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.