Bats, boundaries, behaviour - cricket's big issues

With the World Cup looming there are many conversations raging about the dimensions of things. Boundaries: too short. Player's mouths: too big. Bats: too thick. The tournament: too long.

Boundaries and bats are two issues currently at the forefront of the "batsmen v bowlers" existential row. The size of playing areas was something that used to infuriate me as a captain (though the inner Darth Vader would encourage me to use my anger) but was and remains something that you could do little about in England without radically reducing the number of matches/teams, and therefore the number of pitches required. In Australia this should be less of an issue and, barring the margin required for the safety of fielders, we should see a fair distance between the 30-yard circle and the boundary cushions.

As far as bats are concerned, I have heard some extraordinary twaddle about how the sheer size of the new designs is making the game unfair. Firstly, the ball is not being hit harder or further now than it has been possible to strike it in the past. The difference is that all modern batsmen go out there with the intent to hit more sixes. They spend whole practice sessions dedicated to hitting the ball as far as they can (up until 2003 you'd still be removed from a net for hitting a ball out of it). They spend hours in the gym lifting and squatting and generally powering up, so that a ball that is "untameable" can be muscled out of the ground. Think Viv Richards at his most imperious - he was built like few other batsmen at the time. Now everybody looks like that - check out the guns on England's own pocket rocket James Taylor, if you don't believe me.

Yes, the bats are unrecognisable from those I started out using, but ask any batsman then or now about his favourite stick and he will tell you that it's all about the inner confidence that a good bat can give you. Looking down on a modern stick does wonders for confidence and evidently has the opposite effect on the bowler.

What of the bowler then? I have every sympathy with them but not on this score. For me, the worst call in terms of the battle between bat and ball is the maximum of four fielders outside the circle restriction. Go back to five and redress the balance.

Player behaviour is a fascinating topic that stirs many emotions. To some the difference between passion and thuggery is simply dependant on who the culprit is. If it's David Warner, "he's a disgrace"; but for Dale Steyn "it shows how much playing for his country means to him". The stakes are high, tempers fray and occasionally the line (which seems to follow Warner around) gets crossed. To some it's all part of the entertainment, to others further evidence that the human race is doomed.

For my part, I would like to see it treated a little less sensationally by all media. I would like to see captains held to account for the behaviour of their teams (if you can be banned for a slow over rate...) and I'd like us all to remember over-reacting to a late taxi or the wifi not working.

What of the tournament itself? My personal favourite was the first "modern" World Cup back in '92. Coloured clothing, white ball, everybody plays everybody, it seemed to me (glossing over Richie's rain calculus) to be perfect. However, I was 19 back then and perhaps less of a cynic than I have been accused of being nowadays!

The main complaint that has dogged most subsequent World Cups has been the length of time they take to complete, or at least, the time it takes to get to the knockout stages. The Associate teams deserve representation in the competition, so simply axing them is not an option in my view. Given that there are 14 teams this time around, is it really necessary for them to have a week between games in the group stage? Only three days are required between Test matches! A shorter gap might level up the playing field a little between the haves and have nots and, in turn, more potential upsets might give every game an edge, raising the interest and consequently the entertainment.

There you have it. Size isn't everything, it's what you do with it that counts.