The birth of the one-day international

On Tuesday, at the less-than-glamorous setting of Southampton's sterile Rose Bowl, the 3000th ODI takes place. It took 24 years from the first match in 1971 to reach No. 1000, another eight years to get to No. 2000 and a little over seven to reach the current landmark.

Given the current torrent of ODIs, it is surprising to note it took eight years from the launch of the first one-day competition in England in 1963 for the format to be tried out internationally, and even then, when it did, it was unplanned and all rather low key.

While England had embraced the one-day game with considerable commercial and public success from the off, there was less enthusiasm elsewhere given the then popularity of Test cricket. In Australia, a domestic tournament had been launched in 1969-70 and proved equally popular, but it was to be another decade before the subcontinent awoke from its slumber.

There were no plans for any ODIs when England visited Australia in 1970-71, but as the sides headed to Melbourne for the third Test there were widespread concerns at the unadventurous tactics and reluctant approach of both captains. "One more draw on the pattern of the first two," wrote Brian Chapman in the Guardian, "could place the whole of international cricket as we know it in question."

But even before the squads assembled for the New Year Test at the MCG it had started raining and temperatures lingered around 50°F. The scheduled first two days were called off well in advance, and a suggestion they could start on a Sunday to make up for lost time was rejected by both boards with spluttering references to creating dangerous precedents. Heavy rain over the weekend meant the match was abandoned on the third day.

With the Melbourne authorities facing losses of up to £80,000, both boards agreed to arrange an extra Test - the seventh - at the end of the series. The England players were furious and demanded extra money in a dispute that rumbled on until the latter stages of the tour. Laughable as it might seem to today's players, they argued it was unreasonable to expect them to play four Tests in 40 days; this summer Pakistan play six Tests in 48 days in England.

As a short-term measure to give the public something to watch, it was also agreed to play a match "on Gillette Cup lines" on what would have been the fifth day of the Test. There was still a reluctance from the establishment to completely endorse the game, and the sides were named as an England XI and Australian XI. Tobacco company Rothmans was a last-minute sponsor to the tune of £5000, and the Man of the Match stood to earn £90.

There were doubters in the media about the match and some predicted it would not prove popular, especially as it was on a Tuesday. The day before, the MCG had instructed caterers to prepare for a crowd of around 20,000; as it was, 46,006 turned out.

England captain Ray Illingworth was less concerned with his place in history and more with stretching his legs. "We'd spent so long in the dressing room that we were just grateful for a game," he said in 1994. "It was obvious it would be commercially successful, but I couldn't say we played with the same intensity as today."

Before the start Don Bradman called the players together and standing on a bench, gave them a short speech. At the end he addressed the crowd and told them: "You have seen history made."

ABC, covering the match in Australia, felt the new format needed a gentle sell to an unfamiliar audience. "It's a splendid game," commentating stalwart Alan McGilvray, said at the start. "It's different to a Test match or state game … there's more involved. There's more tactical operations, there's more alertness in the field, better running between the wickets. Generally, it's a spectacle that I've enjoyed in England very much."

On a pitch rendered slow by the rain and with the closest boundary measured at 85 yards, the scores were low even by the standards of the day. England XI made 190 in 39.4 of their allotted 40 eight-ball overs, with John Edrich anchoring the innings with 82, including five of the seven fours managed throughout. The spinners, to the surprise of many who saw one-day cricket as the domain of dull seamers, proved the most successful bowlers.

Keith Stackpole, an occasional spinner at international level, took 3 for 40. "We played badly," England fast bowler Peter Lever said. "He took three wickets and he can't bowl, can't Keith. You could play him with a stick of rhubarb in your hand, he's no problem."

It was a surface heaven-sent for Derek Underwood, but as 12th man he was reduced to fielding for Edrich who had strained a muscle while batting. Australia maintained a steady pace, and all but sealed their six-wicket win when Basil D'Oliveira was clouted for 21 off an over. They strolled home with 42 balls in hand and the large crowd went home happy.

"We didn't realise at the time what was going to happen," recalled Lever. "But obviously that was the first of any international one-day cricket, and we went and bloody lost."

Greg Chappell, who made an unbeaten 22, said: "I think everyone sort of saw one-day cricket as being an add-on and a bit of fun to be had on the side occasionally in a situation like that, basically. But I don't think anyone really had any idea of what might grow out of it."

"They called it the first one-day international which rather surprised me years later," said spinner Ashley Mallett. "I thought, 'Gee it's part of history'. That game we thought was a bit of a joke."

The Australian newspapers immediately welcomed the "overwhelming success" of the game, while David Clark, the England manager, said he could see a week being set aside for a short one-day series when Australian visited in 1972. Even the English papers could see the potential, with the Guardian headline of "One-day Tests may well be here to stay" summing up the mood, although Wisden Cricketers' Almanack sniffily opted not to bother carrying any report.

"As a result of today," wrote John Woodcock in The Times, "I would wager that on the next tour to Australia there will be a series within a series. Three or perhaps four one-day matches between the sides could well form a part of the programme in addition to the Tests themselves."

The ultra-conservative nature of the boards meant it did not taken off as quickly as Woodcock predicted, and it was not until Kerry Packer showed the world how popular ODIs could be that the establishment finally woke up to the money to be earned.