Wicket to Wicket

<i>You</i> decide the balance

Earlier entries: Intro , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 .

Amit Varma
Earlier entries: Intro, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
Many thanks to the participants who agreed to take part in this discussion: Bob Woolmer, Gideon Haigh, John Stern and Sambit Bal were all pretty much agreed that the shift in the balance of the game is worrying, and something needs to be done about it. Some suggestions came forth: Bob recommended (here and here) that the bowlers be allowed to make the ball more conducive to reverse swing by rubbing it in the batsman's footholds; Gideon wanted artifically short boundaries to be restored to their original length as they "advantage a particular kind of mediocre slogger, introducing greater uniformity into the game"; and John mused on the prospect of allowing uncovered pitches.
What Bob and Gideon and John want is irrelevant, one would think, if the majority of cricket lovers like run-filled matches, for the cricket boards, understandably focussing on the bottomline, will cater to the masses. But is this a misconception? Do you want a contest between Bat and Bat or Bat and Ball? What about your friends, and all the cricket lovers you know? Are the default assumptions of the authorities all wrong? If so, how do you -- and I understand that 'you' are not one homogenous mass -- communicate this to them?
Thanks for all the comments so far -- comments on this and the previous posts will remain open until Sunday night. We hope you enjoyed the discussion.

Amit Varma, a former managing editor of Cricinfo in India, now writes on economics and politics.