I have heard about this type of cricket before and wish it could be played here in England. I know that day/night games are on trial here ,and hope they stay. But this could be a good format for the clubs second eleven in there own league. As for the ICC. Unless there are $$$$ involved I don`t think they are interested.

Yours,
Noel Stanton,
Bristol, United Kingdom

I read with interest the article by Martin Crowe on an abbreviated form of cricket known as Cricket Max, and agree that cricket matches need to become shorter and more entertaining if cricket is to survive as a major sport and grow globally.

I think the ICC should start by changing the format of one day internationals from the present 50 overs a side to at most 40 overs a side played in two innings of 20 overs each. Splitting the innings would make the game more interesting and enjoyable for spectators.

After this they could consider shortening them even further to the Super Max format of 20 overs each or perhaps 30 overs each.

Presently a ODI takes over 7 hours, this is way too long and results in many boring matches where the result is apparent well before the end of the game.

Steve Gill
Perth, Australia

I admired Martin Crowe's talent as a player, however, when he keeps trying to feed us this line about Cricket Max being the salvation of the game I can't help but think about the American officer in Viet Nam who was supposed to have said that it was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.

Cricket Max sounds like the predictably hideous offspring of an unholy coupling between limited over cricket (itself an abomination) and baseball (an equally dull and stereotyped game).

What's the point in "saving" cricket if you're going to destroy it?

George Reeve,

Fair Oaks, California, USA

Dear Tony,

Greetings from Indiana.

First Ali Bacher, now Martin Crowe.

The attempt to find a shorter, snappier, less, well, cricketier version of the game never ceases to amaze me.

As an American who has followed the sport for 25 years the desire to dumb down and neuter a game which needs no tinkering, and from leading lights in the sport, leads me to think that maybe the years have been wasted.

If I'd wanted something the length of a baseball (which I still love as well) game, I'd have gone and watched more baseball. Cricket is great because it is different, it takes longer, it requires certain levels of attention to strategy that are not necessary in other bat and ball games. It has two wonderful versions now; and not to appear a total dinosaur I prefer the 4 and 5 day matches.

To say that cricket needs to be made modern is to fall victim to the cult of evanescence.

The supposition that all of society is suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder is increasingly voiced. Alas, though, it is not true. If the purveyors of Sport and other entertainments would make a better product, not a more insipid one, we'd all be better off.

Shame, Martin Crowe. Shame.

Faithfully yours,

Gregg Rosen
Bloomfield, Indiana

Tony,

The article "IOC says no to cricket" begs the question; do we really want cricket to be an Olympic sport? The Olympics are already grossly inflated with trivia like synchronised underwater grinning (is this done by men in 40 countries on 3 continents, I wonder?). Professional baseball and basketball are simply a sop to US television. I would suggest that it would benefit from radical pruning, rather than more team sports.

Although your IOC spokeswoman betrayed lamentable ignorance of our game, there are some real practical objections - how do we teach the Koreans, for example to prepare cricket pitches? Can it be done in the four years that most countries allow for preparation? What about the weather requirements (although baseball is also subject to that problem)? Incidentally, if cricket is a parochial British Empire pastime, then baseball is even more a parochial United States Empire pastime.

The point about the GAISF is well-taken, however. As cricket expands into non-Commonwealth countries it will have to recognise that it is part of the world sporting scene and join its organisations. I am surprised that the ICC has not already taken this step.

Mind you, when this part of the country is apparently invisible from St.John's Wood (the Daily Telegraph review of the season failed to mention triple-winners Gloucestershire), a global perspective is a long way off.

John Rogers
Bristol, England

Dear Tony,

This is with reference to the comments on the Olympics in BTW.

I am strongly of the opinion that if cricket has to be a global sport it must be played in the Olympics. It is a game played in 150 or more countries and is certainly a bigger sport than baseball, beach volleyball and softball.

Cricket meets all the Olympic qualification criteria (including women participation in 40 countries).

However the hitch is that the major cricket playing countries and the ICC are not serious about cricket being in the Olympics. This is strange as some of the countries like India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka have a very poor record in the Olympics and cricket is one of the few games in which they can possibly win a Gold.

The disregard by the Test nations to the Games participation was seen with their attitude towards the Commonwealth Games.

However a solution could be that like soccer we can have a separate qualification criteria for the Olympics.

We could have Under 23 teams of the major Test nations playing along with the full sides of Kenya and the other Associates. There could be a pool in which all nations (ICC members and non members) could have a shot at an Olympic berth.

25 Over matches or 15 over matches could be played, solving the problems of time.

I continue to enjoy your regular coverage. Please include the team details inyour coverage.

Shamik Biswas
Bangalore, India

© CricInfo Ltd