I guess if you were at the Wanderers nobody got either innings right!

Indeed, one of the first priorities of the opening batsmen at the beginning of the game is to try and assess: “what sort of pitch is it and what are we looking to get?” This has to be updated regularly as the innings progresses, and I guess the Australian batsmen would have shared the fact that they could get 400 plus – they didn’t realise they were going to be 25 runs short!

Immediately after the game I thought, well, it had to happen one day. 400 runs has been under constant threat for the last two years, although as good a pitch as the Wanderers is, I would not have named it as the ground where the record would be broken! Recently in Karachi against England, Pakistan scored 350-plus and I knew then that 400 is possible and that the sub-continent generally reaps more runs than most venues. In recent years the Oval has produced large domestic scores but invariably the boundaries have been pretty short on one side.

Looking at the game evolving through the nineties, and then with the impetus of the Twenty20 competition, batsmen around the world are looking for – and have found – so many more innovative moves to outwit the bowler. Not only have they found more ways, but, in fact, they are gaining in confidence in using those methods. The effect is already infiltrating the 50-over game.

Flat, good pitches will now yield big scores and bowlers will struggle, and therefore the delicate balance of bat and ball that keeps the administrators busy annually will have to be studied at greater length than ever before. History will show many high-scoring games but the recent game at the Wanderers was extraordinary because it was against two of the better attacks in world cricket, with certainly two great fielding teams.

There are two issues in my mind when looking at one-day cricket

a] The crowd needs to be entertained and therefore a good pitch is needed, one that lasts throughout the day and does not favour the team batting first or second. Therefore I believe (like Steve Waugh) that good batting pitches are a pre-requisite of one-day cricket. No seam movement but a modicum of turn.

b] I believe that the bowler should be allowed to swing the ball, ether conventionally or with reverse swing. Controversially I would allow the bowler the opportunity to rub one side of the ball in the rough to allow for reverse swing.

There are, however, problems with the above two statements.

1] I am not sure that all grounds and grounds men can produce this type of pitch.

2] The current legislation about tampering with the ball would have to be changed.

Pitches around the world are different, and long may that continue, especially in Test cricket. To completely standardize one-day pitches would be wrong although there should be an effort to produce batsmen-friendly pitches. The issue of smaller boundaries should be addressed and there should be a standardized limitation for most pitches. Seventy-five meters perhaps?

Bats are bigger and better and batsmen can clear the ground with comparative ease. The ball remains the same; tennis reduced the speed of tennis balls by making them slightly differently. Cricket-ball manufacturers have not in my understanding managed to come to terms technologically to be able to do that, although I believe the company “Tiflex” in the UK are making strides to produce custom-made balls. Other companies would naturally baulk at the costs of high-technology machinery, and the cricket-ball market, which has historically been a cradle of hand-craftsmanship, would gradually move to machine-made balls for consistency. Could the manufacturers produce a ball that swings the whole game? Or one that batters would find harder to clear the boundary (although I don’t believe that would be good)?

In addition to everything else it is important to remember that all grounds are not the same size. Some in New Zealand are placed in rugby stadiums, and ground sizes are very different, which adds to the charm of the game. I can go on and on about the various different permutations but to counteract the flat pitches I conclude:

Allow the ball to swing by adjusting the current legislation to allow bowlers to prepare the ball to reverse swing a lot earlier.

I am 100% agree bowlers must allow.

I believe that the current balance between bat and ball is good because runs equal entertainment for me. I don't like to see teams grind out 200 in 50 overs anymore, 250 plus is always the benchmark for me. I don't believe the balance is that wide because I see plenty of bowlers averaging under 25 in the one day game, so there is scope for success in the one day game if you're a bowler in my opinion. You just have to be damn good. Take Glenn Mcgrath, he concedes less than 5 an over regularly because he puts the ball in the right areas, as does Pollock, so maybe the bowlers should get the basics right.

I donot believe cricket should be standardized in any way. That takes the charm out of the game and makes achieving bowling records almost impossible. Think about it, if the pitch is one dimentional the batsmen will always know how it will play.
Keep cricket the way it is, remember the beautiful game(football) hasnt changed atall.

I don't agree with you about allowing players to rough up the ball for reverse swing. A little rubbing in the rough might be ok but how far will players take this? Players already try to cheat by throwing the ball back to the keeper on a bounce. Some umpires do notice this and warn the team. The way to fix the imbalance is not to allow roughing up the ball but to produce a ball that supports swing. I would go with a duke's cricket ball with a prominent seam for one dayers instead of the pathetic kookaburra ball which loses its seam in no time at all. There definitely needs to be a balance between bat and ball. Games 200-300 in score are fun to watch. Anything over that is really not a lot of fun. People do like sixes but an overdose in terms of 400+ scores will make them meaningless. A six is fun to watch because it is difficult to pull off. A deluge of sixes every game will ruin the charm of watching the ball sail over the fence.

Everything which the great Coach & Cricketing Philospher writes/says is great.
I love & admire the great coach & his ideas.
Though the Ball Tempering law should exist & rubbing should remain in limits.

Cricket in general is already a batsmans game and has been for a while now, and the new regulations in place only favour the batsman. At this rate, which young circketer would want to be a bowler. If bowlers are going to be depatched out of the ground like in the wanderers then why not replace bowlers with bowling machines and see how many runs a team can get. Lets be honest with ourselves the crowds want to see alot of 4s and 6s, there is less appreciation for a bowler getting 5 wickets or bowling 10 overs for 20 runs. if the icc wants to commercialize the game then get rid of the bowlers and replace them with machines.

First of all it is often the case to jump the gun any time something extraordinary happens. At least in this part of the world where Mr. Woolmer now resides. Although it appears to be consensus that the 50 over game is heading towards average innings totals of 300 plus to change the legislation to allow for what was once considered, and to some extent still is, cheating would be even more abominable (to allow bowlers to rough up one side of the ball). The progession of time has allowed cricketers and all sports people for that matter to increase their skills, and should continue to do so. Mr. Woolmer believes that batsmen are now finding new ways to out fox bowlers, maybe bowlers now need to dig deep and come up with some innovations of their own, as they had to do when limited overs cricket first came into being.

i think there's a very basic flaw in the premise that the spectator wants only "slam bang" action. it's the mariginal spectator who likes it, NOT the hardcore cricket fanatic(for proof see how many genuine fans on cricket forums and message boards give such games a thumbsdown).

by pandering only to this marginal fan, we're LOSING the genuine fans of the game.

i suspect more than fans themselves, it's the DAMN TV companies who prefer to see flattracks: simply becaus MORE OVERS means MORE AD-BREAKS. The longer the game lasts, the more money you make, to hell with the game.

I say if batters can choose their own bats (Heavier, sweeter, bigger), then why not allow bowlers to choose their own favourite balls? Sounds weird, but logically fair isn't it? I've had enough seeing MEDIOCRITIES like symonds, afridi, dhoni, even hussey, dominate in our age of "batket".Give the bowlers their weapons back, and see the characters come back...like crofty and thmommo and shoibs! thta'll get crowds in any way, without losing your core audience.

Ball tampering is a nuisance which threatens the basic tents of cricket. It will take away the art of good swing bowling. However a slight change in ball making may produce better balls that bring something more for bowler and challenge the batter.

I totally agree that there has to be a balance between bat and ball, and the pitches issue needs to be addressed.

In my opinion ICC must come up with standard requirement for pitches for one dayers and ask all playing nations to follow. we all know no two pitches can be identical but they can come closer to the perfect and with time we would hit a certain level of standard every where.

Allowing the bowlers to prepare the ball can be a trickey one to handle as people would find ways to deviate and augment the swing, i would suggest like in snooker one has to take care of the tip of the stick by rubbing on a certain pre-determined gadget (I dont know what it is called) we can have something like this with the umpires who can watch the bowlers rubbing one side with something like that made for the cricket ball we can have standardised roughing and the rest would depend on the skill of the bowler....

Hey Bob,

Great fan of yours and appreciate what you are doing for our team.

Allowing the ball to swing by adjusting the current legislation to allow bowlers to prepare the ball to reverse swing a lot earlier.

Dont you think that will only open the Pandora box. The acceptable amount of alteration to the condition of the ball may vary from bowler to bowler, even from team to team.

Also; many a great bowlers and many of their wickets will later be attributed to the condition of the ball instead of the quality of the delivery. Lets not take that away from a bowler.

Allowing ball tampering is kind of pushing it; instead the authorities can provide "pre-tampered" balls (to maintain homogeniety) to the bowling team in the last, say, 10 overs.

I back your idea of allowing the bowlers to rub one side of the ball in the rough to make it swing. I also would like to add that all grounds should meet minimum boundary distance criteria on all sides. Some gounds have very small boundary on one side which is not good. Also there should be 3 power plays with 5 overs each. And if a spinner is bowling, 3 fielders should be allowed oudside the ring even if we are inside a power play. That will encourage teams to bowl spinners early; something that we don't see very often.

obviously the people who want to be entertainment at the expense of the bowler dont like cricket. i like to see an equal battle between bat and ball. i would also like to tell these narrow minded fans who only like boundaries where to go.

I Think basically in oneday games, the white ball should be change after 25 overs if the fielding caption decides that what he wants to do, That would make it very interesting. This will give more advantage to a fast/medium pace bowler, This will tilt the balance on the bowlers side and also solve discoloration of the white balls in the end of the innings.

I feel that even in one day cricket, there definately needs to be a balance between bat and ball, otherwise it just isn't cricket in my opinion. Sure, the spectators need to be catered to, but I'm fairly sure a good contest would draw just as many viewers as a ridiculous batting track (such as THAT game). I beleive that the balls used in one dayers should be changed to allow swing for longer periods of time, or to have a more pronounced seam to give more assistance to the fast/medium bowlers of teams worldwide, or alternatively, to allow a team to take a new ball during an innings at the fielding captain's discretion.

The Boundaries should not be brought in, the reason they are brought in is because of A-Boards of Sponsors and Advertisers and I think that is wrong. The Seam of the ball should be more pronounced and the Ball should NEVER be changed. I could not believe my eyes when the Indians changed the Ball after 8 overs at Mumbai. That was Nonsense, what next? change the ball after the first 6? After 2 overs? If your bowlers suck, tough. Do your job and quit complaining, even Batsmen like Sachin are talking to the Umps about changing the ball..
8 Overs..unbelievable..
Just bat and do your job Sachin. I think the changing of the Ball contributed to India's defeat. What are the odds of Pakistan changing a ball in New Zealand? Or Australia? The Ball should Only be changed AFTER 40 Overs, if AT ALL. And let's have 2 white Balls in ODI's so that you cannot change either of them during the Entire Innings.

About rubbing the ball in the dirt. Would it not be possible to train the fielders to throw the ball in on the bounce to the keeper?
If they can ensure it always lands on one side by releasing the ball with a horizontal seam, shiny side up, a fielding side could quickly roughen one side of the ball.

There is an urgent need in the game of cricket to balance the scales between the bat and the ball. During the past few years, I have seen some really good bowlers smashed around the park just because the authorities want more runs , so, that they can earn more revenues by means of advertising. In the long run, the ordinary fans will get tired of this 'runs circus' as well but the dangerous thing is that the die hard fans will also move away from the great game of cricket because of this mockery. I hope the balance between the willow and the leather is restored once again!

hey why cant it work out like this?

in all the 50 overs... fielding can see those 50 overs as blocks of 5 or 10 where in they can use different kind of balls, by that i mean tampered, non tampered, new and old balls, to their effect and thus bring in more intelligence and wiseness into the game.

I admire Bob for having one of the most innovative cricketing minds in our time.

However, allowing bowlers to change the condition of the ball is not right because (1) the stuck-up ICC will not allow it and (2) even if they did, there's no way to control it.

Bowlers will just have to learn to bowl really really fast or turn the ball square.

I'm not sure who decided and at what point that high scoring games constitute entertainment. More often than not, its just a vulgar display of slogging.

Cricket first has to be a sport - meaning it needs to have a contest. That's entertainment enough. Instead of loosening laws (we have trouble getting people to adhere to existing laws, as it is!), why not just ban protective gear?

Obviously some "vital" gear is required, but why don't we find out how many batsman have the guts facing the quicks without every inch padded up? The likes of King Viv and his ilk never had issues, after all.

I 100% agree with you, Mr. Woolmer. And BTW, congrats for a great job as Pakistan coach. You really transformed the team.

You know what they could do? Just declare the innings closed as soon as a team crosses 300. This wouldn't disadvantage the bowlers or enable them to tamper with balls, should generally last close to fifty overs and should still keep the crowd entertained. If the batsmen don't like it, well then tough. They've had it easy for too long, which explains why someone like Ponting can average 58 in tests.

I would very much like to see a battle between bat and ball, for example likes of waqar vs tendulkar and lara vs warne. the ball being hit over the fence more often than not certainly does not provide it. 20/20 is already there for people who loves sixes, one day game should be what it was a few years back when 250+ was a definite winning score.

There have been some interesting comments on this board, and some good suggestions. I agree with the use of two balls for ODIs, but with a twist. Allow the fielding captain to decide whether he wants to use them in tandem (alternate overs) or to change the ball at some point after 25 overs. Reducing the weight and width of the bat would mean the batsman need more skill to clear the park. And I agree with Mr. Woolmer that we need minimum sizes for the boundaries (75 m as he suggested would be good). Thanks and good day.

In my openion 270-290 brings enough hitting and fireworks for spectatures. Overdoes of the runs will make them get bored, also it will not help the teams as well as batsmen will remain always in great pressure to score runs.

We are seeing that this kind of hitting has alreday minimized the role of quality spinners in the games, I mean tell me how many quality spinners play in the one day games now? If we keep on looking for more and more runs then how far we can go as some day a team will score 500 runs and still spectatures say "sorry mate it wasn't that great game" so what will teams do then? will they go to have scores of 600? no its obviously madness.

We want to see thrilling and exciting nail biters, not mindless hitting from hald batters. Remember early 90 matches, plenty of those matches were great because those were nail biters. Today matches have become one sided only which is not good for cricket.

We need to have a proper role of every kind of bowlers in one day cricket otherwise only batsmen game will ruin it altogether.

The singular factor to be considered is not the balance between bat and ball; but rather the balance between the teams. Although most pitches lean towards batting the bowlers too are listless. You see, if the tracks are good for batting then simply have less batsmen in the team and more bowlers(6 maybe 7 perhaps?). Also as batsmen have learnt to use their feet effectively perhaps the bowlers should be able to bowl six yorkers in an over. the batsman had to evolve as the game evolved and so too the bowler. i may be well worth considering the new cricket balls in the market so as to replenish the armoury of the bowlers(as the batsmen have better bats). the boundries should have a limit though.

Since everyone has concluded that entertainment to the crowd is more important that playing a good game of cricket, let us remove bowlers from the game for entertainment and keep bowling machines instead. Batsmen can score 1000+ runs per innings, crowd is happy(????). Why give such a hard treatment to bowlers and make them scarred for life.

Has anyone considered this: BATSMEN HAVE FIGURED OUT HOW TO BAT MORE EFFECTIVELY. What I mean is that batsmen are now much more aware of technique, biomechanics, trigger movements, footwork etc. required to minimise dismissal and maximise run-scoring. They have figured out how to rely less on natural ability/hand eye coordination and more on getting into the right position etc... The Majid Khans and David Gowers of yesteryear have been replaced by the ugly but effective Matthew Hayden and Graeme Smith. More and more batsmen bat in this robotic graceless style with big heavy bats. Love it or hate it, its effective. So bowlers need to learn how to cope.

In favour of the bowlers, get rid of the pathetic Kookaburra ball. We need Dukes and SGs to give bowlers are better chance.

Rather than worrying about ball-tampering, the ICC should be trying to find a white ball that can last more than 40 overs. They are constanmtly changed around this mark which negates any "work", legal or otherwise, the fielding team have done on the ball.

contrary to what pundits profess, one day cricket is not a batsman's game. Even on flat tracks, bowlers that stick to line & length get thru unscathed. Also hitting sixes isn't easy any time. Batsmen like afridi, symonds, dhoni etc have a natural ability & it is a gift that has to be enjoyed. More over,aggressive batsmen give a lot of chances to bowlers & are only successful once in 10 games.

I'm all for sixes and the batsmen being rewarded for taking risks - the issue I have is with people "mis-hitting" for 6, as surely a 6 should only be hit when the ball is timed perfectly.

Possibly bat technology should be reined in as this seems to be greatly assisting the batsman in getting away with poor shots. Not an expert on how this could be done, but bats definitely seem "springier" than previously. A maximum weight for bats the answer?

I too believe that those who want 2 many sixes and boundaries are not genuine cricket fans, as some people already said...There should be a good balance between bat and ball...I can not agree with Woolmer's opinion that bowlers should be allowed to tamper the ball...I agree with all other opinions..And many people are saying that the "Bullring" run chase is the greatest ODI ever..But I still feel that low scoring thriller that ended in a tie at Edgbaston in the 99 WC Semifinal is the best so far...Some grounds in NZ are even snaller than the ones in RSA...Remember the ODI in which NZ chased 332 against the 'Oz'...What I think is that I too should have hitted a Six in that ground if I get a chance to bat in that ground...

definitely one day matches beyond 400 once in a while makes great viewing exp if the other side makes a match out of it however if that becomes the trend then there would be no fun involved as somebody in these column earlier said quite rightly that hitting a six should not become equated to running a run !!!

Bowlers should have some chance ,it should not become one sided

Well, first of all, Balaji, in case you misread pretty much everyone's comments, we all AGREE with you.

Shoaib, with regards to your point, Gower played over a hundred matches, close to twenty centuries and averaged 44. Now, I don't think that Hayden or Smith, or many others for that matter, could match that. I mean, look at Lillee, Thompson, Marshall, Hadlee, Imran, Holding (and these are just a few); Hayden and Smith are only so effective because today's bowling standards are so much lower.

Here's a few wacky ideas:

-Increase the size of the stumps (maybe use four instead of three.)
-Give slip fielders wicket-keeping gloves so that more catches stick.
-One-hand-one-bounce (?!)
-Shorter pitches or bowlers bowl from nearer.

Are these really any sillier than allowing ball tampering?

1- I think captain should have the choice of taking the new ball if he wishes so any time after first 25 overs.

2- With the inrease favour to batsmen in ODI, the bowlers should be allowed to bowl 2 bouncers per over in the first 35 overs and their quota should go up to 12 overs.

1) A maximum weght to be imposed on bats (both in tests and ODIs). Bat to be made of nothing but wood.

2) Use of the Kookaburra ball stopped - only SG or Duke balls to be used.

3) Boundaries (as BW states) to be a minimum of 75 metres from wicket.

4) Captain of the bowling side has the option of a second new ball anytime after 25 overs.

Not a chance it will happen, given the vested interests in cricket, but...

I too believe that one-day games today are rapidly becoming an agony for bowlers ,especially the medium paced ones.Its much difficult to maintain a consistent line and length as a bowler than to slog even a good ball out of the park.Thats why even Murali gets hit for 99 runs in his ten by sheer brutal sloggers like symonds and lee.Soon body-builders may replace one-day batsmen.
Bob's idea is novel,though his implementation is a little crude to begin with.
I feel that any bowler should be given the option of using 2 balls ,one a new ball and the other an old ball(35 overs old and scuffed up!!)He can use any ball to bowl his six per over.The balls are replaced every 20 overs.
BY this method ,you introduce the element of doubt in the batsman's mind and force him to read the ball from the bowler's hand rather than plainly slogging from where it pitches.It needs pure skill..I am basically a bowler and i believe in thinking the batsman out.This system gives me lot of options to do so.

Hang on a minute here. What is this about genuine and casual fans? I agree to an extent (after all that's one of the things that helped drive up Premiership ticket prices beyond reasonable measure in football), but for a game that has dwindled in popularity over the last 20 years or so (in England anyway) Twenty Twenty has been a godsend for counties that blatantly struggle financially. It's only natural that techniques utilised in that format have bled into 50 overs, in the same way one day techniques gradually filtered their way into test matches.

Having said that, as a bowler myself I do get very frustrated sometimes at the lack of recognition bowlers do get for bowling well sometimes. Think if you like of someone who takes 1/25 in the middle of an innings. Watch the higlights and you may not even know he was playing.

Mind you, I'm erring from the point a little here maybe. Either way, I think boundaries have come in too far. Fielders diving into advertsing hoardings need to learn common sense. As for bowlers being allowed to rough up the ball? You've got to be kidding. Bowlers shouldn't be allowed to change the ball unless it is lost or has literally fallen apart (anyone recall Chris Gayle hitting the ball out of the ground recently, therefore enforcing a change of ball, which led to the Windies getting skittled? A digression I admit,but it was vaguely amusing, though not something I'd want to see ever again!).

Finally, for sanity's sake, drop this pathetic powerplay and substitute rule. It adds nothing to the game, the captains don't appear to like it, and in the case of substitutes, is blatantly unfair.

Mr Woolmer,

Im a fan of yours, and appreciate the good things u've done for Pakistan.

I think Cricket should go back to the 80s and 90s where 200 is even a tough challange, hoever i dont agree with ball tampering. The 2Ws knew how to use the ball with out tampering it so the new generation bowlers should learn from the Kings of Fast Bowling i.e Wasim Akram & Waqar Younis.

Nice innovative ideas, Bob. The only problem is that they seem far too idealistic IMHO. And by that, I mean that the ICC are unlikely to change the balls around or allow 'limited' tampering. Also, pitches in different countries have their own novel features and unique attributes. Standardising pitches would be to homogenise and even sterilise the game.

A possible solution could involve taking a leaf out of the test match format and perhaps making a new ball available after say 35 overs. It would be upto the fielding captain whether to take it or not, just like with test cricket. I believe a FAIR contest between the re-energised quicks with a new ball and the sloggers would make for rivetting cricket.

And so on...

We have seen lots and lots of suggestions about how the balance should be brought back into the beautiful game. Why don't we give the bowlers back there basic weapon (Bouncers).When batsmen have no restriction on hitting any ball of the over then why should be restrict bowlers to bowl only limited number of a particular delivery. Bring back the fear factor and see the balance will come back.

I think that tampering with the ball should not be allowed and The Great Coach should not have even think of it. There should be a balance between a bowler's or a batsman's pitch, it should favour both. A lot of easy sixes is not good neither a batsman being seen to be searching for the huge swing like happening in England in earlier days. A score between 260-280 gives both the teams an even chance and a joy to watch for the spectators. A big innings by a batsman and a great spell by a bowler change the match and most of the times the result cannot be guaranteed till the last ball is bowled or last wicket is taken. Samething cannot be said for a 350 plus score.

I think in 1 day format, i like to see games that are tenseand that the team that chases either gets the runs or dont get the runs in the last over. i woudnt like to see ridiculous scores for 400+ for me it has to be in the mark of 240-340 runs. however, test matches i think should have a better contest between bat and bowl. that is why overe here in england, test matches are more tense then in say the sub-continent. cricket is just not a batsman game, it is also a bowlers.

There are some really good points here, but as for high scoring games being what the crowd always want - the tied one day final between England and Australia last year was fascinating and tense throughout, despite both teams struggling to even get 200.

A sight, of a bowler opening up a batsman by a perfectly pitched outswinger, is no way less pleasant to the eye, than a batsman hitting a bowler for a straight drive down the ground.

True cricket should naturally be just and fair to bowlers, batsmen and fielders alike.

Steps like allowing ball tampering are just means to ignore the flaws in the cricketing laws.

How can the ICC justify 3 powerplays even though it screams that the game is balanced towards the batsmen ?

Or how can the ICC expect the teams to use allrounders as SuperSubs. If a player is an allrounder who can command his place in the team as a batsman as well as a bowler, then why would the team make him a supersub in the first place. Shouldnt he be in the playing 11 all the time. Not very prudent on the part of the ICC.

The concept should be simple -1 - Have a 5 match ODI series
2 - 2 games on pitches favoring the bowlers, where Team 1 and Team 2 bat first in either games
3 - 2 games on pitches favoring the batsmen, where Team 1 and Team 2 bat first in either games
4 - Last game. Leave the conditions for this match to the discretion of the home team. A slight home advantage for the host team.

With this structure in place, both the teams will be tested and the real good teams will come out victorious.

Comments welcome.

good idea about the standardised outfield sizes but i am not too sure about the ball tampering. You should play the game the way it was invented. In my opinion innovations such as hawk eye help to improve the game but tampering the ball may change it!

Dear Bob,

Basically what you're saying is that the balance between the bat and the ball be restored, at least an attempt be made. In which case, we have to address the composition of the bat, graphite in the case of Ponting's bat, the thickness too, as well as restore the 'sweet spot' to just 3-4 inches in diameter as in the past. Further in the odi & 20-20 format ban the helmet with one allowed bouncer per over.
I think that will take care of the rest Duke or Kookaburra, reverse or 'contrast' swing. What's your take on 'Contrast' swing Bob?

Nice to see the view of someone high up in cricket who should know what they are talking about.

I agree that something should be done to re-dress the balance between bat and ball, but i don't like the idea of players rubbing the ball in the rough, it sounds to extreme for me. I just couldn't imagine Trescothick bending down and rubbing the ball ferociously into the the surface to help aid swing. Maybe i'm old fashioned, but it doesn't seem like cricket to me.

I would like to see 'better balls' used in cricket. I mean, technology had improved bats no end, but we still can't get a white ball to last 50 overs. Balls should be made with a more pronounced seam and i wouldn't mind seeing balls with one side more prone to scuffing up than the other so swing will be helped.

The pitches the players play on should also be made more bowler freindly.

Allow the bowler the opportunity to rub one side of the ball to allow for reverse swing?? It is apt that the comment has come from the coach of a side that had perfected the art of reverse swinging nay ball-tampering for decades. All until the satellite revolution which exposed even the minutest action of a person on field subject to about a dozen cameras. The result is for everyone to see, Pakistan fast bowlers are no more as threatening now-a-days as they were before. Poor waqar younis who tried a hand on the ball got caught twice on camera (and so did Shoaib Akhtar)!!!

The idea of allowing the bowlers "prepare the ball to reverse swing later" seems so ridiculous and betrays the frustation of Pakistan fast bowlers for not being able to reverse the ball "naturally as their predecessors did".

Hi.

I think since the last few years, Cricket has been the batters game. And the balance is increasingly tilting towards them. Once it used to be only in the subcontinent. Now its everywhere. But its unfair on the part of bowlers. As it is, in countries like India, batting has been revered by young and old. the growing imbalance will further reduce the number of young lads willing to be bowlers. This not only in India, but other countries as well (incl. Australia and Southafrica who have produced fast and effecient bowlers). If this imbalance continues, it wont be too long when no Mcgraths and Pollocks will ever step on the cricket pitch

I believe that Test and One days are two different entities, and they would remain different and exciting if we do not change the form.
Change is good but sometime it will take away the charm of the game. I like to see the gripping one day without any sign changes (super sub or watever it is !!)
and thank God there is no big change at test level.

Spinners suffered a lot with the introduction of covered pitches. Covered pitches were necessary to reduce the influence of the weather.

But can't something be done with the ball to help spinners e.g. change the texture of the seam so that it grips more off the pitch?

I concur with Woolmer. I think there should be standardization for keeping the boundary constant. If the pitch is very batsman friendly, then make the outfield lush with grass so that it is slower. If the pitch is bowler friendly, make outfield very fast. In other words, provide some balance in bat and ball. Tampering can be allowed if it is possible for the umpire to judge the same without bias. Allow atleast 2 full days of rest between 2 one-dayers. Atleast three weeks before next one-day series. The bottomline is to have first-grade team which can provide a great contest between the two teams.

I don't agree that cricket pitches should be standardized. However, it would be a good idea to crackdown on pitches where the toss plays a big role. Also, it should be taken into consideration that there are grounds all over the world where day and night games can be extremely lopsided (eg. England vs. Pakistan game in 2003 World Cup) so day and night games should either start early, or whatever, to keep things even.

I totally agree with Mr. Woolmer, to provide something for the bowlers.
Instead of players roughing up one side of the ball, let us standardize it by letting the umpires do it and the captain or the bowler specifying the amount.
When bats and pitches can be allowed to be tampered with , I guess ball should be too.

The traditional form of Cricket is Test Cricket. The batsmen are mostly defensive. The mindset of batsmen has been defensive. Therefore, mostly people are happy with a score between 250 to 300 in a 50 over match. However, the game that is evolving now around one day cricket, the bowlers are going to be more defensive. In my opinion, there should be no extra help to bowlers, it is just unfair to the batsmen. The pitch should be standardized to a certain degree. It should not crack during the game. The pitch should offer the same degree of movement, spin, bounce that the bowler is capable of - no extra help.

High scoring matches have become a great source of entertainment. But it is wrong to say that it is only the high scoring matches that are entertaining. There are many low scoring matches which offer thrilling finishes. Consider, for example, the semifinal match between Australia and South Africa in World Cup 1999. I dare to say that the kind of entertainment that a close low scoring encounter offers can outdo the thrills of similar high scoring matches.

So, the notion that low scoring matches are boring must be changed. If you really love cricket and if you're a "true fan", you'd appreciate even these matches.

One argument is that there are not many "true fans" out there and that most people want to see the ball flying over the boundary more often than not -> less people will turn out and revenues from ticket sales will drop. So what? Why is this a big problem? It is just a game, isnt it? A cricket match is not a commercial enterprise.

So steps must be taken to bring back balance between the batsmen and the bowlers.

One easy step to do so: why not remove or lessen the fielding restrictions? These days we see sides scoring around 100 runs in the final ten overs regularly, when there are few fielding restrictions. Why not part with the "first 15 overs-2 fielders outside the circle" scheme?

Its a really good debate about a bowler should be allowed to tamper the ball in a one dayer. At a flat pitch where the bowler is not getting any assistance from the pitch there should must be any sort of support for the bowler. By this way a talented bowler may be able to creat some assistance from the pitch himself.
To make the thunderstorm of runs in a ground there should only be the pitch supporting and nothing else. The boundry should have a limitation to decrease. According to Woolmer atleast 75 meters. That's right! If we make every thing in the favour of the batsmen in the one day game, just for the purpose to make the spectators happy to see the heavy fire works then it will be more likely to a BASEBALL game rather than CRICKET. The conditions should be supporting to a bowler as well.

Watching Gilly, Gayle, Afridi, Freddy, Dhoni, Punter hit sixes is a great sight indeed. BUT. Christmas wudn't be Christmas if it was everyday. Love to see middle stump cart wheel back to wicket keeper by Shoaib, Lee, Bond, Pathan and Ntini. Why artificialize (i know that's not a word but u know what i mean) cricket? Why not leave it so in Aus it bounces, in England/SA it seams/swings and in Islands and subcontinent it's batsman's/spinners paradise. That's the natural way of it, been that way for a long time. If we keep on adding weight to batsmans favor not LONG IS THE DAY WHERE 11 BATSMEN WOULD BE PLAYING.. who needs specialist bowlers when score is going to be over 400 anyway?

I fully agree with the assessment that the balance has tipped in favor of the batsman a little too much. Everyone loves to see the ball disappear into the stands but I for one am as much excited by the late swinging yorker that sends the middle stump for a spin around the block. Cricket has always been known as "The Gentleman's Game" but recently seems to go more the way of a "Cannibalistic Carnival". I realize bigger scores means more fans watching, which in turn means more advertising dollars, which are vital to the growth of the game. But we must not forget that this is a game not a Ringling Bros. kind of deal. There is a right price for growth and a wrong price.
For each Dhoni and Afridi out there, capable of honky-tonking the ball over midwicket, you need a Dravid or Yousuf caressing, almost willing, the ball through cover with the elegance, style and skill of a Monet brushstroke. We cannot allow this game to become a simeple test of brute strength. Skill needs to be a part of the equation. A significant part.
Innovation has to affect both aspects of the game. Otherwise, might as well have a ball machine sending down deliveries and see who can hit the ball the farthest. I dont necessarily think allowing bowlers to scuff up the ball in the rough is the answer and I am not sure what is. that is for the scientists to fugure out. I am but a humble cricket purist.

The idea of removing (or increasing it to say 12-13 per bowler)) over limits of bowlers in ODI's is a good ploy to bring back balance. Reason: Even an off-the-boil team generally has one or two of their four (or five) bowling the right way on a particular day.

Imagine Pollock and Ntini bowling 25-26 overs for SA in a World Cup semi final match to take their team to a 1st ever WC final, or Asif taking 6 wickets in his 13 overs even as the others are punished by rival batsmen en route the 50-50 target of 265 at, well, the same Johannesburg pitch of 12th Feb.

More specialists can be expected on the field to the delight of contest lovers. Fielders-who-can-keep-the-ball-out-&-roll-arm-over are all fine but they can make your eyes sore when appearing in numbers.

hey Bob:
I just want to suggest that considering a very busy schedule in ODIs in the near future i suggest that we should also limit the 50overs game to just 35overs or 38overs per side. this way it will not be that short like 20/20 nor it will be lenghty like 50/50(100overs in a day).
what is your opinion about that?
Your big fan
UR

I completely agree with Mr. Woolmer about the need for a balance between bat and ball. However, the pitch curator (being the one who decides how balanced the game will be) must cater to the wants of the public. Cricket fans are the main income of the industry, so it would only be appropriate to prepare the pitch to their liking. West Indian fans might want to see their fast bowlers ripping through the batsmen, for example, whereas Indian fans might want a flat pitch for Sehwag and Co. to go beserk. Yes there should be a balance between bat and ball, Bob, but you must take into account the needs of those millions of devoted cricket lovers around the world.

Audience come for entertainment and nobody can deny that they enjoy more when game goes for long. Recent 400+ record match was extremely exciting to watch. And rules must be changed. After all rules are to provide good entertainment. So Bob is right and I agree with him.

I agree with Bob's opinion and i also think a team should play a minumum of 30 overs(50 be the max) and then if they want they can declare the innings any time after 30 overs and then giving the opponent the same numbers to achieve the target. for example if teamA declares their innings after 39overs at 220runs then the teamB needs 221runs in 39overs as well.
thanks

I understand how people agree with BW and also understand how some would disagree.

More runs does mean more entertainment. Bigger is notalways better. Low-scoring games, games when the balance is more or less even between bat and ball offer far more to the cricket fan than the slog-fest we saw at the Wanderers recently. I don't agree that bowlers should be allowed to scuff the ball, but I do believe there should something in the pitch for them. What's the point in playing if you are going to handicap one of the skills so blatantly by saying that there must be no seam movement?
As for the bats, yes there should definitely be some kind of limitations or regulations. Hitting sixes and fours should be a result of good shots and/or placement, not a mighty heave and sweet-spot the size of Tasmania.

well it could be said the I.C.C should take some measures to ensure the quality of the pitches. But this doesn't necessarily mean that all pitches should be standardized. It then becomes too predictable & it's a matter of just hitting & smashing which is not what cricket is all about. Regular 400+ scores doesn't promise a good match. I remember one match when S.L got out for less than 200 & Pak led by Wasim Akram just came & bowled their hearts out. Then recently in the u-19 World cup Pak defended a score of about 120 in the final thanks to some lovely swing bowling. I'm not a Pakistan fan but it doesn't matter if you want to enjoy cricket. would the likes of K.Dev, C.Walsh,G.Mcgrath, R.Hadlee, S.Pollock, W.Akram, C.Vaas, A.Flintoff ever take the field again if it's going to be a batters only sixes show?

Cricket is a game between bat & ball. It tests the skills of the players & builds character. That is the essence of cricket. That is what brings the true batsmen to the fore. Let us preserve this essence for the sake of cricket.

Lets not forget with runs extravaganza in ODIs test cricket on the contrary is becmoing more exciting these days and we are getting so many results...434 runs by body builder slogs is not cricket.I agree with woolmer on field sizes and if batsmen can vary their bat sizes why cant the ballers allowed scuffing one side more....its is tampering for people who just think inside the box,rules can be altered for betterment of game,this could be made legal.The idea of 4 stumps is interesting...please restore the dignity of ballers,spinners in one day game

Hi Bob,
Appreciate the improvement, especially in fitness, that you've brought about in the Pakistani side. I am very passionate about the game of cricket & honestly, the changes that have been implemented ie. power plays and the super-sub(now obsolete) are simply discouraging bowlers and seem to be far too biased. The game was intended to be fair from a batsmans & a bowlers perspective, providing equal opportunity to compete. There's only one objective nowadays & thats entertainment for the viewers/crowd. Entertainment is not seeing the world class bowlers being brutalized, top edges flying for sixes & boundaries so short that a mis-timed hit clears the fence without much hassle. I'm sure a fan wants to see good cricket, the better team win and not the luckier side taking the honours at the end of the day. So Bob, the only issue I have with the suggestions that you have forwarded:
-No more tampering with the rules as there have been a ton of changes from the time one-day cricket started.
Other than that, all the points that you have mentioned are very valid and need to be addressed by the ICC.

At what point do you say that there is a balance b/w bat and ball? It's all relative. It's good to have variety in the game.

Mr Woolmer
To a great Englishman in Pakistan, from a Pakistani in England.
Love your innovative ideas and views, cannot always agree 100% with you, though they hold great merit.

For years I've been amazed that there aren't standardised boundaries, more so for Limited Over matches.

Some great points by some of the readers, Balaji, wake up, Marcus, interesting, but too far. Just because the IIC might not allow for ball scuffing, does not mean it should not be proposed. I like the idea of a ball change (as in for Test matches, it being optional) - I think the bouncer rule could be lessened - great weapon - the awesome sight of an Aussie bloody lip! Dharmin, get a life - some Indians are just hung up that we got Bob and you got Greg! In your clear prejudice, you've forgotten Gooch, Atherton, Willis, Edmonds (watch the archives) Botham (seen him do it in person in 1979-80). Indian fast bowlers - well aside from Munaf Musa Patel who goes above 85mph - you've never had any! If Pakistan is synonomous with Ball Tampering, what does India come down to? Well, what do Jadeja, Prasad, Mongia, Azharuddin, Prabhakar, Sharma, Waugh, Warne, Gibbs and Cronje have in common?

Some for the rant, back to Bob...

As for you in your current role, I must confess to thanking the Lord in supplication when you were appointed. I knew you were going to deliver - and you are - Inshallah, what will be the no. 1 side in the world.

Thank you sincerely for bringing so much joy to me and my nation.

Asif

Hi.
I do not agree with the author. I think that there should be a balance between ball and bat. I mean, I like to watch games in which the score is between 200-300, but anything above that is boring to watch. I know people want entertainment but an overdose can just kill the whole thing. People also want to see some quality bowling. They just don't want to have runs scored all the time. People have been coming over to watch ODI's for a very long time and always, the stadiums are full. They want to see an even match-up. I think that they should just leave cricket the way it is. There are bowling pitches in the world right now and then there are batting pitches. Leave it like that. Also, stop making the boundaries shorter. It just take the fun out of it. I also don't think that balls should be changed. Hand-made balls are fine and there should be dimensions for bats laid out by the ICC.

I think the ICC needs to stop looking at commercialism and stop runining the game.

Has football changed it's rules to include no keeper so there are more goals in the game for more entertainment? NO! They haven't changed the game. Why do we have to?

Thank you.
Bye.

Runs fest, dustbowl, featherbed...these all words are synoymous. But at certain time all this run gathering in a barbaric way does not entertain, it bores. Just take the recent India-Pakistan test series and you'll know what exactly I mean.
But when in one-days then it's complete whole story. But put all this aside. I wonder why Inzi has done a same mistake three times recently. Once against England when Liam Plunket went on to score a 50! Second against Sri Lanka when in 2nd oneday they could have been strangled but he presisted with part timers instead of his main strike bowlers. The last one in the first test against Sri Lanka when they could have bowled Sri Lanka probably under 100 but again the bowlers who were not performing well were constantly used. I wonder WHY?

I have always liked bowling. Even though I enjoy haed hitting batting, I think that a lot of overs in one day go wasted if the batting dominates. The interest should always remain the same. The first 15 overs of both innings and the last 10 overs of both the innings are interesting. But apart from that 50 overs go wasted because of the slow destruction of fast bowlers.

I think we should have more bouncers per over and the wickets should be kind of neutral wherein the ball does favor the bowlers early on atleast.I think the current generatin of bowlers are not as good as the previous generation. We had some great bowlers in almost all the sides may be 5-10 years ago, Australia had & has Glenn McGrath & Shane Warne, Pakistan Wasim Akram & Waqar Younis, South Africa Alan Donald & Shaun Pollock, West Indies Courtney Walsh & Curtley Ambrose and these were guys who could win matches with the ball. Now we dont have good bowlers and on top of that the rules, wickets favor batsmen more. We have also mentioned that the Australia vs South Africa match where 400+ were scored by both the sides, look at the bowlers of the 2 sides, none of them is even 50% as good as any previous generation bowler and some were not of international standards. Now if we compare this match with the 1999 World Cup semifinal between Australia & South Africa, I would always love to watch the semifinal coz it had quality cricket everything was balanced the batting, the bowling everything.

WEll bowlers shudnt be allowed to do that!!! infact there shud be a balance between bat and ball....
For me they shud revert back to normal 15 overs fielding restrictions and not 20(power play) and a match with 280/290 runs scored is far more entertaining than a side scoring 434 and other being bowled out for 300 ..(U cant back every time team chasing to win it!)... for me they shud allow 2 bouncers per over and back to 15 over fielding restrictions.!!

Mr. Woolmer,
making the game any more batsman friendly is going to kill it. of all the ppl you should have figured that out having coached Pakistan for a while now. I think the games have become very interesting..teams now look to score in between 20-40. And why allow tempering, who is going to judge how much of it is legal!

Hey Bob,

I disagree with most things you have said.
1. Pitches should always be different. That is the beauty of the game that batsmen and bowlers have to adjust to varying conditions. This also encourages innovation. Any scores between 150 and 350 are acceptable. A score of 250 should be about the average.
2. Grounds should not be standardized. Grounds should be unique. They should have a radius of anywhere from 65m to 95m.
3. Ropes shouldn't be any further than 5m from the boundary. They should only be there for safety purposes. When your at the cricket and the ball goes over the rope but is still 10m from the fence it doesn't really excite you like a six should.
4. I love statistics but we don't need to standardize everything just for statistics, surely entertainment and unpredictability is more important.

G'day all.

I don't see much of a problem with what is happening. There has only been one game where a team has scored 400+ and i don't see that as a problem. Every now and then teams are going to put together special performances and things like this will happen and that's the beauty of it. Part of the beauty of cricket is that every ground is different. I don't think there should be standardised boundaries, but i think there should be limits to how small they are. Groundsmen all over the world are different and as a result will produce different pitches. The reason teams are scoring more runs now than in previous years is a change in approach to the games as well as the balance of players in the game at the moment. I mean there are some good bowlers eg Shaun Pollock, Glenn Mcgrath who you will rarely see get smoked around the park by even the greatest batsmen. So many people are accrediting the success of the Australian team to 2 of their bowlers, so obviously bowlers are having a strong impact! The only problem is a lack of bowling talent, players like that need to be produced in order to control strong batting line-ups. To blame the pitches for an imbalance between bat and ball is ridiculous when the same people are accrediting the australian success to it's BOWLERS! I think groundsmen should prepare their own style of pitch and let the teams play the cricket, after all they both play with the same conditions. Ball tampering is a stupid idea, and the quality bowlers of the game (past and present) never needed to do it in order to achieve success.

I totally agree all his (woolmer) comments other than the Ball tampering.
I assume now a days the home team captains are playing a big role in the pitch preparation part. At any cost that should be ignored immediately either implementing a new rule by ICC or the respective Cricket Board.

I have seen enough matches played in Batsman friendly pitches in a very recent time. May be b’coz of this reason, but I am not sure.
In our current world cricket all the Captains are Batsman’s (I mean no all-Rounder) so they wants to score enough runs to prove them self and to win the match also.

Where as if you take the old scenario (Early 80’s) Captain’s are All-Rounder (Kapil, Imran, I. Bottham, Akram and H.Cronje)
They are all capable all rounders, during there period. It was very rare to see of scoring 600+ runs in a single ODI.

But now a days it’s become a trend of scoring Runs more than that. I couldn’t remember the last match when the team got all out in ODI. (I mean the top level team playing each other). So my question is when the trend will get change and when I see the match like 1999 WC Semi Final, for me still that is best ever match which I have seen.

Reply to Marcus - Hayden has scored 26 centuries in 82 tests and average 54 and Smith hit around 10 centuries in 40 matches averages around 50. Whilst I agree that bowling standard is less and personally don't regard these two players in high esteem, what they show is that a certain type of batting seems to work. So it is not all down to bigger bats, shorter bounderies etc. I do honestly believe that many batsmen are better at reducing risk of getting out.

As Cricket is originated from conservative society and such drastic changes would take a long time i think if its allowed to rub the ball (infact temper the ball) that will always remain controvercial. Bob being the pakistani coach, team which has renowned revrse swing bowlers , argument is understable.

One day cricket is too boring, with these lame dead pitches, and the stupid "powerplay", so more should be done to assist bowlers. (I cannot bear to watch crap batsmen such as sehwag,dhoni,pietersen etc. wacking the ball wherever they want)

Bob,i totally support your stand on letting the bowlers to rough one side of the ball but, i would say, without disturbing the seam. The only problem with ball tampering was that alot of bowlers were disturbing the seam that puts the ball out of shape.
Everyone should remember that crowd wants to see intense cricket not just 4s and 6s.
Just imagine when it starts to rain 4s and 6s and your own team is on the receiving end, you definitely dont want to see that. The crowd only comes to the stadium to see their team play well and win.
Still cant forget the days when waqar and waseem used to defend small totals against great teams, it used to be so much fun and cricket at its best.
We should also do things like allowing the bowlers to bowl 2 bouncers per over(In ODI) and also be lenient on legside wides along with giving the bowlers an extra fielder outside the ring.
Come on let the batsmen earn their runs.
A person with real cricket sense will tell you that its important that we have a proper balance between bat and ball.
To see the batsman avoiding toe crushing yorkers, jumping and ducking on the crease is a lot more fun than just watching the ball sail over the boundary.
The crowd just comes to see their team play well and win no matter whether they score 400 or not.

It is probably correct to say that there is some bias in favour of batsmen in one day cricket. But there is certainly no urgent need to do anything drastic. Allowing ball tampering, while in theory may be OK, is very difficult to regulate and is therefore not good for cricket. However, one possibility would be to let the "bowling team" decide which type (brand) of ball to use, instead of the "host country" making that decision.

ok! bob woolmer is a great coach and all...but his thoughts on ball rubbing or watever...i am completely against his 'thoughts'.. ball tamering laws should stay!!!
and also the rugby/cricket stadiums in Zew Zealand totally suck...and they don't add any charms to the game and some of the boundaries could be hit for a Six even by my little Nephew!!

Who says that only high scoring matches are interesting to watch? The recent one day match between India and England proved the exact opposite.

BTW what happended in the recent Pak-Sri Lanka game? I thought test match pitches get worse and are hard to bat as they wear off however it seems that this pitch got better and better as the play went on. Am I missing something?

cricket lover - bc the first day was washed out the final day was just a 4th day wicket, and the SSC usually plays well upto the 5th day. The early difficulties were i guess due to the moisture in the wicket due to the rain and the atmosphere at the time. Once this dried out over days 2 and 3, the wicket became a traditional SSC pitch.

I agree with woolmer yeah