Biggest effect will be the white ball

The current short-pitched playing condition is ludicrous on a number of counts. First, it is legislating against a good delivery, it also eradicates an exciting challenge in the game (a quickie bowling to a hooker) and just as importantly, it stops a fast bowler making a fool of himself. If a quickiewants to bowl a bouncer in the final few overs, even against a tail ender, it is the worst delivery possible because it allows scoring options in 360 degrees of the field. Fielding captains must be delighted a playing condition that was designed to help batsmen, actually benefits the bowler. The way to stop bowlers producing difficult to hit score off deliveries in the final few overs, is to call anything above head height a no-ball and that way the horizontal bat shots don’t become as extinct as the dodo.

The change that could have the biggest effect in England is the one to the white ball. Why use a white ball when no game is played under lights? There’ll be many reasons given for needing to use colored clothing (all to do with marketing and money) and how the maroon of the West Indies and the red of Zimbabwe would clash with the traditional ball. This is rubbish, again on a number of counts. First, some uniforms bear little relationship to the country’s colours so they are adaptable and secondlyadministrators don’t worry about advertising hoardings behind the bowler’s arm clashing with the ball colour, so why the sudden concern? The white ball with it’s high seams could have a profound affect on scoring in the tournament and whilst I’m all for varying conditions so you get variety in the matches, I don’t believe a bowler dominated tournament is good in a World Cup.

I’m glad the English administrators have prevailed over continuing matches on a reserve day, rather than re-starting them – it makes sense to try to complete fifty overs a side. The harsh penalty for the first side bowling their overs slowly is good and it stops unfair tactics like those employed by Kepler Wessels of South Africa in 1992. The Super Six stage came about because in 1996 South Africa was aggrieved at going out at the quarter-final stage, after being undefeated in the qualifying matches. What’s the difference between going out then, or in the semi-final, or losing the final? As I always told my team mates, "second prize isa bag of manure" (or something like it) and the reward for third and fourth is a slightly smaller bag. Despite reducing the number of sudden death matches, there are some potentially exciting contests in the Super Six stage which may mean it’s a worthwhile innovation.

The Duckworth/Lewis method of calculating target scores in weather shortened matches is not a good innovation. It’s a system devised by Boffins, which might look good in a computer, but it’s open to ridicule by players. Any system where the target is raised above the actual score made is ludicrous. Who is awarded the extra runs? And how can the team batting second, time it’s chase if the target changes? Moving targets are for clay pigeon shooting, not for cricket.

The other noticeable change is the prize money. It is now $300,000 US for the winner, while there was none in 1975. It was purely the thrill of holding aloft the Prudential trophy. Oh, and by the way, in that photo of Lord’s on June 21, 1975, I’m the one holding the bag of manure.Some things never change; they’ll probably hand the same bag to the captain of the runners up in 1999.