But if high scores were a reliable indicator of the quality of a sport, football would have outlawed goalkeepers, and golf would have drawn every green to within a drive of the tee so that everyone could shoot 60. There has to be a struggle to take the advantage; there has to be resistance to the efforts to wrest it back. Sport is not just about spectacle; it involves challenge, frustration, slings, arrows, outrageous fortune.

Cricket has that in spades: it is defined by survival, duration, changing conditions, and a huge range of skills paraded by turns. It’s nice to hear that one reader’s nine-year-old is excited by cricket as it is. But frankly, I don’t want the direction of the game determined by the priorities of nine-year-olds, enchanting as they are.

One sanguine commenter pointed out that cricket ‘evolves’. Up to a point. In the most basic sense, it’s true, what we are seeing is an outgrowing of what might be called the rationalist model of cricket brought about by higher levels of professionalism and more systematic modes of practice. But it is usually overlooked that the benefits of this dispensation do not bestow themselves evenly. While Ricky Ponting can undertake the drill of hitting a thousands balls in the nets before a Test innings, it is physically impossible for Brett Lee to bowl a thousand deliveries. Batting is an easier art in which to groove oneself; bowlers are more susceptible to the vagaries of the day, fluctuations of confidence, ration of luck.

To shrug your shoulders and say that cricket ‘evolves’, therefore, is simply a cliché. These days, in fact, it is no longer shaped principally by the eternal contest of bat and ball, but by a host of financial, commercial, political and bureaucratic factors. Again, I think, this is a good opportunity for us to reflect on why cricket matters, and what we enjoy about it.

And again, thanks to all those who corresponded.

certainly it would be a greater cause of worry if it were the other way around. however, its not the case; at the moment batsman without technique and footwork thrive. we need more finger spinners, swing (not just reverse) and cutters bowlers. last good cutter was fazal mahmood; few good genuine fast medium swing bowlers last was heath streak; modern cricket is for pace bowlers who may do just a little of the seam and hit the deck (where are those who kiss the turf after kapil dev)and leg spinners. perhaps diversity of wickets and perhaps, balls may help (though the sg balls in india help harbhajan only who cant get wickets abroad). the old no-ball rule may also help? yes, if the pendulum swings the other way it would again defeat cricket as a game of unparalled diversity of skills. thats why we love it. if we want just big hits we could watch baseball.

we can all go on dreaming about hypothetical situations, extremes of both batting and bowling. the question is what can you do to restore some of the balance that has swung over to the batsmen's favour.

Its time to step back:

It nice academic exercise to imagine that what if bowlers would have dominated, but with the current lot of cricket law makers (The ICC) it wouldnt be possible.

We are seeing an era completely dominated by the batsmen and ICC is doing its best to take away whatever bowlers have.

I think that the innovations like restricted fielding and restriction on bouncers have done their job i.e. to change the batting philosophy.

Now since the cricket philosophy has undergone a change, I would suggest that instead of seeking new kind of bowlers (~= bowling types) or other fancy ideas, lets go back to the days when there was no field restriction, bowlers were allowed bouncers. I am sure it will help even out the contest between batting and bowling.

I agree that cricket evolves but evolution depends on the environmental forces, and in context of cricket the ICC is setting up the wrong kind of environment (to complete the statement - its definetly not the players or the spectators who get a chance to suggest modifications in the way the game should be played) which strongly biases the game in favor of the batsmen. ICC tries to tell us that masses like high scoring games, but its not true.

People (not just cricket purists) want to watch good contest not to see batsmen being masscred/mutilated and nearly 1000 runs in a day

A previous correspondant wrote that "if we want just big hits we could watch baseball." Mentionaing baseball is particularly interesting in the context of this debate. Baseball is one sport where the authorities have always been proactive in constantly changing the rules to preserve the balance between bat and ball. Fundamental changes such as lowering the pitcher's mound, increasing pitching distance and continually increasing and decreasing the size of the strike zone.

It is noticable in any sport that as one facet begins to dominate, tactics will evolve to "restore the balance". Over time there is no doubt that bowling will adjust to reduce the amount of runs scored. A perfect example of this is England's bowling tactics against Sachin Tendulkar on the last tour of India. What is crucial is that the authorities do not allow the rules to stagnate. They must adapt the rules to ensure that a bowlers can be a potent attacking option, and not merely an option to keep the score down.

I come from a minor cricketing nation (Ireland) so will not endeavour to offer many suggestions on what rule changes can be made to restore the natural balance between bat and ball. But it is important to realise that aswell as lifting restrictions on bowling (no. of bouncers per over for example) it is possible to change batting also. Increasing boundry distances, and imposing tight controls on bats will help reduce batting influence on games.

One last point is to remember that the opposite swing of the pendulum was experienced during the low scoring blood-fests of the 80's and 90's where bowlers dominated the game, to equal derision from commentators and supporters.

Why don't we take this modern day cricket as a form of ultimate challenge to the bowlers instead of batsmen? They had their time ten years ago. They were tested to the maximum. Now the turn is for the bowler. Only those with exceptional skill and ability can survive and shine in international level. Meanwhile enjoy the skills possessed by Warne, McGrath and Murali.

Its important to make sure that bowlers are very much a part of the game,rather then just playing to get hit around the park.An even battle between the bat and the ball should be of utmost importance and priority.This largely seems to be happening in most of the test matches except for a few odd matches played in indifferent conditions,offering batsmen an advantage or the bowlers.but today the trend is shifting towards the batsmen,thus proactive measures will save us the trouble of watching a few really boring games before inevitable measures are taken to keep the game alive!..This is, provided that the forces driving the game want the game to live!!

As a (limited ability) bowler I have, on numerous occasions, encountered batsmen that have taken a liking to my particular brand of seam-up, shape it away bowling. It has been my responsibility to change the way I bowl to counter the threat posed by the batsmen. Whether I have decided to change line, length, pace or seam position has been my choice as it shoud be for the current crop of bowlers.

Watching the last few overs of England's defeat against India last Friday it became fairly obvious that even Andrew Flintoff (a renowned thinking cricketer) did not have the wherewithal to take the pace off the ball and bowl a different line and length to the accepted fast/ slow, yorker/ bouncer ritual at the end of an innings.

Cricket has always been about the battle between bat and ball. It is surely time for the bowlers to use their brains to strike back.

I think they should increase the number of matches per series and play less series again like before. Because it would help most players with injuries to recuperate and allow them to be ready for the big scene as fit as possible.Batsmen as well as bowlers.

why do we still have the rule that allows only two fieldsmen behind the wicket on the legside? especially with the other law in place that allows only two bouncers an over. atleast one, if not both these laws must go. we have helmets, and match referees, which make bodyline bowling with packed legside fields no threat and no go respectively.

i agree with suggestions to remove fielding restrictions and bouncer limits in odi's. but they re already more or less not applied in tests. we want neither mediocre bowlers nor mediocre batsman to succeed without being properly tested. as i recall the 1980's key bowlers were the windies paceman (who would succeed even on todays wickets if they could remain fit given the workloads, todays pitches n loads discourage such attacks)and pakistani swing bowlers none of who relied on the pitch; the kookaburra ball doesnt swing after 10 overs and doesnt reverse swing why would a swing bowler be selected to bowl just 5 overs? but there were also great batting feats in the 80s by the likes of gavaskar gower richards border so it was not a time only for bowling.

Reading people like Gideon, who I continue to enjoy and respect, I'm left wondering if the problem is really with the game, the way it is played, the rules under which it is played, the pitches it is played on, or with us, the people who watch it.

I'm struggling to find anything wrong with cricket as it is, Tests, ODIS, Twenty20 ... It feels as though we're desperately trying to find fault with the show when we don't, in the first place, know what we want to watch.

The imbalance between bat and ball seems to a point of massive contention, but that has been a case for the longest time. It stems from the most basic premise of cricket where the bowler asks a question with what he does and the batsman responds. After countless interviews as a journalist I realise that the questions I ask can shape an interview but it is only the answers that can make it. For those who have never attempted this it might sound like an absurd suggestion. But sometimes life as we know it, boring as anything, is more absurd than Kafka.

To suggest that cricket is any less interesting or relevant today than before, I suspect, is a reflection more of the manner in which we watch, and consume it, than a commentary on how it is played.

I wonder what people felt when the West Indies were carrying all before them, and batting sometimes looked impossible. This was when the rules were changed to cut down on bouncers per over and intimidatory bowling. But did anyone suggest that cricket was in crisis? My memory is that similar anxieties did not arise. Perhaps we simply see a general lack of quality bowling worldwide? After all, what are the bowling attacks that really stand out? Australia, now England (rising, if not yet complete, for want of a top-class spinner).. and then? Pakistan, perhaps, but too erratic, India, slowly improving, but without a proven pace unit, and then the individuals like Muralitharan who carry their sides. I am not sure this is a crisis in the game - more that batsmen have sharpened up, and have the benefit of extensive video archives for training. Have bowlers done the same? I suspect that bowling is still regarded as a "natural" ability, rather than a learned craft. The answer is perhaps to leave pitches uncovered for some period of time (maybe 4 hours extra in the day?), and to limit bat size and weight - but I am convinced that the real key is to work harder on producing quality bowlers. The really good bowelers succeed, even in difficult circumstances.

The article by Gideon is right on the money. These days I get real joy of watching cricket only from the test matches, that too only in certain contests like the thoroughly enchanting and exciting Ashes series.

One day cricket has always been and always will be a commercial phenomenon. Cricket needs money to grow so ODI's are fine. However please dont kill the whole essence of the game by making it a single sided slog. One interesting point of note these days is the definition of a good wicket. Somehow a good ODI wicket these days is one where 300 plus scores are made preferably in both innings. Its complete brainwash and hogwash.

One trend I have been noticing of late is that there are are fewer quality bowlers at the Test level around the world today. Asutralia's dominance over the past decade has been sustained by a pair of top quality bowlers with good support, whereas most other teams had only one quality (all conditions) bowler and would struggle to take 20 wickets. In addition to rule/equipment changes, one must wonder why there is such a dearth of quality bowlers. Are the lower levels not producing bowleers due to the conditions (pitches, ball quality, team temperament)they play in? Are youngsters put off bowling because of what they see on TV? The West indies team of the 70s/80s was an aberration, but as I recall, most teams then had a tandem of quality bowlers. Why don't we see that now?

In answer to the question "Why Cricket matters", my personal belief has always been the cerebal nature of the contest and despite the requirement for natural ability and technique it is one of the most mentally challenging games that allows people of differing abilities to compete through the strength of the mind. There is a great quote going round at the minute which is T-Shirt material if I ever saw it and is simply "Cricket does not build charachter - it reveals it". I await the conclusion of the third Test from the Wanderers tonight. If ever you want to see some reasons why cricket matters then watch the climax to this epic.

Is it really swinging towards the batsman? If it was, we'd expect to see a lot more drawn Test matches than in the old days - and in fact the reverse is true. Batsmen have never scored faster, and Tests have never been more interesting.

As for one-dayers, who really cares if they batsmen are in the ascendancy?! There's still opportunites to impress for great bowlers, but I for one would rather see a great batting performance than a great bowling performance in a one-dayer.

The current Test series between Australia and South Africa has been a breath of fresh air. Test cricket is at it's most exciting when there is always the feeling around that a wicket is not far off. We saw that in last year's Ashes series, too.

Having said that I don't mind some matches being played on belters. But by that I mean the sort of pitches that you find in Australia, where batsmen generally have the advantage but can still be brought back down to earth by good bowling, rather than the roads you find in some countries.

I wouldn't like to see every pitch in the world with exactly the same balance between bat and ball. But for every belter there has to be a bowler friendly track to balance things out, IMO.

I don't like to see grounds lose their character, either. Looking at the tame, batting friendly tracks that were produced for the latest Tests that were played at Perth and at the SCG I fear this may be happening.

What I find interesting in the current debate is that bowlers are being portrayed as the innocent victims of an ICC plot. As a (mediocre) bowler myself I am inclined to think that bowlers and the bowling fraternity should take some responsibility for the current state of play. If you look at world cricket at the moment we are producing very many bowlers who are unthinking drones. Where are the unusual actions of Thomson or Marshall? Part of what makes Murali or Warne so good is their individuality and it seems to me we are, for whatever reasons, breeding this out of the game. The consequences being a more mechanical game which, of course, favours batsmen. More unpredictability, I implore you!

This discussion started after "the greatest game ever" and a lot of people are talking about batters' dominance for some time now. But don't you think it is always the high scoring games which captures the imagination. I can bet that for every high scoring game there is been a low scoring game as well (look at the current India-England series). World cup 1999 had more low scoring games than the high scoring ones. Even world cup 2003 had gems like New Zealand-Australia game. So may be it is not a problem of dominance of one facet of the game but our own bias. I am sure that I read an article in Cricinfo regarding the increasing averages of batsmen, but there have been more results in test cricket than ever before.
I for one do not agree with writers' point of view that batsmen have it easy 'cuz they can hit thousand balls in net and bowlers can't practice that much. Batsmen get only one mistake in their innings but bowler can get hit for a six and come back and get a wicket in the next ball. If a bowler is not bowling well he can always take a break and come back with a better spell later on. Rules of cricket are always going to favor batsmen and that is fair.
In most of the high scoring games it is as much bad bowling as it is favorable conditions for batsmen. When in a low scoring games we can go after batemen 'cuz they didn't bat well with given conditions why can't we criticize bowlers for the same thing in high scoring games as well.

unfortunately the age of (mediocre)batting ruling has much to do with the fact that its spectator friendly matches last 5 days or 100 overs as the case may be; this means more tv audiences and sponsors. but the declining skill sets (absence of draws on flat wickets is regrettably due also to the fact that declining technical skills among batsmen are beginning to be felt)and in some countries declining interest in the local cricket suggests that we may be slowly killing the goose thats laying the golden eggs; what happens when the audiences get even more thrilling sights in other sports? or if indian football improves and india plays more international matches /tournaments regularly

I agree: The ICC must make some radical changes or else the sport would wither away. There will be a time, not too long from now, when the average cricket fan stops relishing the prospect of watching mediocre batsmen, with as much technique as Shane Warne's cranial capapcity, whack the daylights out of the bowlers. Didn't the recently concluded test between the Aussies and the South Africans, where no team managed to get way beyond 300, make brilliant viewing?

I just have one simple point:

Cricket is designed heavily in favour of a bowler. Let me explain in detail.

1) A bowler gets 6 (SIX) chances to get a batsman out.

2) A team potentially can use 11 (Eleven) different bowlers to get a batsman out in an innings.

3) 10 (Ten) different players are helping a bowler to get a batsman OUT.

And all it takes is 1 (ONE) ball delivered, to get a batsman out.

Now tell me, whether this is a bowlers game (or) a batsman's game.

:)

Surely if the batsmen were dominating most matches would be high scoring draws? 1000 runs an innings. This is clearly not happening - a far higher proportion of Test matches end in a result.

The facts are that batsmen are scoring faster and play more aggresively. Would you rather watch a Hayden or a Boycott? The fact is that quality bowling takes wickets. Maybe we are going through a lean period in class bowlers at the moment, but no doubt there will be more in the future

This has happened because
1) We are lacking good medium pacers - only Pollock, Vaas and Pathan are performing well at the moment

2) ICC and media (specially English, Austrailian and South African) starts commenting on mathches where they are played at dust-bowls, but they keep silent about mine-field-like bouncy pitches. and spinners do not have proper chance to play on helpful tracks.

3) Batsmen of today are better equipped than batsmen of yesteryear at playing spin as they are more faced with good spinners. (that's why I regard Tendulkar to be a better batsman than Bradman. Bradman never played spinners even coming close to Murali, Warne, Kumble, Harbhajan, Saqlain, Quadir or Kaneria. note - Vettori does not come to this list. Herath of Sri Lanka and Rafique of Bangladesh are better left arm spinners, but they lack the exposure)

I think the quality of bowlers coming through is also declining since no one really wants to take up a career that is uncertain and based on 1 bad day like Mick Lewis found out.

I think someone rightly said we should go back to the old days with no fielding restrictions and 3 bouncers allowed in an over and lets see if the batsmen are good enough.

Also i think curators make sure that the surface is good for batting, lets play for a few days on uncovered wickets instead of the kingsmead wicket and see who is laughing at the end of the day.

I think it is not difficult to guess that I am a bowler!!! coming straight from the heart!!

THE PITCHES NEED TO BE BETTER TO MAKE AN EVEN CONTEST AND MOTIVATE THE YOUNGER GENERATION TO FAST BOWLING!!

Hats off Anand Vasu! That was a superb comment. I generally dont agree with you but this time I definitely do. Yes Gideon Haigh makes some good points...he always does..after all he is the person who wrote " Batting's golden age".

But this whole discussion , like this one on 'Technology in umpiring ' is an exercise in futility for precisely the points you mentioned.

I'd bet anything that if West Indies cricket were in better shape and there was as much money in Cricket as there was in the National Basketball Association - we'd see the West Indies bowling line-up with baby Ambroses and Garners.

100MPH may be the physical limit of the human race, but height is something we can have more of... not many batsmen tonked those two around with any semblance of regularity.

There is nothing wrong with the rules, balls, wickets or equipment.

Ranga,

The name Bill O'Reilly mean anything to you ?

Ian Whitchurch

I think the gap between batting and bowling in cricket is more pronounced in one day cricket not test match cricket, the recent test series between Australia and South africa shows this. yes the class of bowlers now is questionable but surely the rules must be changed in the ONE DAY GAME to even out the contest. I think the supersub should be given another chance only this time each team picks 12 and AFTER the toss they name the supersub, this could bring another dimension of entertainment to the game which games such as football and soccer have. Also a bowler should be rewarded for bowling a maiden. therfore introducing the rule were the bowler gets a nother over for every maiden they bowl will then bring about new and intersting possiblities!

Tom, are you joking? Bradman's era was an age of great spinners. He played against O'Reilly, Grimmett, Verity, Fleetwood-Smith, White.

In any case, in order to consider a man with a 57 average to be better than a man with a tick under a hundred, you better have a far more massive compensating factor than THAT.

The big deifference as many people have said is that batsmen are scoring more aggresively now than what they did prior to the Mark Taylor/Steve Waugh revolution.

Taylor and Waugh made a conscious decision to increase scoring rates, in part to lift the entertainment value of test cricket. After years of success the rest of the world has followed the Australian lead. The reason for this is that it's been demonstrated as being the best way to maximise your chances of winning. There will be times when a team still has to try to grit out for a draw, as seen in the recent Ashes series and the second test of the SAF/Aus series.

I for one do not want to see a return to the days of teams barely scoring 200 runs in a whole days play.

But I think part of the problem is that the dominant bowlers in the late 80's and early 90's (Walsh and Ambrose) were bowlers, like McGrath, who used line and length as a weapon to force an impatient batsman into poor shot selection. Now many of the best fast bowlers are follwing this particular path, and even Brett Lee was forced into bowling line and length earlier in his career.

In the '70s and '80s the dominant bowlers (Dev, Lillee, Thompson, Botham, Holding, Marshall, Garner) were trying to get the batsmen out rather than waiting for a mistake. All we need is a successful fast bowler in the mould of a Lillee or a Botham and selectors the world over will start looking for a similar bowler within their own ranks and the pendulum will swing again.

Bob Simpson, the former Australian coach and near great opening batsmen has made a number of very pertinent comments about bowling, particularly with respect to One Day cricket. He points out that coaches are directing their bowlers to bowl over after over of yorkers in the final overs, an impossible task for even the greatest of all yorker bowlers Joel Garner , and are then critical of the bowlers for bowling juicy half volleys. As he says cricket has always been about getting batsmen out by pitching balls where specific batsmen don't like them pitched, the aim should be to remove the source of the runs not stop the runs.
Bob is also on the record as pointing out how ludicrous it is to have ropes 10 metres in from boundaries at some grounds so that mishits are going for six. Surely no cricket lover can disagree that the sight of a badly played stroke ballooning over a rope placed a ludicrous distance in from the boundary is simply ridiculous? Of course I recognise safety issues here but at the Gabba ground in Brisbane the boundary for first class games is about 2 metres away but for one day games it's about 20 metres away.
Of course none of this removes the requirement for higher levels of skill on behalf of the bowler but in their defence I would like to point out that in the last ten years every ground has now obtained adequate pitch covers, a large number have access to decent weather forecasts, umpires are now very conservative about stopping and starting games, sight boards are everywhere and the sun only needs to blink for light to be offered meaning that any help they may have gotten before and during the game from the elements and the environment has now disappearedand. Many of the old tricks (do I hear someone cleaning the seam?)have now been categorically outlawed, although I don't think anyone should ask the English seam bowlers why their zinc cream, which should last all day, disappears in the first 20 overs of any given test match just before a ball starts to reverse swing.

Ranga
as you may've noticed bradmans era had a number of quality spinners especially australia(even new zealand had a quality off spinner, and hedley verity of england was one of the most successful spinners to play vs india); if anything as in the case of tendulkar for most of his career there were not that many quality pace bowlers in bradman's time (exceptions being larwood, farnes, martindale and nissar) none of whom played sufficiently or at all, as the case may be, vs bradman; india did not play pakistan most of the 90s in tests and tendulkars average away in south africa and west indies is interesting when compared to the rest of his career. also you may like to consider tendulkars record vs murali outside india (murali doesnt like the sg ball) in odis and tests after 1996 before you pronounce him the best player of spin, though he did play warne well. to be honest warne, murali, then kumble vettori kaneria saqlain and harbhajan have been the best test spinners at this time. but there are still fewer quality spinners overall than in the past (other than 80s).

Ranga, Tendulkar > Bradman, ARE YOU KIDDING? Look at the numbers. He doesn't even come close. If bowlers were so weak in the Don's era, how come none of his contempories averaged over 60? How come no other other Batsman in the history of the game averaged over 60?

I'd like to quote Einstein, although he had someone else in mind:

"FOR GENERATIONS TO COME THEY WILL SCARCE BELIEVE, THAT SUCH A ONE AS HE, EVER, IN FLESH AND BLOOD, WALKED UPON THIS EARTH."

Ranga

Some of Bradman's contemporaries such as McCabe and Ponsford are regarded as among the greatest batsmen ever to play, and they didn't even halve his average. On top of this, he averaged 110 in Sheffield Shield playing against Grimmett and O'Reilly, 2 of the greatest-if not THE 2 greatest-legspinners of all time.

Although technically, Malhotra, Pollock, Headley and Sutcliffe all averaged over 60.

OK.

The luxuries tendulkar has . . .
1) Helmet
2) TV camera to watch his own tecnique

is their more???

The luxuries Bradman had . . .
1) No TV/Computers to analyze and find flaws of his technique (Tendulkar and possibly Lara are probably the two most batsmen the techinique examined by bowlers, and every body knows that he does have problems is playing inswingers from medium pacers who could put all 6 balls at that place as Nash or Vaas.)

2) Bradman played only against five international oppositions (or six may be). But Tendulkar plays against at least ten. So the number of players that are bowling to him is high and more variety.

3) O'Riely, Grimmet NEVER bowled to him in international matches. OK name the ten greatest spinners ever to walk on earth and you'll find tendulkar has played most against them.

4) Spinners never ever had this much of variation. Leggie, toppie, zooter, wrongun, slider, flipper, back spinner . .
Tendulkar played all fo them from warne
Offie with sidespin, offie with top spin, staright on, doosra, and backspinner . . . Tendulkar played all of them from Murali. Did Bradman play them?

4) Reverse swing . . . Did he play Akram, Younis, AKthar, Lee, Imran bowling those toe crushers?

Marcus, didn't the Don play in the era of uncovered pitches? Also, the Don missed out on 6 years of cricket, 1939-45.

I remember Sunny bashing Marshall to equal Bradman's 29 century mark after 95 tests. How long would it have taken Sunny if WWII hadn't interrupted his career?

I believe that Bradman had some kind words to say about Sachin when he first saw him bat as an 18 yr old in a Perth test.

Ranga

No one is putting Tendulkar down. But Bradman was clearly the greatest. Look at Bodyline- Larwood and Voce bowling short and fast on uncovered pitches, and Bradman averaged against that what Tendulkar averages in his entire career. And just because he never played doosras or reverse swing doesn't mean he couldn't.

By the way, here are my top ten spinners (in no particular order)
Grimmett, O'reilly, Warne, Kumble, Murali, Gibbs, Tayfield, Prassana, Bedi, Verity. Anyone else?

basically it is true ...a batsman dominated game cricket is becoming even more batsman friendly...but guys when u pay money from ur pocket to watch an 8 hour game, u really want something entertaining...i think we should n fidget with the rules of the game....even the powerplays should have been introduced...it boring...cricket should be changed to how it ws in the late 90's...same rules...its true we don wanna see bowlers jus being tormented and smashed around the park..we have to think about their dignity also..but u don wanna sit and watch batsmen defending 4 out six balls ..for over 8 hrs....so what we need is to build pitches that support both batsman and bowlers somewhat...we want close contests,Technically the pitches in austrailia are best...perfect for a game of cricket...its bouncy and hard + fr batsman ,it has a fast outfield another +.. but it also has grass fr bowlers..and turn pivded for spinners..so overall we can expect good scores of 270-300..which makes the chasing very interresting..u wannt to see the ball and bat trying to beat to each other.....BASICALLY..U WANNA SEE RUNS EARNED..NOT GIVEN FOR GRANTED..WITH SHORT FIELDS AND POWERPLAYYS..U WANNA CREATE A PITCH WHERE EACH TYPE OF PLAYER CAN GIVE SOMETHING TO THE GAME , WHETHER IT BE A SPINNER,SEAMER ,WICKET KEEPER.FIELDER,SLOGGER,WALL LIKE BATSMAN..OR OPENER....WE WANNA SEE BATTLES ON THE FIELD GUYS!!!!

Yeah, yeah, yeah Tendulkar's faced bowlers of incredible guile and pace. In fact ONLY 5 of his CONTEMPORARIES average the SAME as him:

SR Waugh, Ponting, Dravid, Lara, Inzamam.

Since batting used to be SO EASY in the past why ares there no other batsman approaching the Don's career average:

-from among his conteporaries?
-before the Don?
-after the Don?

Given you cause to wonder?

To bring in bat/bowl parity, the solution is much simpler than we all seem to think!

Just allow each bowlers to use his own ball (be it brand x, y z), and they may prepare it the way they like best (just like the bats).

As bonus, this would solve the perpetual problem of a white ball needing to be replaced (sometimes more than once) mid-way as it gets green or dirty.

Main parameters like weight and min/max diameter, being fixed, the umpires or captains have just to see that the ball behaves in a normal manner.

Come to think of it Mr Woolmer, very very simple, isn't it??