Adam Parore: It's time to tweak the one-day rules

In the light of suggestions that golf is boring, it might be pertinent to take a look at cricket and question whether the one-day game as we know it has run its course.
It had probably done its dash 10 years ago, but has hung in there because nothing better came along. I'm not sure that Twenty20 will be any better.

One-day cricket has become more formulated because players at all levels have worked out how best to play it. There are no big surprises left. Pretty much everyone knows what to do. There is nothing new. Just about everything - such as opening the bowling with a spinner; the batting side attacking in the first 15 overs when only two guys are back; trying to get one guy to bat through the innings - has been tried.

Supporters probably feel there should be an attitude of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". But in other sports the rules are always being tweaked.

Take rugby. They change a rule, or rules, every year. There are probably 100 rules there now that weren't 10 years ago.

Why doesn't cricket start making adjustments? Even a subtle change could make a huge difference. I feel there needs to be more emphasis on the strategic side of the game.

Why not, for example, change the 15-over rule? Instead of placing that restriction at the start of every innings, go with five, then allow captains to slot in the other 10 at any stage they want. It wouldn't be a major change, but subtle changes can make big differences in the way players approach certain situations.

There also seems to be a move towards making games shorter- maybe three or four hours. Anything to increase the entertainment value. If that's the goal, you have to reduce the number of balls bowled - simple as that.

Any changes, such as reducing the number of overs, would also have to be across the board. You could not have 30 or 40-over games in one-day series and then go back to 50 for the World Cup. From a player's perspective, as a general rule the shorter the game, the harder it is to play and the greater the level of skill required.

The real issue, however, at least in this country, will be ensuring the facilities are up to scratch from the first ball to the last. That might be a problem in New Zealand

A concern as we embark on Twenty20 is the standard of wickets.

Any game being played over such a short time will be successful only if the matches are played on good surfaces by the best players. They need dead flat wickets to produce the best possible cricket in the 40 overs.

There is no point in playing these matches on a green top where batsmen will struggle to score the runs this type of game demands. The drop-in pitches, which have really begun to improve, will come into their own.

Also encouraging is that in the shorter time frame the pitch won't change, and neither will the ball. External variables will be diluted to allow a purer contest between bat and ball. Perhaps New Zealanders can lead the way in advocating change, just as they might do in increasing the role technology can play. It was interesting to see umpires' comments after they called on the third umpire for Peter Fulton's caught-behind dismissal in the State Shield semifinal.

In going upstairs to see whether there had been an edge, they invoked a rule which has been part of the one-day game here for around three years.

I can understand ICC reluctance to use it more universally, as some umpires would happily become technology-dependent. That is not what is intended, but unfortunately would inevitably become the norm, as with run-outs.

I don't think there is any middle ground but, we have to remember, it applies only to televised matches, and there aren't too many of those at domestic level.

* Adam Parore is a former New Zealand wicketkeeper