With the Champions Trophy about to get under way later in the month, there have been a couple of voices — influential and articulate voices — calling for throwing not just the event, but also the entire 50-over format out of the window. Both of them happen to be Australians.

The first salvo was fired by Shane Warne who wrote in his column that one-day cricket had “passed its sell-by date” and that international activity should be restricted to Tests and Twenty20 games with a World Twenty20 being held every two years.

He was joined by former team mate Mathew Hayden who called for an end to “meaningless matches”, asking, “Why have the Champions Trophy when you have already got a 50-over World Cup?”

They may both have their arguments valid enough for the administrators to pay heed to, but the common factor in their line of reasoning makes one smell a rat somewhere. After spending time building up their respective cases, both the players insisted that the time saved from playing 50-over games would make it easier for the world body to fix up a permanent two-month window for the cash-rich Indian Premier League in the international calendar. Their slip is clearly showing.

Both Hayden and Warne have retired from international cricket and are the leading lights of IPL franchises — Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals, respectively. With neither of them getting any younger these days, it is only understandable that they want uncertainty that surrounds IPL scheduling every year to get settled once and for all.

Let's hear it from Warne first. Eliminating one-day matches, according to him would allow individuals to play more domestic cricket, thereby improving its quality, and also have more time with their families. So far so god.

Then comes the real part, lobbying for a permanent window for the IPL. “I wonder if people in England realise how big the Indian Premier League is ... I have read that it is the fourth biggest sporting event in the world in terms of value, estimated at around $1 billion. England is having to move away from early-May Tests because they are struggling to find opponents during a clash of dates with the IPL. A gap of a month or six weeks fixed in the calendar would ease all potential problems and keep the players happy.” Indeed, it will. Who doesn't want a share in the pie, right?

On his part, Hayden, who is now a Cricket Australia director, said no international cricket should be scheduled during the proposed two-month IPL window. “The IPL has the ability to generate international fan bases in the same way as achieved by the English football's Premier League. I believe some IPL matches should go on the road each year and be played in other countries, to make it a global competition. The sooner the world of cricket embraces the IPL, the sooner everyone can find ways to benefit from its massive potential.”

Speaking to media after his CA nomination, Hayden said he would bring to the table “a real currency and a slightly more contemporary style of looking at the way cricket and the business of cricket are managed and maintained”.

Clubbed together, the two remarks leave little doubt about what Hayden has in mind.

That the IPL is a reality is not under debate. It has been a real shot in the arm that has opened new avenues for international cricketers who are struggling to draw a line between national duty and individual riches. Having said that, the IPL has yet to establish itself as a money-making enterprise for franchise owners and the BCCI. The players have had much to cheer and celebrate in the two editions thus far, but the investors are still waiting for their part of the fun. And if that takes longer, they may well run out of steam. This may or may not happen, but on the basis of how things have unfolded in the last couple of years, it is a possibility that may not be ruled out.

It is, therefore, too early and premature to talk of making long-term changes in the game's format as well as in the ICC's Future Tours Programme (FTP) on the basis of IPL. If a change has to come, it has to come gradually, The English domestic season, for instance, is now going to have a 10-over reduction in the one-day format, bringing the number of overs per innings down from 50 to 40. That is not a particularly bad decision to start with.

Besides, the number of ODIs that are inserted in a tour itinerary have always been seen as nothing but an attempt on the part of the administrators to make additional money in the minimum possible time. There used to be three ODIs per tour in the early days. A little while later the number went up to five and then seven. This was purely commercial interest at play. They needed to be cut down in any case. If the Twenty20 popularity can play its part in their curtailment, the world of cricket would actually be grateful to it.

But a clear-cut parting of ways with the 50-over format is not something to ponder at this point in time.