Power, strength gym work seems to be what is wanted in sports now.
I sit here and think why ?
Like you the artistry & finesse and skill (natural talent but also thinking talent) are more entertaining to me.
A batsman can back himself to half hit a 6 these days. Is that progress and good for the game ?
A ball that swings more probably sounds like a balancing act but an interesting quirk is when it swings too much often edges aren't found.
I think T20 cricket should be considered a different sport to proper cricket. There seems to be an over-flow into proper cricket that there needs to be change to get new fans into game which I disagree with. There has been passion for proper cricket for ages. Not many people are turned off it.
I'm not sure I agree with your last few sentences. The modern way caters to how the modern audience views the game. If the passion for proper cricket was there them improper cricket wouldn't be so attractive right now.
I don't think anyone's ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of their audience. When it comes to getting new fans into the game sixes are an obvious way because they are immediately spectacular. And to hit more sixes you go to the gym and get a bigger bat. It works, that's why T20 is popular.
It's not good for avid watchers because every match begins to look the same. I can never remember what happened in the previous night's BBL game yet I remember one particular ball from Tim Bresnan at Melbourne nearly seven years ago, when I was thirteen and first getting into cricket. It was wide of off and seamed a long way further from off. Nothing really special, but I'd never noticed that sort of movement before so it stuck in my memory in a way not even the biggest six could. But for people who watch cricket like they watch an action movie, for simple entertainment, they aren't going to pick up on such details. A delightful cover drive along the ground simply isn't as interesting as a hoicked six over midwicket.
I think one thing that would make cricket more interesting is bringing back bowled as a dismissal. Caught at the wicket is the least interesting form of dismissal except if it happened off an exceptional ball, while bowled is the bowling equivalent of a six, if anything even more spectacular because of its immediacy and violence. Trueman bowled 103 batsmen while McGrath, with 250 more wickets, bowled only 76. And that's where I was going with a ball that swings more, because more sideways movement promotes bowled as a dismissal. The alternative is to go back to uncovered damp or worn, inconsistent pitches and let bowlers rediscover the art of the off cutter. Greener pitches would be good too but tend to promote edges over bowleds IMO. When's the last time you saw a pitch with a distinct patch that misbehaved? And the ball perhaps keeps low less than it used to, at least in Australia. Things need to not just more bowler friendly, but in a certain way as well. Go look at Michael Holding's 14 wickets at the Oval in 1976. Nine of them bowled. Would it seem quite so thrilling and impactful if seven of those bowleds were replaced with catches behind? I don't think so.
Since certain things are more attractive to more casual fans than others when it comes to having better balance between bat and ball you've got to think about how it happens, not just that it happens.
