Do ODI Cricket Rules Give Bowlers A Fair Chance?

If there was any sound ringing louder around India than James Faulkner crashing a ball into the stands right now, then it could only be that of Ishant Sharma slapping himself around the head.

Such was the assault on the Indian quick on Saturday that Faulkner carried his team from desperation to elation in just a matter of minutes. Yet while the sight of the Australian all-rounder sending balls into the sky was ultimately thrilling, it was hard not to feel a degree of compassion for the Indian seamer.

Amid the chaotic flurry of boundaries and relentless scoring in this ODI series, a dramatically skewed balance between bat and ball has become obvious. That the imbalance comes on the back of a series of recent rule changes in the ODI format has left many, including MS Dhoni, questioning the impact the new regulations are having on bowlers.

The most contentious of those recent rule changes are the introduction of a two new balls (one for each end) and the requirement to maintain five fielders within the 30-metre circle outside of batting Powerplays.

Both are widely seen as short-sighted measures to increase the excitement of the One Day game by elevating run rates and increasing boundary hitting. If that's the goal, then it's certainly being achieved in this series between India and Australia. Five scores in excess of 300 over the first six innings of the campaign paint a clear picture. That eight players across the two teams own strike rates above 100 for the series only reinforces the matter. 

1st ODI	Australia	304-8	India	232
2nd ODI	Australia	359-5	India	362-1
3rd ODI	India	303-9	Australia	304-6

Certainly, for the captains, it must be incredibly difficult to devise field settings that limit the world's batsmen who are being driven into states of frenzied hitting by the Twenty20 phenomenon. Bigger bats and flatter pitches have already given the upper hand to the swordsmen; the latest changes confirming for many that bowlers are now merely cannon fodder.

However, jumping to such conclusions and declaring the death of limited overs bowling is rather reactionary. Instead of a desperate attempt at rejuvenation, the latest rule changes are clever pieces of evolutionary thinking regarding the 50-over game.

When examined closely, the new laws are set to deliver ODI matches of greater variety to the game's audience. The ICC clearly wants to create greater definition between the sport's various formats, which the new rules will accommodate.

The introduction of two new balls will have contrasting effects on matches worldwide. By remaining harder throughout the innings, the balls will travel to the fence faster on the flatter batting wickets, offering up the sort of huge scores being witnessed between India and Australia.

Yet when greener wickets and overcast conditions present themselves, the two-ball rule will favour the bowlers, aiding both swing and seam to produce matches of wild fluctuations and bags of wickets.

Furthermore, the introduction of the new system means the previous protocol of introducing a new ball after 34 overs has been abolished. Consequently, in the final overs of an innings, bowlers will be using a ball that is 25 overs old rather than 16, which should aid reverse swing in conditions that are conducive to the art.

Not to stop there, bowlers are now also permitted to deliver two shot-pitched deliveries per over rather than one, enhancing their capacity for variety. By addressing an issue that has long been a cause of frustration for the men with the ball, the game's governing body has provided them with one more weapon.

Of course, the change in fielding restrictions will see the average rate of scoring rise, but surely it's hyperbolic to suggest that this will drive bowlers out of the game. Instead, the acceptance of what constitutes a par score will simply be altered. Ditto for the economy rates of the game's bowlers. Conceding seven runs per over will be considered the new six. It's all relative.

It must be remembered that changes to the laws that govern sports are traditionally nearly always met with resistance. The very format being discussed was born amid a haze of skepticism and condemnation. 

The ICC has shown clear, forward thinking with regard to this issue, shown that the sport's international administration is prepared to be proactive.

Thus, the evolving nature of the 50-over game shouldn't be confused for terminal decline. Instead, the new rule changes will simply alter our expectations for the One Day format. They should also deliver the added element of diversity in the form of contrasting styles of matches.

Diversity, unpredictability and entertainment: Those are the elements we're always craving.

Given time, the new laws will deliver just that.