mvaughan

The ODI format is under threat. We know this because players, journalists and coaches keep saying that and because the ICC continuously tinker with the rules and format of the 50-over game. It's a sign that they're trying hard to better a format that is clearly not perfect and is increasingly coming under scrutiny. We've had Graeme Swann saying he doesn't really enjoy it anymore and Kevin Pietersen retiring from limited-overs international cricket because he didn't want to play it anymore, even though it meant it was the end of his international T20 career as well.

Me? I'll be honest when I say that it's my third favourite format. Test cricket is the game in its purest form and a good Test cricketer was what I dreamt of being when I started out many moons ago. And T20 is great, too. All-action, a shot a ball, ridiculously good-fielding. How many matches go to the last over? Virtually all of them. How many go to the last ball? Plenty. Everyone wants drama in sport and the fact there's so much of it in the shortest format is one of the reasons why it's so popular.

The problem with ODIs is that it's somewhere in between. Eight or nine hours is a long time for players and fans. The concept of playing for five days and it ending a draw as it sometimes does in Test cricket may seem absurd to those who don't really get cricket but they're missing the point. Saving a draw can feel like a win and a match ending in a draw when you should have won it feels like a defeat. Batting for six hours and trying solely to not get out is as much of a challenge and achievement as scoring a quick-fire century.

But when I say ODIs are my third favourite format I mean I think there's still a place for them, not that they should become extinct. How to keep them popular is one for the ICC to come up with a solution to, that's what they're paid for.

The toss at Durham was a good one to win. England got the best of the bowling conditions and batted in sunshine in the afternoon when scoring was easier. England are an incredibly hard team to beat in these sort of conditions but the big tests will come when they travel to India in January and have to chase down 300 plus runs. This will be even more of a challenge than ever because Pietersen won't be around, the one player who can score as quickly as a Virender Sehwag or Ms Dhoni can. Because whereas totals of 230-250 are just the sort of scores that guys like Ian Bell and Jonathan Trott love to chase, scoring at a strike rate of 80-odd, asking them to take risks in order to set or chase monster totals takes them away from their comfort zone. Bigger challenges lie ahead for England than Australia in their favoured conditions.

The wicket at Old Trafford has changed over the years and these days it tends to lack pace and be tricky to score runs on because the ball doesn't come on to the bat. Batting first would be an advantage but even if Australia do so, I simply can't understand why England are 1.88 to win the game. Australia will almost certainly be missing their most reliable bowler in Brett Lee and one of their few match-winners with the bat in Shane Watson. We've seen Mitchell Johnson rock up and be deadly in English conditions but we've also seen him be wayward and very expensive so it's not easy to predict what sort of impact he'll have.

Put simply, England are a strong fancy. Australia aren't playing well, they've been ravaged by injuries and being 3-0 down isn't much fun for anyone, especially not against your deadly rivals.

Irrespective of batting first or second, this will be a tough wicket for the openers. So however well Alastair Cook and Bell are batting, we need to look further down the order. Eoin Morgan will have been disappointed he didn't get to bat on Sunday and looked pretty good in the first two games so he looks the call at around 6.6.

Back England to win @ 1.83
Back Eoin Morgan to be Top England batsman @ 6.6

For more exclusive Michael Vaughan content, go to http://betting.betfair.com/cricket/michaelvaughan/