Expert that I am on all things, I enjoy thinking about rule changes that would improve various sports. I can't remember which changes I've thrilled readers of this blog with in the past, maybe I'll compile them all into a future post, but today I'll improve one day cricket.
Get rid of restrictions on how many overs any bowler can bowl!!
I've listened to my share of cricket commentary and its not like shy about talking cricketing trivia (nor should they be), but I've never heard the rational behind these restrictions. I'll speculate wildly and suggest that they were trying to maintain the basic cricketing status quo. Trying to keep the same number of bowlers and batsmen per team in both forms of the game.
Status quo is a powerful lure, but this still should not have been allowed. Why not have a rule requiring batsmen to retire if they score a fifty too fast?
I imagine that people would defend the rule on the grounds that people like to see high scoring games. This does seem to govern other rules (fielding restrictions etc). I don't think this is a good enough reason for the rule, but even if I did, one of effects of having better bowlers bowling more would be that more batsmen would be selected for each team, resulting in better batting.
Maybe fewer runs would still be scored, but looked at in the way that surely matters, the result would be better bowlers bowling at better batsmen. Perhaps I'm missing something, but how would that not be a good thing?