Cricket has to maintain some sort of balance between bat and ball otherwise it ceases to be the game that we love. So much is weighted in the batsman¹s favour now: shorter boundaries, lighter but more powerful bats, bouncer restrictions. What can be done to balance the scales? Did I hear someone say uncovered pitches?

It is a step backwards. Cricket should be played on the best pitch possible. Having uncovered pitches and weather intervening could ruin matches. If we need to redress the balance, lets do it with a method we can control. Changing the nature of cricket balls for example (increased seams etc), placing weight restrictions on bats, minimum boundary sizes would all help. Allowing the new ball to be taken sooner or allowing scuffing of the ball are other alternatives.

The pitch and weather are the 2 least controllable methods we have, so lets let groundsman concentrate on producing good wickets. Maybe if we tried to put more pace and bounce back into wickets we would have a more even contest. Is it me or have most test wickets got slower and lower in the last 20 years? The old Oval and Perth tracks produced some great cricket, giving even bounce and pace.

We don't need uncovered wickets to redress the balance when plenty of more entertaining solutions exist...

ofcourse uncovered pitch is always favourable for bowlers. i think that pitches should be hard and bouncy and the core of the ball used must contain more rubber content which again aids in good carry to slips and wicketkeeper. also probably 2 bouncers must be allowed per over accounting for 2 dot balls perhaps and there should be field restrictions for 10 overs and not 20 as it is now. changing the ball during the odi games must be allowed under very genuine conditions like difficulty in viewing the ball perhaps so that the softer ball makes it difficult to make strokes as easily as they are now. also i think the umpires must be given something like the hawk-eye used by tv commentators to be used on the fields so that genuine lbw's are not dismissed by the umpires.

I totally agree something needs to be done, we have bowlers being banned for life for apparently throwing, however when a batsman uses a bat the MCC deems illegal, he doesn't get so much as a slap on the wrist.

yes uncovered wickets (except in case of rain) will help restore balance and to restore cricket as game of incredibly diverse skills rather than only athleticism

The future of Cricket is in the hands of the a raucous billion battling with changing paradigms and an economic change that promises to create a different tomorrow, and somewhere, we need someone like Dhoni or a Yuvraj to sex it up, to add fuel to the growing aspiration of an economic and strategic global cult for ourselves, even if it means throwing the Bombay test..
Cricket is getting lost somewhere, but Cricket is not for a few anymore, but an engine for the masses encompassing a strength of a billion. Cynics can lay to rest, just because one who pays gets the cake.
Though Cricket will get through even this, and in another perspective, with all of this, we might get a lot more appreciate the game, and perhaps few of them, will end up feeling for it, like we did when Donald went face to face with Michael Atherton..
Cheers.

The mediocre bowlers are the ones who are suffering. The better bowlers will always find a way to be effective. Have you noticed that there are certain bowlers who always excel inspite of playing conditions. "A bad workman always quarrel with his tools". While the batsmen have to be skillful to make use of the new and improved "tools" the bowlers has to bowl smarter, "bend their back", and not just "turn the old arm over" and toss the dibly dobly lollipops.........

I think u have a point. the game is coming to a stage now where a batsmen is the master. There need to be changes in the law otherwise people will get bored

One thing that irks me is that why u people call ODI as the batsmen's game? its the game of the 1st 3 or 4 batsmen. look at the averages at different positions & you will notice it. No room for no. 5 or 6 batsmen: the only exception is Micheal Bevan & that's why I consider him the greatest ever ODI batsman

I have heard a lot about batsmen being dominant, which I agree is true in the one day game. I am not sure that it is true in Test matches, which is where technique is really tested. Does anyone have statistics on batting v bowling in Tests and ODIs over time? As for the one day situation.. well, limit the weight and composition of bats, extend the boundaries, and stop the nonsense with power plays. I doubt that totally uncovered pitches would be the perfect solution - but perhaps they could be uncovered for a set period of time, to let nature make things more lively?

As always John Stern is a pleasure to read - short, precise and sharp. And yet consider this. We have 500 and 600 wicket bowlers playing the game. Test matches get over in 4 rather than 5 days. Fielders are more supportive of their bowlers than ever before. While I am all in favour of the proposals suggested by him and Nick, it is one day cricket where bowlers need more protection. Test cricket is doing just fine. Just ensure that bowlers dont play on those pitches used during the India Pakistan series and they will be grateful.

At the risk of being immodest, I actually did not suggest changing the situation for Test matches, other than possibly allowing the pitch to be more exposed to the elements for a limited period of time - maybe an extra 4 hours out of 24? Obviously, if there was a downpour, then you would put the covers on again. As for the India/Pakistan pitches - I think the Pakistan pitches were more problematic - but it must be said that the Pakistan bowlers generally did a fairly good job. Overall, I think quality bowlers do well, no what the surface. England struggled because their spin attack was not strong enough. Basically I think that we have to ask if what the public wants is a batting-intense one day format - which I suspect if the case. If this is so, any attempts to swing the balance back to the bowlers may simply be doomed to begin with. If not, I still think the answer lies in: 1) longer boundaries (and fixed minimum playing field dimensions), 2) restricted bat materials and weights, 3) fewer fielding restrictions. Just my thoughts...

I agree that there are many Test matches that end in results. One reason is that the enhanced run rate allows captains to make more aggressive declarations. Also, there has been an erosion of technique (in general) and batsmen are getting out to loose shots, but only after profiting from numerous edges that fly over the slips, etc. I have felt that the best way to to reduce the dominance of the bat is to actually limit the bat to wood, and its dimensions so that batsmen do not gain an undue advantage. Failing this, the pitches can be kept covered for a week before a match and allow the fielding captain to decide whether he wants it covered overnight. This will bring back the great technicians who make cricket such a beautiful game to watch.

Uncovering pitches is not the answer. Skill should be rewarded. On the other hand, I see no reason why the boundaries should be reduced on every ground. Some are already small: OK, it's part of the range of conditions under which cricket is played. But let's leave the big ovals big. That way, spinners have more of a chance, and are not at the mercy of sloggers who plant the foot and swing, knowing it doesn't matter in which direction it goes, as long as it goes far enough - not such a problem with modern bats. Players' safety is often trotted out as a reason for boundary ropes, so why not put padding round the fences, like they do for baseball in the US?

Yes it may a attractive idea, but i doubt many fans would be so supportive after seeing their teams bowl well and restrict the batting side to only 200, only to have it rain, and then get blown away themselves for 50-odd each time on a sticky wicket.

Test matches have been far fairer and more exciting in the last 6 years, than they have been for a very long time.

...i think there can be a trial run to use two balls per innings. You know! one from either end. the sort of thing that was done with white balls for one day cricket some years ago. i beleive they should try that again...(for one day cricket) that might help tilt the balance somewhat....as far as tests are concerned, i agree with rajat test cricket is "just fine". last few seasons i have had the most fun watching test cricket....though rules regarding chucking should be more comprehensive....and a particular bowler should be left alone once cleared by the ICC.

Limiting what wood bats can be made of with minimum and maximum widths, heights and thicknesses for both blade and handle will go a long way to making the contest more even.

I also agree on the fact that pitches should not be covered.Batsmen have great advantage nowadays with improved bats and flat tracks that help the batsmen a lot.If pitches were uncovered like the olden days it would assist the bowlers more and would make the games more exciting.The batsmen will have to use their skill and talent a lot more.The great batsmen of yester year had to endure such difficulties and so should the present batsmen.There is no point in comparing the past greats to the present generation unless there is more of an even contest between bat and ball.This will also expose the weakness of the present batsmen more.

Uncovered pitches would certainly even things up between the batsmen and bowlers, but between teams would often turn games into lottery-like situations. The best example of this sort of thing is the MCG test of 1937 - Bradman declared right after it had rained, in order to make England bat on a Melbourne sticky. England ended up at 76/9 before declaring - but by then, the day's play was almost over and Australia were able to send in their best batsmen the following day, when the wicket had dried out and was good to bat on once more.

Yes, such situations will give bowlers a lot more heart, but results could then be greatly skewed by the weather and the teams' luck based on it, rather than on skills alone.

Reverting to uncovered pitches would be an unnecessary backwards move when the real problem lies unremedied. The dimensions of modern springy bats need to be set and adherence to these limits properly regulated. GM bats seem particularly broad, excessively thick and allow profit from mistiming. As the correspondent rightly states, mis-hits are now racing to the (shorter) boundaries with alarming regularity. Bowlers skilful enough to induce mistimed strokes are not getting the rewards they ought to.

I agree that their need to be rules on cricket bats. First I would outlaw scalloping on the back of the bat. Scalloping increases the size of the sweet spot which makes batting easier.

Second I would have restictions on coatings that may be used.

This would enciurage real batsmen at the expense of the tonkers.

Third I would restrict the number of springs to three.

With respect to all comments, I have to doubt whether many of the contributors have actually played cricket at any decent level.

Bats already have restrictions on blade length and width. Therefore an edge to a keeper, being bowled through the gate have not become "less likely".

Secondly it is ridiculous to suggest bats have weight restrictions. Absolutely ridiculous. How do you police such a policy? Where do you start?

Also, to impose weight restrictions on bat is destroying an important element in the art of batting. Different batsmen, based on their style of play, physique etc choose the appropriate weight bat. It is something which makes being a batsman so special. Most batsmen are nutty about bats.

Absolutely ridiculous.

One assumes that batsmen take so long is because the beleive that choosing the right bat will improve their average? i.e. they have the right to pick the bat that best suits their style of play.

But a bowler gets tossed whichever ball the home board decide to use, usually based upon commercial considerations.

So the batsmen are allowed to pick whichever bat they want by whichever maker, tailored to their preffered style, but the bowlers have to use the balls decided on by the board in advance? And its not in the batsmens favour?

I'm sure Hoggard or McGrath would love to be able to turn up with a ball with as big a seam as the law allows and bowl with that. Or Simon Jones with a ball that is designed to reverse. But they don't, they take what they are given. Whilst Ricky Ponting uses a bat that specifically has a non wood item used to increase performance and he gets away with it?

I would say that if batsmen gets to choose his bat then the bowling side should get to choose their make of ball so long as they conformed to the rules.

Why not try the Bobby Peel solution? Keep the pitches covered and let the fielding side have a go at emptying their bladders?
I'm half serious here. It can be obviously controlled unlike rain and there would be a certain skill required in having a go at the correct length.
We could even televise it with Deano offering commentary.

One way to give a better chance to bowlers is to legalise chucking. This will reduce the controversies over chucking as well.

Warhadpande

I have 3 main suggestion to balance the game to some degree:

1. Minimum boundary lengths.. around 70 to 75m atleast.

2. Scuffing the ball in foot marks to get reverse swing earlier.

3. ...and how about compulsory change to a new ball after 25 overs in ODIs?

If we can go ahead and try without any presence of mind and tests at county or regional cricket level things like "super-subs" and "powerplays", and we all saw what happened, super-subs problem so obvious that anyone could see it before the introduction i.e. it favouring the toss winning captain so had they tried it in county levels first, they'd have seen it. Powerplays on the other hand have been seen to mostly been used straight for the first 20 overs which was the problem in the first place. I dont think that you are ever going to get rid of the "boring" period in the middle because all teams try to stabilise and keep wickets in hand between 20 to 40 overs to allow themselves a launch pad for last 10 overs.

I do not agree with arun however about legalising chucking as we do not want to convert cricket into baseball and all sorts of different problems will occur very quickly.

Test match cricket is just fine, though bigger boundaries might increase the reward for genuine strokeplay as opposed to the uncultured biff. In ODI's, however, there needs to be far more drastic change - if it were purely a case of run scoring, then lets just employ bowling machines and make merry... It seems to me some of the most exciting games have been some of the lower scoring ones, such as the great SA v Aus semi, Eng v Aus in the 03 WC, and the tied match pre-Ashes in England. Very much a case of quality vs quantity...

There are alot of factors which have made batting pretty easier today than it was before. Playing on covered pitches, no tampering of ball and if somebody does that, he gets caught ... plus the use of heavy bats has brought alot of comfort to the batsman and at the same time, disconcerted the bowlers to a prodigious degree. The least controversial bit of solution in order to balance the equation b/w batsman and the bowler would be to standardize the weight of the stick and the amount of willow at it's central portion. Nowadays, timing and middling are not pre-requisites to hit a boundary, courtesy to our willow makers. This is something that makes the game more brutal for the bowlers. And generally the outfields are pretty fast as well which makes it virtually impssible to catch the ball if it goes through a gap. These tiny bitty things at the end accumulate and put the bowler in a huge disadvantage.