The shock retirement of England's Ben Stokes from one day international cricket has once again reignited debate around the future of the format and the demands of a hectic cricketing calendar.
The 31-year-old announced he would retire from ODI cricket immediately after England play South Africa at his home ground Chester-le-Street in Durham on Tuesday (Wednesday NZT), claiming playing all three formats was "unsustainable" going forward.
READ MORE: Stokes retires from ODIs because of 'unsustainable' schedule
Recently appointed as England's Test captain, Stokes said in a statement he was committed to giving "everything I have to Test cricket" and "my total commitment to the T20 format".
His announcement comes less than 18 months out from the World Cup, where England will now look to defend its title in India without their talismanic star.
Take a look at England's hectic schedule and Stokes' decision shouldn't surprise anyone.
England's current summer involves seven Tests spread across three-and-a-half months, plus a dozen limited-overs internationals in the space of 25 days in July. A two-month stint down under for the T20 World Cup also begins in early October.
The schedule doesn't let up either.
A draft of the 2023-27 Future Tours programme sees England set for 42 Tests, 44 ODIs and 52 T20Is over a four-year period, excluding ICC events like the ODI and T20 World Cups, Champions Trophy, and the expanding Indian Premier League.
Stokes' decision to walk away from ODI cricket sets a precedent that could have major ramifications for the World Cup and the future of the format if other players follow suit.
The form and health of some of the world's best players has increasingly come under the spotlight. India's Virat Kohli has not scored a century in international cricket since December 2019 - an absurdly long drought for someone who had scored 70 centuries up until that point.
Concerned by his form and potential burnout, the BCCI [India's cricket board] relieved him of captaincy and rested him for multiple series. But the years upon years playing 40-plus international games and being the face of the IPL appear to have taken a toll on 33-year-old Kohli, to the point where there are calls for him to be dropped from the national side for good.
The burden of carrying a nation in all three formats has also affected the performance of New Zealand captain Kane Williamson and Australian star Steve Smith.
Both have battled elbow injuries that has impacted their form in recent years and are now in their early 30s. Unlike Kohli, ODI cricket is not their best format. Given their injury history and desire to prolong their careers, is there a possibility that both men follow Stokes' suit and retire from ODI cricket?
It's a real danger the International Cricket Council should be concerned about. How can they manage the schedule so the world's best players don't burn out and remain available for the biggest tournaments?
Doing away with meaningless bilateral series would be a good start.
One look at every team's schedule will show a congested fixture list full of pointless games.
Take India for example. Having just finished off a tour of England, the team has jumped on a plane to the West Indies to play three ODIs and an eye-watering five T20s in the span of just two weeks.
New Zealand are in the midst of one of the more pointless away schedules in recent memory - playing Ireland, Scotland and the Netherlands in a range of ODIs and T20s before also making their way to the West Indies for their own meaningless bilateral ODI and T20 series in the Caribbean.
New Zealand Cricket made the smart decision to rest the majority of their best players for the European tour, but it begs the question of whether tours such as this are worth playing at all given the lack of top talent.
The ICC will point to the ODI Super League format it created to turn these games into World Cup qualifiers. But South Africa recently proved that wasn't a concern, pulling out of a tour to Australia despite looking likely to miss the automatic qualifying spots. It turns out they aren't worried about a playoff with the likes of Uganda or Oman for a spot at the final tournament.
Finances and profits remain at the forefront of all cricket boards too. But quality over quantity needs to be prioritised more, as does having something to play for. The idea of the Super League is a good one, but means nothing in its current state given the relative ease of qualification (and it is convoluted and confusing). Perhaps following in the suit of football would be a better format where teams are split into groups and play each other home and away.
Whatever the solution, Stokes' decision should be a wake up call that the increasingly busy cricketing schedule has become too much for players to handle.
SHARE ME