Twelve-man XIs and quartering the game

The noble, the wise and the adventurous have spoken. But even before they did, we felt it: the humdrum monotony of the one-day game has grated for a while now. There are big occasions, like the World Cup, but even that was too big for its own good the last time. The ICC Champions Trophy creates interest and a sense of occasion, but its abruptness can be unsettling and unfulfilling.

Once in a while, a bilateral one-day series arouses passion and stirs the imagination. The last one between India and Pakistan did because various elements happily coincided: there was the poignancy of a revival of cricketing ties between two great rivals, the romance of a reunion of people, minds and hearts with the cricket living up to the hype. But mostly, the one-day circuit plays itself out as a grand charade, one match blurring into another and patterns repeating themselves in formulaic fashion.

It is an irony that while imbuing Test cricket with energy and vitality, one-day cricket has fallen into a rut itself. There is no doubt that cricket still derives its financial sustenance from it, but the signs are ominous. Already, there is disquiet in Australia about the diminishing appeal of the annual tri-series, now in its 25th year, and even in the subcontinent there is a sense of contrivance in the television-induced hysteria. The warning signals are clear: yesterday's revolution could well become tomorrow's ditchwater.

John Buchanan and Bob Woolmer are among many who believe one-day cricket needs a shake-up. But how? Let's consider a few possibilities, some tangible, some radical, and some utterly ghoulish. Some are mutually exclusive, while some could be put into play in unison.

Flexible field-restriction options
Most one-day games are down to this: a dash at the beginning, manic hitting at the end and numbing dullness in the middle. Between the 25th and 40th overs, the match goes into auto-pilot, and you might as well doze off. What better way to spread the excitement than by splitting the 15 overs in which the bowling side is obliged to keep seven fielders in the inner ring. The ICC Cricket Committee - Playing has already recommended that this be tried out in batches of five overs. But instead of the batting side, as suggested, it should be left to the bowling side to exercise this option. The game is far too loaded in favour of batsmen to allow them even more control. This will lead to more decision-making on the field, and encourage captains to be more creative. And for spectators there will be continuous anticipation.

Create more field restrictions
This is another way of looking at the 15-40 over malady. With the field spread, batsmen look to nudge rather than hit, and bowlers are happy if they can bowl a couple of dot-balls an over. Imran Khan believes that the best way to restrict scoring is to take wickets, while Dean Jones subscribes to the theory that wickets can only be taken by keeping more fielders in the ring and tempting or compelling the batsmen to go over the top. But since captains tend to be conservative, it might be a good idea to force their hand through legislation. It could work in several ways: the fielding restriction could apply in two ten-over batches, or there could be different levels of restrictions, seven to start with and then going down to six or five.

Slice it in quarters
An utterly radical way of looking at this proposal is to play a Test within a limited-over format. That is, each team bats twice in the day, playing innings of 25 overs each. But that will reduce the game to a Twenty20 format. The more sensible approach is to break the innings into two 25-over groups: the team batting first goes off after 25 overs and resumes its innings after the next team has played 25. It will create a new rhythm and create equal conditions for both teams in case of day-night games. Matches at Johannesburg became a lottery during the last World Cup as the ball jagged around and skidded off the pitch under the lights. In the subcontinent, the evening dew makes it impossible for the spinners to grip the ball.

Allow 13 overs per bowler
Part-time bowlers are anathema to a good contest. The sight of West Indies picking only three specialist bowlers is a depressing one. Kamran Akmal scored a good hundred for Pakistan yesterday, but just how good was it? Raising the over-limit for each bowler would raise the bar, and there would be fewer cheap runs. Genuine allrounders will still be in the game, but bits-and-pieces players will be elbowed out. The game would be a better contest.

12-man sides
A bit radical, but the aim is the same. Eleven players bat, 11 field, but the team is allowed one substitution. So teams can pick seven batsmen and five bowlers or, in India's case, seven batsmen and a wicketkeeper.

Two new balls
This was in operation in the early '90s, but was withdrawn as it was seen as advantageous to bowlers. But considering how things have gone in the last few years, it wouldn't be a bad idea to give the bowlers more ammunition. Close low-scoring games are certainly more interesting than one-sided high-scoring ones.

Make more fours count for more
John Benaud, the lesser-known brother of Richie, but a highly respected figure in Australian cricket nonetheless, mooted the idea of bonus runs for fours hit between the 16th and the 40th overs. Others have suggested different levels of bonus runs for fours hit in consecutive overs, or for consecutive fours: for example, hit three fours in a row and get two extra runs.

Back-foot no-ball rule or a free hit
The no-ball counts for little apart from an extra run under the current front-foot rule, which gives the batsman little time to take advantage of it. Ian Chappell has been a strong advocate of the back-foot rule for years. No harm in trying it in one-day cricket. Alternatively, there is the idea of the free hit, already in operation in the domestic one-day game in England and Australia. Brad Haddin recently added a new twist to it by taking strike behind the stumps to Shoaib Akhtar. Personally, I am not a fan of this because it perverts the idea of batting, but for spectators, it is a great novelty.