The majority of ODI cricket bores me, it's just not interesting.
It has the potential to be interesting, but a lot of fans are too easily pleased with lots of fours and sixes and no
contest between bat and ball.
Interesting discussion on TMS during the break, caught some of it, and Keith Bradshaw (?) and Aggers were discussing the switch hit and if it was 'fair'. I think the MCC had discussed it and saw it as 'fair', the batsman taking a risk to play it and having to be very skilled to execute it. There was the debate about law implications like wides, on and off side etc, but overall I think they were happy with it.
But back to ODIs, to me they are too often boring because nothing happens, or batsmen just whack the bowlers like they are net bowlers. Pitches aren't interesting enough, I preferred the good old days when batsmen would be struggling to counter early swing although some finals back in the day were decided by the toss and that wasn't clever. But surely they can find good middle ground, where the ball does enough to make batting testing but not impossible, that a good total is 240-270 and not 300+ ?
If the ball is doing something throughout it keeps the contest keen and a side bowled out for say 180-200 is still not out of contention. These days all the law makers seem to want to do is make it so more runs are scored in quiet periods, for me a gripping match regardless of whether 20 overs, 50 overs or a Test match, is one where no batsmen is truly "in", where the side can be 100/3 or 100/4 and the batsmen have to decide whether to try and score or just survive, and where tailend 20s and 30s can change a match.
I've played Brian Lara on a console before a fair few times, usually aim for damp pitches so batting is demanding, but if I find batting too easy or trying to hit out too successful I get bored and switch off. You want the odd ball to keep low, boundaries to be earned or lucky, not bowl - four, bowl - four, bowl - four, bowl - six etc. There have been plenty of commentators picking up on the absence of a third man, in low scoring games third man is a must.
And anyone thinking a bowler helpful pitch makes bowling easy, think again. You still have to bowl well, loose balls are even more costly in low scoring matches, and 100s are worth 100 not ten a penny like they are these days. The balance of the side becomes even more important, chances need to be taken, wickets as important if not more so than runs, fielding can make a difference etc
Of course the main driving force behind sports these days is ???, a focus on making Tests last five days, avoiding refunds and less on entertainment value. If T20 has a chance of ousting Tests it is because people aren't entertained as much over five days (some/most of the time anyway)
Something else mentioned in that Keith-Aggers chat was ticket prices, as with anything the big money people at the top want big money coming in and there were comments about people being priced out of the game. They talked about the impact of the ?20 ticket I think it was for the final day of whatever Test it was, and getting kids in. Prices are important, I won't pay ?75+ for a Test ticket for three reasons - it is extortionate, the rain policy over refunds is a joke (they get 25 overs in easily), and I've watched boring days of nearly 400 runs scored for two wickets. I'm not paying ?75 for that triple whammy, think again boy-o's
. They would however dearly like to end this nightmare with a win in the final ODI.
). Here we are struggling for one decent fast bowler and England have almost dozens to pick from. 
