I agree, the game is too batsman-friendly. The 40 overs a side idea sounds interesting. I also liked the idea of breaking the first 15 restriction into three chunks and allowing the fielding captain to use it whenever he wanted during the innings.
Bowlers should also be allowed more than one bouncer an over. I'm curious to know whether Akram's interpretation of the one bouncer per over rule is correct. According to him, it is one bouncer per batsman per over. So, assuming an existing batsman gets out the first ball, and new batsman face one ball in each of the following 5 deliveries, technically, as per Akram's interpretation the bowler could legally bowl 6 bouncers?
Australia deserved to win yesterday after Gilchrist's inital onslaught. Martyn has been in horrible form throughout the Indian Summer. I wonder how long he has until the selectors run out of patience and replace him. Katich missed out on a good opportunity. Ganguly is 7 wickets short of an ODI double.
Meanwhile, here's a curious link I came across: Diamonds are a cow's best friend (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3410955.stm).
Re: ODI Changes
Bowlers should also be allowed more than one bouncer an over. I'm curious to know whether Akram's interpretation of the one bouncer per over rule is correct. According to him, it is one bouncer per batsman per over. So, assuming an existing batsman gets out the first ball, and new batsman face one ball in each of the following 5 deliveries, technically, as per Akram's interpretation the bowler could legally bowl 6 bouncers?
Australia deserved to win yesterday after Gilchrist's inital onslaught. Martyn has been in horrible form throughout the Indian Summer. I wonder how long he has until the selectors run out of patience and replace him. Katich missed out on a good opportunity. Ganguly is 7 wickets short of an ODI double.
Meanwhile, here's a curious link I came across: Diamonds are a cow's best friend (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3410955.stm).
Enjoy!