The most interesting thing about the Champions Trophy is that everyone is interested to see if ODIs are still interesting.

For the first time in its history, the Champions Trophy actually matters. It has had significance thrust upon it. The tournament happens every two years and is occassionally referred to as the 'mini World Cup' (the emphasis being on 'mini' rather than 'World Cup'). It has struggled to caputure the imagination of fans and players alike, but the ICC, with its incessant championing of the event, have somehow kept the ball rolling. Every two years the foreheads of cricket fans across the world tense up with bemusement as they think to themselves, 'Oh, that thing's still going on?'

This year there is added interest. The great, the good, and the Gangulys are all weighing in with their laments and prophecies on the future of the 50-over game.  The cricket world has, for once, come to a tacit agreement: the Champions Trophy will be the test tube in which we see if ODIs still have any buzz, fizz or crackle.

I think it unlikely. The vast majority of ODIs fail to produce any sort of positive reaction. They are rarely closely-contested and involving, but frequently dull and predictable. One reason for this is the ubiquity of batting-friendly surfaces. In Twenty20 matches, the pressure on the batsman to score quickly induces mistakes, lessening the impact of the pitch. In Test cricket, curators who regularly prepare pitches which produce no contest between bat and ball find themselves out of the job (Pakistan excluded, of course. Why are we always the odd ones out?).

The blame for this must be laid with the ICC. It has failed to insist on sporting wickets for ODIs in which the balance of power can shift from batsman to bowler - depending on who is using their skill more effectively. Batsmen have it far too easy, and have done for too long. It has proved fatal.

However, even if changes were to happen, I feel that ODIs have had their day. They do not offer the long-term narrative of a Test match, which also offers the marvellous possibility of second-innings redemption. Neither do they offer the slap, bang, whallop of a T20. By treading the middle path, ODIs seem to offer less rather than more.

T20 cricket is an exhillarating quickie. It's fun even when it's slightly predictable, because it's over far too soon to dwell on any mundane bits. Yes, satisfaction is of the instant, and therefore less profound, kind. But that's not too much of a bother, because it's over so fast: no time wasted, no harm done. Test matches are marathon sessions, weekend-breaks, do-not-disturbs. In comparison, 50-over cricket seems mundane: it seems like a chore, or a relationship gone stale. For players and fans alike, the ODI gives the feeling that one is simply going through the motions.

The truth is that 50-over games are good for cricket's finances. There are more ad breaks during a 50-over game than a 20-over one. And more people view them than Test matches. This is why fans have accepted the passing of the ODI, but the game's administration is less keen to call time. One hopes they will take a long-term view and promote what fans enjoy: T20s and, yes, Tests (despite falling crowds, there is still a large and passionate following for Test cricket).

Bluntly put, 50-over cricket doesn't fit into the modern world. One can watch a T20 match over a late Saturday afternoon or a Wednesday evening with friends. With Tests, one enjoys the longevity and depth of five days of action, and one catches a session here, a session there, occasionally checking the score on-line. Fifty-over games just don't make practical viewing for those with jobs and wives - unless one wants to lose them (everything has its uses).

Like most things in contemporary cricket, the choice is the BCCI's. The Indian board was orginally reluctant to get involved in the T20 format, even threatening to not turn up for the first World Cup. They eventually sent a young team without several big stars to the tournament. However, they ended up winning it, and took to T20s like they were bearing the message of a new religion. The format has thrived ever since. Perhaps an early knock-out for India in the Champions Trophy, which we could hasten when we play them in the group stage, will accelerate the demise of the 50-over ODI.

Despite all this end-is-nigh talk, I will still be eagerly following our team in the upcoming tournament. There is the small matter of that match against the Indians, and I am also quietly confident of a semi-final place at least - the eight teams are more evenly matched than in any tournament in recent memory. But this is the beginning of the end: the funeral for ODIs starts with the Champions Trophy. The final pieces of earth covering the coffin will, I predict, be laid at the World Cup Final in Mumbai in 2011. Just imagine ... Umar Akmal hitting a six off the last ball of the tournament, and the last ball in ODI cricket, to win the World Cup. Now that would be a glorious way to pull down the curtain. The beautiful requiem starts now.