I'm all for giving the bowlers two bouncers in the over, provided that they allow a third fielder behind square on the leg side. I said that before. It's time to let go of Bodyline. Yes, packing the leg side field is unfair. But only TWO men? Geez, if you have a deep fine leg and a man slightly backward of square on the boundary that's...nothing.
Will some captains "abuse" it and put in a leg slip, leg gully, and backward square, thus encouraging short bowling? Of course. But in this day and age where there are rules preventing all but those at the highest level to bat without a helmet, why not just do it? I mean, Under-15, 17, 21, etc makes it mandatory for batsmen to be fully protected no matter what type of bowler they face. I expect a rule to come into play very soon about keepers standing up to the stumps as well, given Boucher's unfortunate injury (prayers are with you for a full recovery, man, I'm backing you to come back and get that thousand even if you make duck and drop five other catches).
As far as wides...it's really tough. I personally like the wide calls as they are in ODI cricket. The recently concluded WI/NZ series had some pretty awesome umpiring decisions. I think only one or two decisions were outright wrong after referral, and also, I loved the way they called the wides. There were a couple of balls down the leg side in the fourth and fifth ODI that just shaved leg stump. Ordinarily they would be called wide immediately. Except that the batsman had moved before the ball was delivered, and the bowler (hopefully) intentionally adjusted to prevent him from scoring. If he was standing still all the time he could have definitely hit the ball. In addition to that, there were some alleged dubious non-wides off of reverse sweeps. I fully agree with the umpires' calls in those instances, and I have my reasons for that.
What I do not like is umpires just calling wide whenever the ball is outside of the lines, even though the bat clearly passed below the ball and contact could have been made. What if the ball took the top edge? Is it a wide and out then?
The problem is this...if a batsman moves BEFORE the ball is released and the bowler deliberately bowls it wider...is it still a wide? If the batsman moves AFTER the ball is released but could have hit it in his normal stance...is it still a wide? Confusing, isn't it?
And I understand why things have not been trialled for longer. It just has not caught on well with most fans. I say most and mean it in every sense of the word. The dedicated fans just want to see cricket. But they are very much in the minority. Most fans are just those who know a bit about the game, and go to matches to have a good time rather than get into the intricacies of what's actually going on.
To sum up the general thoughts on this topic so far...
The changes:
2 bouncers an over
3 men behind square on the leg side allowed
allow two bowlers more than 10 overs
STOP BRINGING THE BOUNDARIES IN SIGNIFICANTLY FOR LIMITED OVERS
the first 15 overs comprise the mandatory Powerplay, WITH the catching restrictions in place (two men must be in catching positions at all times)
the batting side gets a 5 over block as their batting Powerplay, not taken after the 45th over
consider trialling split innings for a longer period to see what the dynamics of the matches are like
At the end of everything, cricket is all about statistics. But nothing can be statistically significant without a large sample size and the ability to reproduce the results.
I'm fed up of the ICC constantly changing the rules of ODI cricket. You want the 50-over format to survive? Then stop..uh...messing (yeah, that's a G-rated word)...messing with the game.
Supersubs? Didn't work.
Two bowling Powerplays? Didn't work.
Changing the ball after 34 overs? Didn't work.
Two new balls, one from either end? Won't work. Pick a new colour. Allan Stanford is in jail at the moment, but maybe his orange ball had some merit. Sorry, Dutch.
Short boundaries? NOT WORKING.
Oh, and coincidentally...Tino Best in the Test squad over Fidel Edwards? Definitely will never work.