by I think teams should be allowed to select their best batsmen for batting and
their best bowlers/fielders for bowling. That would allow more batsmen and
bowlers to play for their teams and it will make the issue of "there is no
room in the Indian batting line-up for..." or "there is no room for another
Aussie bowler..." almost non-existent.
Since ODIs are the more experimental of the two main versions of the game
let's experiment there first.
1. Each team should be able to select its best 11 batsmen.
2. Each team should also be able to select its 11 best bowlers and
fielders.
3. A bowler should be able to bowl up to 20 overs in a 40 overs per side
game.
4. Since each side only has to bowl 40 overs it can take their time to set
the best field rather than have to rush the over-rate with part-time slow
bowlers.
Some players might figure in both teams. There will be room for specialist
batsmen, bowlers, fielders and wicketkeepers. The best batsmen will have to
face the best bowlers (and bowling) supported by the best fielders. That
would make the game more a test of true ability, reduce the impact of
selection foibles on some potentially bright careers, and create more
intensity and e***ment in the game. Only the mightily gifted will be
considered true all-rounders. People like Kallis and Flintoff might make it
to both teams but most so-called all-rounders would not.
If my idea were to be adopted, Bevan could still be bat for Australia.
Heck, they could even leave the Waughs in there if they wanted. Dravid
wouldn't have to keep wickets. Agarkar could still be in the team and get
an over or so to see if he should be given more bowling. Ganguly or Nehra
wouldn't have to field. Kaif could field no matter what. You wouldn't have
to choose between Kumble or Harbhajan. You'd have the best players doing
their best in what is the best position for them. Now that would be a true
test of playing ability.