Adam Parore: Revolutionary changes long overdue

The recommendations for changes to one-day cricket are revolutionary and long overdue. On paper the changes an ICC sub-committee are proposing seem simple enough.

The reality is very different.

Under the proposal it is planned to tinker with the fielding restriction rule and looking at introducing a substitute player. Such changes should be welcomed. The game has become too formulated.

Cricket has never been one for radical change, unlike rugby which appears to make a habit of introducing a couple of changes every year.

The result has been that the size, type and skill set of rugby players has changed markedly over the past 10 or so years. That hasn't happened in cricket.

But with these new rules, the constraints on players such as Adam Gilchrist, Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar will come off. Under the current rules no one can score a double hundred. Getting 150-180 is about it. Same for a bowler, five or six wickets is as much as they can ever hope for. Those boundaries may now be pushed a little.

While I like what they are proposing, I feel perhaps they have gone too far and perhaps only one of the changes need be adopted.

The 10-over rule will make a difference. It will weed out those players who struggle to hit the ball over the top from the outset.

A player like me, who liked to get set, will now find it hard going. Captains will inevitably bring in the field for those who don't have the ability to belt it over the top. Grafters and workers will find it tough to survive. Harry [Chris Harris] is one who immediately springs to mind as the type of player who will have to adapt or he might find himself out of the game.

There are countless ways these new rules could affect the game.

For instance, a grafter such as Harry goes out to bat. The fielding captain indicates that he will initiate a five-over spell with the field up (as provided under the new rule). After Harry has faced the first ball the batting side then has a couple of options. It can tell Harry to have a go in the hope of a flyer. After an over or two, if it doesn't come off, they could sub him off and bring in a batsman who can clear the field.

Alternatively they could just pull Harry out straight away. That is assuming that most sides will carry a specialist batter as a sub. It will be fascinating to watch as sides try to work out what best suits their style over the next couple of years.

Inevitably the resulting demands on players will mean they will need to improve. This can only help upskill the game. I suspect the scratchers will be history as there will no longer be anywhere to hide.

One thing I don't like is the opportunity offered for teams to exploit the conditions even further. Sides will be stacked with whatever type of sub suits the conditions.

At, say, 32-3 after 10 overs, on a green pitch, the fielding captain can take another five or even 10 overs with the fielding restriction and bring on a substitute fast bowler to rev things up. Low-scoring games on poor wickets will not help anyone.

* At a time when the selectors will be looking outside the square to find the right mix, New Zealand Cricket must also find a replacement for Ross Dykes who has shone as a popular and knowledgeable selector.

He will be a loss. He had an eye for a player who could go all the way. I spent a huge amount of time with Dykesy in his roles as a selector or manager or both. We got on pretty well, both being wicketkeepers, and he was the only selector who managed to drop me and pick me in the same day!

I had been left out, deservedly, for the third test against England in 1998 but Lee Germon pulled up with a hamstring injury and I was back.

He was the only constant on the panel through the early 1990s and played a vital role moulding what was later to become the best test side New Zealand has produced.