Why dead rubbers must be killed

Why dead rubbers must be killed

With apologies to The Everly Pregnant Brothers – and thus also to The Specials – here's a message to you, Rooty: your 19th ODI century should be struck from the record. Or be qualified by an asterisk that explains you scored it in a match of diminished status; in a friendly, not a fully-fledged ODI.

The game in question was between England and South Africa in Southampton on Sunday, when Joe Root scored 100. Jacob Bethell made 110 in the same match – his first hundred as a professional – and Jamie Smith and Jos Buttler scored mere half-centuries in England's total of 414/5; their highest against South Africa. Jofra Archer took three wickets for one run on his way to figures of 4/18 as the visitors crashed to 72 all out – their second-lowest score against anyone – in 20.5 overs.

All of which should be expunged from the annals.

As should Codi Yusuf's wicketless 10 overs that bled 80 runs, the most expensive figures recorded by a men's South Africa player on ODI debut. The ducks suffered by Aiden Markram and Wiaan Mulder should also be erased.

Along with England's 342-run triumph – the biggest victory, in runs terms, in all 4,906 men's ODIs yet played.

Why? Because England didn't win a proper game. They won a charade, a farce, an eye-rolling exercise, a going through of the motions, an unfunny joke denuded of a punchline.

It's time to kill what isn't for nothing called the dead rubber. Put the damned thing to death already. Doing so would, for a start, ease an ever more cluttered playing schedule.

In the past 12 months alone, men's international cricket had to put up with four dead rubbers in Tests, a dozen in ODIs and 32 in T20Is. Thirty-two! Without that little lot, up to 64 days could have been taken out of the gorged global roster in the space of a year. More, in fact, when we add travel and training time.

The 48 unnecessary matches produced 16 centuries and eight five-wicket hauls, two of which became 10-wicket hauls. All of those performances should be considered fraudulent because they weren't achieved in properly competitive matches.

South Africa won by seven wickets at Headingley on Tuesday and by five runs at Lord's on Thursday. That ended the series as a contest. By all that is logical, the series itself should have ended. Sadly, madly, badly it did not.

The same sorry thing happened in Australia last month, when South Africa won the first ODI in Cairns by 98 runs and the second in Mackay by 94 runs to seal the series – which lumbered zombie-like to a third, irrelevant match, also in Mackay, which Australia won by 276 runs.

Both of the unfortunate, unnecessary third ODIs were stiff with awkwardness. As if all concerned – players and spectators alike – knew they were party to fakery. Cricketers are viscerally competitive creatures. To force them to play games that don't matter is an insult. Can it be far from a form of fixing?

Asked at a press conference after Sunday's debacle whether the fact that the series had been decided before the match helped explain his team's dismal display, Shukri Conrad said: "Any excuse is better than none. We were definitely off today. And against a top side like England when you're not on top of your game you do get exposed the way we did. A similar thing happened in Australia. After we went 2-0 up, in a complete aberration they scored [431/2].

"So there must be some truth in that. If we're going to be poor, we'd rather be poor in games that aren't clutch games. But I'm not making light of today's defeat. That was slightly embarrassing."