Having uncovered pitches would be interesting; it would bring bowlers in immediately while testing how good a batsman really is. And with the introduction of uncovered pitches, comparing players of the bygone era with the current generation would also become easier.

Maybe the ICC can convince the cricket boards to try out one whole season with uncovered pitches. I'd definitely watch it!

Gideon Haigh's suggestion of restoring the boundaries to the original length makes a lot of sense.

Watching reruns of old matches, both Tests and ODIs, on TV, it is very evident that runs, especially boundaries, require that much more effort from Batsmen. And it is the better quality of Batsmen who really manage the boundaries consistently.

And the threes and all run fours have practically disappeared from the game! Who can forget David Bairstow getting run out going for the 5th run (or was it the 6th run)?! Nowadays even mishits go sailing over boundary lines and tailenders make quality bowlers look foolish by hitting fours and sixes over longstop!

Restore Boundary lines to the original length, give the bowlers some respectability as far as their efforts and figures are concerned and let the modern, athlete fielders really prove that their new found athleticism really stands shoulders above their erstwhile brethren!

Make boundaries longer, make seams bigger, allow unlimited bouncers.... but please do not put weight restrictions on bats. By all means restrict the material the bats are made from, ban graphite, etc, but it is totally unreasonable to put weight restrictions on bats.

It's easy. Let's put Merlyn at one end of the track and then batsmen can face a series of randomly programmed deliveries. Only boundries can score, but let's add another level, 10 say, for balls hit out of the ground. Sounds like great entertainment to me.

Lengthening of boundaries is a fair idea as well. While the grounds over the world might be able to do just that, Indian grounds can't. Indian grounds, save Eden Gardens, are inherently small, perhaps made specially to vanquish all bowling aspirations.

Another avenue the ICC can persist with is neutral curators. Perhaps that might bring some more spark into the game.

Fast bowlers can bowl as bouncers as they like but a wide in an ODI should be a wide in test cricket. I don't understand how bowlers can get away with bowling wider and wider in Tests.

As for the umpires, I think the ICC should look at the team comments each umpire gets at the end of a test and if a particular umpire gets bad reviews in more than three tests on the trot, he should be given less matches to officiate.

The balance between bat and ball should be restored, but let us also be careful not to upset the balance between seam and spin in the process.

I do agree with the fact that shorter grounds have been one of the major causes for the increasingly bat dominated contests. A good indicator in this regard would be the burgeoning averages of the batsmen in ODIs. Eg - MS Dhoni averages above 52 in ODIs inspite of the fact that a) he comes 5 down and b) he is not a specialist batsman. For a batter like Dhoni, who has scored most of his runs in sixes and lofted boundaries in smaller grounds in the subcontinent, it is to be seen whether he can repeat the same success in bigger grounds like in Australia.

However i don't agree with the proposed measures like allowing any no. of bouncers in an over, etc, for it's detrimental to the batsmen's safety. But the ICC can do alternatives like reducing Powerplay from 20 to 15 in ODIs, increase the field restrictions from 2 to 4 etc.

Also it is to be noted that these days most of the youngsters want to become batters than bowlers, considering the glamour associated to batters by media. Now, what do we do with that??

I think everyone is over-hyping the shift in power between batting and bowling.

Look at the scores in recent test series, batsmen have stugled to mkae runs in the South Africa Aus series, and so have batsmen in the India England series.

I think people have over reacted after the Wanderers match thinking that all matches were run fests while ignoring the lesser scoring games.

The boundaries should be longer, pitches uncovered, we should get a white kookabura ball that stays in good condition for 50 overs, the ability to scuff the ball in the footmarks, should also be able to throw on the bounce. With all these improvements for bowling, batsmen can be allowed to use heavy bats with sweetspots as big as the whole bat itself. The powerplays should stay because they have tactical use as was seen by dravid's use of them in the ind-eng series.
we are in a time where there is a serious lack of true fast bowlers who regularly play for the team (due to injuries etc.). So regular medium pacers get thrown into a match and are then blasted out of the park by a bat whose sweetspot is the whole bat itself. This desperately calls for more balance between bat and ball.

ICC can easily introduce a minimum length of the boundary. Individual grounds can choose to implement longer boundaries if they choose. Grounds in Australia are typically bigger than most, but the surface is so slick and smooth that a well timed ground shot which beats the fielder will carry to the boundary. Mistimed hoicks frequently going for sixes in one dayers is ridiculous, it's not entertaining at all. Probably one aspect still unexplored is an ICC based training program for grounds men. ICC has enough funds to provide scholarships to select individuals from each member country to go to some of the well known turf institutes. This training will go a long way in terms of preparing wickets, specially for tests where complaints have become frequent about substandard pitches.

I fear what we all on this site like is irrelavant. All mass entertainment caters to the lowest common denominator (example TV). The Lowest Common Denominator feels that "nothing is happenning" unless there is a constant supply of 4s and 6s

Rewatching the Ashes DVD all you see is the big shots by the batsmen, and tthen a wicket falls. You miss all of the sense of pressure and the excitment a good bowling spell can bring. Bat V ball is surley the most exciting contest cricket can offer. I'd like to see more reverse swing as Bob Woomer suggests. However, being from an age that has never experienced uncovered pitches, I think this is the most exciting proposal of the lot. Let both Batsmen and Bowlers be able to display their skills. No one enjoyed the recent Pakistan - India series. Enough said.

Contests between Bat and Bat, as Amit puts it, are what draw new fans to the game. Anyone can understand what's going on when the batsman are whacking it all over the place and the score climbs rapidly.

Contests between Bat and Ball are what keep those fans from drifting away after they've got over the novelty. When you've seen enough cricket to tell good from bad is when you start wanting Bat and Ball contests.

The sport therefore has to have both. The shorter the game, the more it is aimed at the casual fan, and therefore the more it should be aimed at being batsman-friendly.

So let's make 20-20 as artificially skewed as anyone wants while doing our level best to make Test cricket as equal a contest as possible.

I'm a middle-aged MCC Member; unsurprisingly I love Test cricket the best. But I wish there'd been Twenty-20 when I was a kid trying to come to terms with the game, and I'd unhesitatingly prefer to take someone to a Twenty-20 for their first-ever live game.

We don't need all-run fours in 20-20, so silly boundaries make sense, while having proper boundaries for longer forms of the game would be far preferable.

My own little idea for curbing the batsmen a bit would be for international cricketers to have to register their bats, limiting them to some fairly small number per season. They couldn't then really afford to use these almost unpressed bats which last for about fifty runs before being thrown away.

Bob's desicion seems abolute rubbish and too inclined towards helping out Pakistan team more than anyone.This is not only due to the fact that pakistani bowlers are good exponents of reverse swing bowling but also because of the inability of their batsmen to play in any condition other than in dead pitches affording reverse swing after 50 odd overs.
This will furher prompt the curators in pakistan to create more dead pithces as we saw in the indo pak series so that their batsmen can get away with it while their bowlers can use this new "idea" of woolmer to the get opposition out.
We all saw what Afridi did during the england-pakistan Test match.We can excpect the whole paki team(woolmer included)" dancing and spinning" on the pitch so as to make "Footholds"!!!!!!!!

I think everyone's points have been pretty good on the whole, but I wonder whether people are firstly exaggerating the dominance of batsmen and secondly whether this perfect balance actually exists.

I do think the enitre discussion is slightly flawed, as good bowlers will ALWAYS do better than bad ones, and good batsmen will ALWAYS do better than bad ones. Its all relative. Does a good bowling average have to be 25? If most average 40, maybe 35 would be consider excellent???

Ultimate, the end product will have to satisfy those who are watching, close matches happen with high and low scoring games; in the former good bowling can win a game, and in the latter good batting will. At the end of the day, I just want good cricket, and this can happen with good batting and good bowling.

However, after saying all that, we cannot have rubbish pitches like those in Pakistan. A test pitch must produce a result the majority of the time, unless whether intervenes. They've got to use good balls, that stay hard with a good seam. Bouncy pitches suit batsmen and bowlers, these low and slow wickets just annoy everyone.

I do disagree that boundaries need changing, as to be honest, they can't really be put back much further anyway. A lot of sixes go into the crowds or hit the boards, and will it in fact make games any better in any way????

I like runs, I like good bowling. I still see both of these a lot. Not much is wrong.

Bat and Ball definitely. Or we could clone Dhoni and watch a Sixer derby.

I and almost all of my teammates agree with Gideon and BW. Cricket has become so much batsman dominated (specially the one-dayers) that now you see more all-rounders in cricket than ever before. If the trend continues, in 4 or 5 years you'll see 5 specialist batsman and 6 allrounders (including wicketkeeper-batsman) in a team of 11.

One-day bowlers now realize that they'll be playing on batsman friendly pitches most of there careers. A fast bowlers life is already the shortest of all players and if the bulk of his career is spent bowling on dead pitches, the game of cricket (a battle b/w bat and ball) will just be throwing batting practice to all average joes' holding the bat before he retires to play professional golf.

I totally agrre with Gideon suggestion.. We need a even contest as hard core game lovers.. and for fun guys bat should dominate..
Make the grounds bigger and should have limits. lets the best batsmen with good timing score more runs than sloggers.
lets groom this talent while having fun.

Gideon Haigh's suggestions about the boundaries length are certainly achieveable. The most important thing is that making boundaries long would bring in more out of players.It would also make sure that only quality players can get runs and show their quality. In today's cricket mediocre batsmen are also getting runs by slogging over shorter boundaries.

I would prefer a contest between bat and ball. A contest where the excitement is sustained for 100 overs. And that means a contest where the batsman have to work for their runs, work for all their runs - timing the ball, finding the gaps - and not slogging all the time.

The suggestion that makes most sense is to restore boundary lenghts. Mishits going for four runs is hardly good batsmanship. I doubt that this would bring about balance between bat and ball, since ODI pitches will always be conducive to batting.

For the true connoiseur of the game this shift is indeed very dissapointing.With the bats getting heavier and the sweet spot spread all across the face of the bat,there is not so much of art left about batting anymore.Covering the line of the ball, accounting for swing,Leaving the ball on length and outside the off stump was i always thought was the essence of batting.In trying to make the game popular we must really be careful to see if we might be killing the Spirit and essence of this beautiful game.

I believe it's a misconception that spectators want run-filled ODIs. I would prefer to watch live the 1999 Aus Vs SA semi-final anyday over the recent SA-Aus's 434 runs runfest.

Atleast in India, people are going to turn up for any kind of game that's served ... this shouldn't be used as any kind of proof/indication of people's preference.

How do we communicate this? We need more former and current cricketers to speak up for it ... if Sachin, Dravid, Ponting, Flintoff, Pieterson, Sunny, Kapil and about 15-20 more ppl speak up at the same time ... media will take notice & that'll generate enough debate among people. I think such a public debate is the best way of conveying whether the public prefers a runfest or a bat-vs-ball contest.

Uncovered pitches sound a little extreme to me, but I agree with Bob's and Hain's suggestions. I definately wanna see a contest between bat and ball. I really liked the era between the two extremes: when a score of 280-290 would be considered extremely high.

I don't think things should be tampered with too much. Longer boundaries, sure; two balls in ODIs, maybe; but ball-tampering, uncovered pitches etc would not be good for the game.
Test cricket is in a pretty healthy state, and that's the real barometer. Good bowling takes wickets, inconsistent bowling gets smashed around the park. Keep local conditions local, and I don't think there are any problems.
Go back to fielding restrictions in ODIs being in the first 15 overs only. Stop these ridiculous flash-in-the-pan ideas from mucking up the game and just leave it be.
Any excessive tinkering now will just cause other problems in the future, which will then need to be readjusted: wait five years and see how the 15 degree flexion rule starts getting used to maximum effect.

Definitely make the boundaries at least as long as they used to be. It is not entertainment to see mishits and lucky shots go for four (or even six these days!) Also change the rulese for wides such that
- if a batsman moves sideways in his crease to make room for a shot, the wide lines are also correspondingly moved.
- if a batsman moves outside his crease, wides are decided based on how wide the ball is when it crosses the batsman, and not when it crosses the wicket. This makes a big difference for spinners like Warne and Murali.
All this may be tough for an umpire to call, use technology for deciding what is a wide. (Also use technology for calling no-balls, but leave catches and lbw's up to human evaluation).

The authorities obviously see crowds wildly cheering Sehwag, Afridi or Pieterson on. However, they seem to have forgotten the roar that used to go up when Waqar Younis or Ambrose ran in to bowl. The sight - the sound - of a genuine fast bowler running in, being a threat with every delivery, has become rarer and rarer. Where have all the flying stumps gone? Is it a new game or is it simply a lack of genuine spearhead bowlers?

Could the authorities solve this problem by giving each team the option to have two "15 Over" bowlers in an ODI? That would give teams an extra spot to pick up a specialist batsman and would keep the quality of bowling high through the entire game. They’d get to have their bat, and eat it too.

Amit: I will stick to commenting on what type of matches I would like: As a fan, clearly a good contest between bat and ball is what I want in both ODIs and Tests. Most of the friends I know and with whom I passionately discuss about cricket also seem to favor an even contest i.e. a test of skills of both batsmen & bowlers. Don't know if we are in a minority. Hope not!

ODI is becoming increasingly boring with batsmen friendly conditions. I enjoyed watching the current ODI series with England in India more than the India PAk series in Pakistan.

Removing field restrictions, uncovered pitches, 12 over limit per bowler, unlimited bouncers... give me anything to make the game more interesting.

It's the ball, stupid!!

I think this batsmen-biased period is just another development in the endless fascination called Cricket. It is constantly changing, and will never stop.

We cannot complain about faster-paced ODI cricket and then turn and praise this same trait in Test cricket. In my opinion, Tests have never been more exciting - batsman getting runs quickly, great bowling performances and an even contest.

We have to accept that One-dayers will also change with the Tests. The Wanderers match was a glorious fluke and we should be thankful for it - it was not the norm nor do I think it will ever be the norm; that's what made it such an astonishing match.

The endless discussion over changes will always continue, but I think we should sit back and enjoy the ride.

How about no powerplays and no restrictions on the number of bouncers. The protective equipment is really quite exceptional these days and since people equate sixes to excitement, there would be many chances for batsmen to excite the crowds. Furthermore, if the batsmen facing the great West Indian pacemen of the 70s and early 80s didnt have the luxury of a limited amount of bouncers while they played with far inferior equipment and much more menacing bowlers, why should today's players?

I think we are living in an exciting time of cricket. Batsmen are getting more and more professional and consistent, bowlers are being challenged to maintain their fitness. I think cricketers are doing well in keeping a pace with the change is attitude.

But there are two more things other than players which makes the cricket complete, as suggested by most of you 1) grounds and 2) umpires.

I think we need to have at least one standard size of boundary to be acceptable at all locations. Then what about those grounds with short boundaries like NZ and Ind? They need to make structural changes to catch up. How can you compare a score of 400+ in a short boundary easy wicket to 200+ score on a challenging wicket? I think its not fair to cricket history. Some universally acceptable rules need to be defined for a standardized pitch. Out of all 4 factors (batsmen, Bowlers, Umpires and pitches) I think this is the most neglected one.

I understand we need to give complete authorization to umpire to run a game of cricket. Somebody needs to have absolute power on the field to make adamant decisions and ICC is right in protecting them. But they need to face accountability too. Everybody can tell on fingertips who are the few umpires who are always against a certain team. In today world we have camera to judge their performances. They need to be up or de-graded according to feedback and just like players records being placed for spectators for people to judge them, an umpire’s record has to be available to end spectator.

The following are good points and sum up most of the suggestions:

1. Make the boundires longer thus putting a premium on good shots and penalizing the mis-hits and restoring some balance b/w bat and ball.
2. Removing field restrictions may improve the quality of cricket shots and batsmen will not be able to get away with silly shots.
3. Allowing 1 more bouncer in an over will allow the bowlers more attacking options and it may also improve the quality of the contest.
4. The rule that any ball that goes even slightly down the leg side is a wide ball is simply silly. A wide ball rule should be the same for both the test and one-day forms of cricket.

Most people watch cricket as a contest between two cricket teams and not a contest of slogging. Most rules in test cricket have stood the test of time and form the essence of what we know as "cricket", as such there should be no reason to change them just for the sake of change. There is as much fun if not more in watching a team chase 200 in tight conditions than teams slogging over three hundered runs..

One point about the boundaries- you don't want to make them too long. The WACA Ground in Perth is over 90 meters around, and this (not to mention the appaling design of the ground) means that it is very hard for the spectator to feel involved in the game especially when you can't tell who the players are with the naked eye; well, that's my experience, anyway. So the grounds should be no longer than 80-85 meters long, and the rope should be a lot closer to the fence (say 4-5 meters in).

Apart from that, restore the balance between bat and ball; allow more bouncers per over; keep pitches covered; invest heavily in bowling stocks to improve the standard. The Wanderers match was a flash in a pan, let's try to keep it that way.

I think that it may be difficult to let bowlers manipulate the ball off the rough. Same thing with uncovered pitches. The problem is that in such cases there is no sure and consistent way in which it may affect the game. I wonder if we can have strict restrictions on the weight and width of bats. With this we may get to see more stylish batsmen like VVS Laxman, although I will miss Sehwag and Tendulkar who use really heavy bats. I also like controlling the state of the ball while being manufactured such as manipulating its weight, seam, etc. For example, we can manufacture a ball which is slightly heaver on one side, thus giving bowlers opportunities for reverse swinging early on!

It is what the market wants. Simple as. The deep cricket follower does seem to want a good balance. However, the larger masses do not seem to want this.

Also, a batsmen dominated game would mean that possibility of matches ending earlier is remote. Obviously the authorities wouldn't want what happened in the first 2 tests in Pakistan. However, usually a batsmen dominated game is safer advertisements wise as games ar unlikely to close quicker.

How can spectators communicate ? Such a cucial market trend is more often than not detected and taken action upon by the cricketing bodies as revenues depend upon it. The slight variations would be rectfied whenever trends change.

Although the deep cricket follower loves a good battle, the masses like more runs I still believe.

Batting and bowling are two different arts altogether: one requires a lot of concentration with no margin for error, while the other requires a lot of stamina and guile to shatter the concentration of the holder of the other art. From the beginning cricket laws were designed to favour the batsman because the nature of the game itself was against him. In cricket, the poor batsman has no second chance, while a bowler is guaranteed at least 6 chances (8 in the early days) stretching up to half the chances that can be sent down in a test match and 1/5th in a limited over match. Additionally it is the batsman who is supposed to collect the currency, the points of the game before ten of his kind are tumbled out. So if the batsman was not given enough protection by law then the game would never have progressed. After the invent and popularity of limited overs cricket, it was deemed appropriate to give the batsman more protection to defend his castle and also liberate him to collect more runs as now he had limited chances to score while the restriction of ten wickets also remained intact. And as I stated above that game had become popular and was turning into a masses' game from a game for elites. This also brought in the finances and the choice of the masses took over the integrity of the game. Masses wanted batsmen to collect more and more points and make them stretch their necks by looking all over for the ball. So we landed in the 'age of batting'.

Now we have to ponder whether we have tilted the balance so much towards the batsman that the bowler has become the poor chap in the game. Is it true that he has lesser chances than the batsman? If yes, then aren't we trying to go against the nature (ok, it's just the 'nature of the game' but it still is 'nature')?

Noman Yousuf Dandore
Karachi, Pakstan!

Will help if we can increase overs per bowler per innings from 10 to say 15. And, more drastically, shorten the length of the pitch by a feet or so(Langer sure wont agree!)?!

In order to fully understand the dominance of batsmen in the recent past, we must also take into account the gradual changes in the psyche of the modern batsmen. Surely nothing much changed in laws or playing conditions between just before and just after 1996 when Sri Lanka inspired period of explosive batting started. So what caused this change?

What we are seeing is an evolved crop of batsmen. Once you hit 270 in a match, you gain confidence in your ability to do it again and next time you are able to do even better.

In addition to favorable batting conditions, smaller boundaries and batsmen friendly rules, this evolution has also been helped by:

(1) the sheer amount of ODI cricket played (practice makes you perfect),

(2) a new generation of batsmen who grew up watching ODI cricket and didn't have an overly defensive mindset,

(3) Departure of bowling greats followed by lack of more than one incisive bowlers in international teams. Bowlers hunt in packs. This is evident from the success enjoyed by the earlier West Indian attacks, followed by the sheer intimidation that was generated by Pakistani and Australian bowling attacks. Almost every team has one 'always threatening' bowler, but it is rarely accompanied by consistent support from the rest of the 'pack'. To some degree, this decline in bowling threat can be considered cyclic.

(4) An abundance of all-rounders, and able wicket-keeper batsmen, and aggressive tail enders. Everybody has learnt that runs are good regardless of how they come. Everybody has learned that a wild swing at the leather ball has some chance of the ball going over the fence regardless of how silly you looked playing it. The tail-enders are more aggressive than ever, and this has elongated the modern batting line ups.

In short, it is not just the playing conditions that are responsible for the high scoring affairs, it's 'evolution' of batsmen that resulted from a continuation of these conditions. An evidence of this evolution can also be seen in the spill-over effect that ODIs have had on the test matches. Surely, the Test pitches aren't as friendly as the ODI's, yet we are consistently observing aggressive run-rates in the test matches too.

We need to find ways to force a similar evolution among the bowlers too (in addition to hoping that the current drought of more than one incisive bowlers in a team ends soon). Do remember, if a team is on course to score 300+ score, it only takes 1 or two wickets (and not necessarily all 10) to break the momentum and keep the final total to a sane 250ish.

Bowlers are already learning the new tricks. They now know that predictable line and length (regardless of how good) is cannon fodder for pre-determined slogging. More variety in line and length, strategic analysis of batsmen, and variation in pace are the tricks to bring the batsmen under control. Recent success of England bowlers against the explosive Sehwag is a proof of that.

However, there are ways to speed up this evolution in bowlers, just like better pitches and shorter boundaries changed the psyche of the batsmen. Longer boundaries will not just help stop the flow of the runs, they will also eliminate the distaste in our mouths after seeing a mis-hit fly for a six. Allowing the bowlers to 'condition' (is that an acceptable euphemism for 'tampering') will swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. Remember, we only want a couple of wickets to restrict the run-rate, not bundle them out for 70 odd!

I think there is a lack of talented fast bowlers with a lot of variety, who bowl with zest and zeal like Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose and Walsh. Thats all.

Boundaries should be restored to their larger sizes. Cricket, ro me, is supposed to be a contest between the bat and the ball.

Remember how India won the world cup by bowling out the mighty West Indies in 1983, then Pakistan beat England with Akram's two deliveries, the Australia beat Pakistan with McGrath's devastating spell. Why don't we see that kind of bowler prowess anymore? 230 to 240 used to be a defendable total, on any wicket anywhere in the world.

I admire how people like Jayasuriya, Afridi and Dhoni have changed the game......with mindless hitting..........partly thanks to shorter boundaries. The latest match between Australia and South Africa that produced 870 some runs was NOT the greatest one day ever.....there was no bowling in that match.

Why do we watch sport? In my experience people do it for excitement and competition. The most memorable matches that I remember watching with my family (including mother, sister, grandpa everyone) are the ones that were exciting, where you did not want to watch because of sheer emotion but at the same time could not resist watching. This tells me that competition, excitement, athleticism and skill are what people like to watch. The authorities have to stop dumbing down the audience, they have to stop assuming that most of the audience do not know anything about the game. It is the age of fast entertainment, yes, but at the same time it is the age of information as well, and people nowadays can recognize competition, skill and drama when they see it. And let me tell you a tour of Zimbabwe or Bangladesh is not what people think of as sport. (I do believe that the game has to spread, so there is a place for minnows, but the ICC has to change the way it is "developing" the game. And Vishnu, is everything a Pakistani conspiracy? :).

All of the above... Uncovered pitches, legalized ball tampering, unlimited number of bouncers and a more pronounced seam ... let quality batsmen have the opportunity to stick out from the crowd. I would anyday prefer watching batsmen struggle against quality bowling than watch a run-fest.

On the subject of what might be done to give bowlers more help:I would suggest that 1)the placement of the boundary be rigorously defined - and strictly enforced. If some grounds in India are too small - well, the BCCI has just got more money than anyone else, and can surely afford to develop proper facilities. I think that there is general agreement that these are lacking in the Indian grounds, and so redevelopment would benefit everyone.
2) Leave pitches uncovered for part of the non-playing day - maybe for 4 hours after play ceases? Obviously, if there is a torrential downpour, you would be sensible!
3) Limit bat material and size - again, using some commonsense. No-one wants to use a toothpick, but equally, using a club is pretty silly too!
4) Allow 2 bouncers per over - but no more than that. Any beamer should be called for 6 runs automatically, and the bowler warned.
5) Rework the wide rules for ODI. As they stand, they are quite ridiculous.
6) Inspect grounds to make sure that the wicket is actually competitive. It should give good batsmen and bowlers something to work with in terms of pace and bounce, while offering some turn to spinners. If there is no Association of Groundsmen, there should be one, and it should develop standards and share techniques for preparing real pitches. Grounds offering unsatisfactory pitches could be removed as international venues until they get it right!

Do I expect this to happen? Not really, but we can all dream. I wish the ICC would get round to doing some real ground work on the game, rather than fiddling with obvious idiocies like the supersub rule!

As person played a lot of cricket, I watch a game of cricket for display of skills and talents, exploiting the conditions and team manuovres that takes the edge from the opposition.
The curators who prepare pitches must be impartial and should not provide a pitch for an international that's advantageous to the home team. Every team goes through thin patches of talent in batting, bowling and fielding and to some extent team spirit.
So, the curator preparing a pitch favouring the condition of the home team in talent and etc is a big no, no.
Let's be fair with conditions that the players cannot dictate. This way, the team that suppose to win on the day will win because of application, pressure handling and skills displayed.
This is where the game of cricket should be heading. If not, the future of the game could be altered to favour someone's pocket rather than the spiritual wellbeing of the game.

I've two suggestions. In ODIs, do away with the limit on the maximum number of overs that a bowler can bowl. And disallow leg-byes; a disgrace that's been allowed to stay on for too long now.

Hi,
As a true cricket lover, I would defintely like to watch a contest between "Bat and Ball" rather than "Bat and Bat", as a lot of one-day games, including the Aus-SA run fest, have ended up becoming. A low scoring affair on a pitch that is assisting the bowlers a tad too much is no fun either. The challenge is to strike the right balance between bat and ball and curators should be encouraged to prepare "good" cricket wickets that are probably 60-40 in the batsman's favour. It might also be worthwile to go back to the earlier practice of using two white balls for a 50 over game, this would also help overcome the ridiculous practice of changing the ball after 40-42 overs, which is something that helps the batting team most of the time.

Why does everyone seem to refer to Dhoni as some sort of pioneer of big-hitting? I'll take the word of the other commenters that he can give it a whack, but surely you can think of other, bigger, more successful clubbers than someone who's barely been around for a year?!

I definitely think there should be
1. No limit on bouncers
2. No field restrictions
3. Uncovered pitches
4. Two balls per 50 overs
5. Seems of the ball should be made bigger

Islambad Pakistan

Yup, this is a must-have discussion at a time when Cricket seems to be rocketing down the fast lane. We should also open a discussion on Test Cricket, which is my real love.

In the context of this matter, however, I would like to make the following observations/points:

There is a need to restore the contest between bat and ball, however we need to be careful not to make it too bowling-side oriented.

Some things I'd consider are:

1. Change in the LBW law - batsman is out when hit outside off but ball going on to hit the stumps, WHETHER or not he plays a shot.
Batsman is also out when ball pitches outside leg and going on to hit, when he does NOT play a shot (designed for the spinners) - more chances of leading edges, catches et al.

2. I don't think we need to resort to altering the condition of the ball. Better option would be to use 2 new balls per innings - bowling side has the option to take it anytime (or not) after the 30th over.

These can be introduced on a trial basis - IF they dont bring improved contests, here is a third option:

One bowler allowed 15 overs, other bowlers cannot bowl more than 9 each.

Uncovered pitches sure excite me as a person who hasnt seen that era - but in this world and age, I'm not sure it would be easy to implement and control.

Also, for those who love the high-scoring games, let me just say that many a time, there is likely to be a closer finish when the side setting a target does not score over 270-280. Otherwise, when the side chasing loses a cluster of wickets, us watchers are left ruing the rest of the afternoon/evening!

To the game we all love!!!

I much prefer an even contest between bat and ball - but perhaps I'm old-fashioned as I only watch test cricket. One-day and twenty-twenty is not the real thing as far as I'm concerned, though it's fine for others. Matches can be very exciting if lots of wickets fall (I recall over 20 in a day against new Zealand at Edgbaston), but the authorities lose revenue if matches do not last 5 days, which seems to be happening more frequently. This is not mainly because bowlers are getting better, but batsmen faster.

Hey guys, I'd want to surely have a match between bat & ball with only the team's genius deciding the way the match must swing!!

Hey guys, I'd want to surely have a match between bat & ball with only the team's genius deciding the way the match must swing!!