The substitutes bring in many possibilities as I pondered over the thought of how they can be used a few days ago. Most of the arguement against it has been the fact that cricket is traditionally a 11 a side game. But if we look at the history of the sport, there was 12 a side games, 13 a side games, games of all kinds - even 22 vs 11 a side games until uniformity was set in.

We always resist change and thus my conservative view on the substitutes when the law was brought into place.

Derek Pringle, one of the most intellegent cricket writers around, analyzed the situation perfectly in yesterday’s Telegraph UK. I knew it would be relevent soon and thus book marked it.

With football allowing the use of three subs, and basketball allowing entire teams to be replaced, it is surely just a question of time before cricket follows suit now the first breach has been made. With players expected to play and travel more, multiple substitutions could be a way of prolonging careers.

In the next few days, we will see the cricket world analyze how England and Australia used the substitutes in the Natwest Challenge which begines tomorrow. But we will also see more comment from every one on the question of how many can/will be used by cricket in due course. John Buchanan, who always likes to speak on changes which are made on cricket and always excited with new possibilities believes 15 players to be used a game is realistic thing in the future:

At the moment all touring teams travel with parties of 15, so the concept could be that we actually play all 15

Its to be accepted then that one day cricket which has existed since Kerry Packer, for nearly 35 years, is going to change more than ever before in the next two years. Surely the game has evolved in the past (Greatbatch - 1991, Jayasuriya and Kalluwitharana - 1996) but it is a totally different ball game now.

I am happy with my 5 days of test cricket and twenty20 and one day cricket will be taken as masala remixes of the game I call cricket. I have never given much weight to one day cricket and till they dont tinker with tests or encroach into the schedule of test matches(which is my real fear), I have no qualms.

Play 12 a side, play 15 a side, play 30 a side. Its nothing new ICC.

After deciding to have the top 6 associate members the capacity to play official one day internationals among themselves, which will also have financial rewards which is more important and can boost the development of these regions, the ICC has made another major announcement of merit.

The change in format of the Champions Trophy means lesser weaker versus stronger team matches. Also, the ICC one day rating mean much more because of this. A flaw is that they have not made a provision for the previous champions to qualify automatically for the next Champions Trophy. After the Liverpool drama in football, the ICC should have thought of this but it is some thing they can easily rectify.

Will the World Cup of cricket have lesser importance because of this move? Not really. There is anology from other sports which supports the claim. The Confederations Cup can never be more important than the FIFA World Cup. Neither can the season ending Masters featuring the top 8 ranking players ever match the prestige of Wimbledon.

Kudos ICC

What is concerning about the rule changes in limited overs cricket is how much more batsman friendly it makes it all.

The twenty over field restrictions instead of fifteen means more runs will be scored than ever before. The general feeling is that teams will replace a batsman with a bowler and vice versa while substituing. This would mean the bowling will become more effective.

However, the flip side to it is that chosing an extra batsman keeping the same bowling line up would usually give the team a lot more space to bat freely and treat the bowlers with disdain. And with the twenty over field restrictions in place, it would make around 330 the norm in one day cricket rather than 300.

The new rule changes also go away from the basic aspect of cricket of chosing the best eleven with an oft faced dilemna of whether to chose an extra batsman or play with an extra bowler and the likes. The teams usually have to do a lot fo delibaration in chosing the 11.

The 5 over rule means more confusion than ever before. When you want to attract new people to the game, you want to make things simpler, not make them more complex. And how will Saurav Ganguly, who has problems finishing the overs in time under the earlier rules, ever manage to finish them with all these complexities?

Did I ever take the one day game seriously? No.

Will things get more interesting and worthy now? Not a chance.

Perhaps the ICC’s defence would be that the fools watching cricket will continue to watch it no matter what they do and with a few quirks like increasing the over restrictions for the fields, the 5 over rule and substitues, it would keep the couch patota from switching the channels in the middle overs, thus ensuring more revenue.

But do you really want to change the rules so much that the game itself changes? Its silly.