super League: a double-edged sword that ICC needs to tread carefully with

Certainly, the first ODI between England and Ireland at the Ageas Bowl on Thursday, which was being advertised as the curtain-raiser for the inaugural Men’s ODI Super League, did not do justice to ICC’s campaigning. Neither team was at their best nor did it feel like they played with the intention that every point matters: Ireland fielded five players who had played less than 15 ODIs, including two debutants, and left out their three senior players in the form of William Porterfield, Joshua Little and Boyd Rankin while England, due to them opting for separate red-ball and white-ball squads, only had a select few seniors at their disposal.

The first ODI between England and Ireland at the Ageas Bowl on Thursday saw the World Champions smash the 11th ranked side in the world with a virtual second-string team but while the circumstances of this particular result were understandable - England being the strongest side in the world, lack of match practice for Ireland, home side quick off the blocks etc - it did, however, raise the doubt whether one-sided games could be the running theme in this newly-devised competition that is set to last until the third month of 2022. Every pice of evidence suggests that it certainly will, and it is an aspect that has been overlooked.

The contest was so colourless, humdrum and one-sided that it did more to force the viewers into switching channels than to make them stay and actually watch the match, yes, but, most importantly, it raised the question if the ICC had booked themselves into a corner by marketing the Super League as some sort of a game changer for the sport and the format, which it clearly isn’t. At least not as of the moment.

The format sees a total of 13 teams (12 full members + Netherlands, who won the ICC World Cricket League Championship) play eight other teams in a total of eight series (four home and four away), meaning the likes of Ireland, Netherlands and Zimbabwe would play a significant chunk of bilaterals against teams ranked inside the top ten - which is great. But while it will go a long way in ensuring the growth and development of the aforementioned nations, the scheduling will also invariably result in innumerable one-sided matches, which might not only diminish the interest of the viewers, but also hinder the ICC’s grand plan of adding significance to the 50-over format, which seems to be the weakest of the three.

The imbalance in power between the top and bottom teams has arguably never been higher and what this will mean is that a clash between a strong and a weak team will inevitably end up in the bigger team squashing the smaller one. The format of the Super League is an invitation for a lot of squash matches and the first England-Ireland ODI was just a sneak peak into it. 

As much as our heart wants us to believe otherwise, that simply is the harsh reality. A team like Afghanistan, which has been playing ICC tournaments since 2012, was brutalised in the 2019 World Cup and they have, on top of that, struggled historically against the top full-member nations, particularly in the 50-over format. The top six ranked teams in the world - England, India, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and Pakistan - have, in fact, combinedly lost just four ODIs and won 69 games against the bottom four sides in the ODI Super League since the start of 2012; such a stat provides little hope for any small team to put up a fight against the favourites, let alone win, even in the case of the big team fielding its second-string side. Such is the existing imbalance. 

The World Super League is certainly a step in the right direction to create a level playing field and bridge the gap between the Davids and the Goliaths of our sport - a gap that has widened way too much over the course of the last decade. It is a welcome innovation which provides an invaluable platform for teams that had, in the last decade, passed years playing just a handful of significant matches. 

However, it is foolish, naive, and incorrect to pretend and advertise it as some sort of a high-octane two-year competition which would change the game. By doing so, not only are the ICC inviting the wrath of the fans who will inevitably be left disappointed, but they are giving away the impression that they feel that the Super League is the pinnacle; that it is all that the associates need. There is room for improvement and this, if anything, must be considered a mere starting point.

The tournament certainly is a giant leap in the right direction, yes, but its true success can only be measured a decade or half a decade later. The ICC’s duty, until then, will be to not sabotage the operation. And whilst they’re at it, perhaps they’d be better off giving the associates the one thing they’ve been yearning for: a longer, more inclusive World Cup.