'Nullify the toss advantage' - Readers respond

"Here is an idea that would be easy to implement, would encourage batsmen to go for boundaries in the middle 25 overs, and would make the tactics more interesting: simply reduce the number of players on the fielding side to 9 between overs 16 and 40, keeping the current restrictions as to the number of fielders within the circle. The boundary would no longer have a complete ring of fielders. To add interest and aid the fielding captain, there could be unlimited rotation of players allowed (within the original XI) so, for example, bowlers could be rested for a while. Fielders would of course only be allowed to leave and come on to the field between overs." Peter Garrood

"In my opinion, if the toss advantage is nullified, it would revamp the one-day game. It could be done by introducing the splicing option: the captain who wins the toss can decide if he wants to bat or field, but his counterpart should then be able to decide how he wants to play his 50 overs - either split or continuous. That would ensure that the chances are more even and that natural conditions or the pitch do not play a major role, and that matches are not settled by the toss." Ajmal Syed Khader

"I think the back-foot no-ball rule is a good one, but I don't quite agree with the `bonus runs for fours' theory. The restrictions for field settings in groups of 5 overs with the fielding side's choice is a good idea; it brings strategy more into play which is somewhat lacking in cricket." Kshitij Dewani

"Too much tinkering - special laws for different parts of the innings, etc. - is counterproductive and makes it messy. Extend the LBW law to balls outside leg stump. Change the 50 6-ball overs to 40 8-ball overs and allow any bowler to bowl 10 overs, which will make for better bowling. Abolish the circle rule, and replace it with `any boundary scored when the captain has positioned more than fielders outside the circle should score an extra run' - at any time in the innings. Stephen Gould

"A new format. Play the first innings for a whole day each (90-100 overs) and play the 2nd innings like a regular one-day game on the last day. This format has both Test and one-day games in a single match. And the final innings starts with a skew depending on the 1st innings lead." Ashok Rajamani

"On the proposed changes to the limited over international. Quite simply? Get rid of it. Pick up Twenty20 and run with that." Jon

"Include a rule similar to baseball - if you don't hit a 4 or 6 in say 10 consecutive balls, there is a penalty, or if you remain scoreless on three consecutive balls, a similar penalty applies." Srini

"Why be so dismissive of back-to-back Twenty20? Particularly if you couple it with the two new balls (4 in total for the game). It gives you aggressive batting and aggressive bowling as well. This also means that a collapse in one split doesn't mean the game is over. Perhaps the number of wickets in each innings could be reduced to seven so you have specialist bowlers who are not listed as batsmen. Also, twelve-man teams have made a difference in Australian domestic games and actually tightened them up as batsmen did not have a part-time bowler to attack." Dave

"The restriction of batting time for individual batsmen. I propose that each batsman face only 90 balls (excluding no-balls and wides) and has to retire at the end of it if he is unbeaten. This restriction will apply until the batting side has lost 5 wickets. Once 5 wickets have fallen, there is no restriction and the retired batsman or subsequent batsmen can come to the crease in any order that is desired and bat till the end of the innings." Narasimhan Mani

"I think that by going back to the good old days - with no field restrictions - fast bowlers can bowl bouncers, which would result in a more even contest." Arvind