From James Adams-Pace, United Kingdom

Has Dale Steyn helped lay the trappings of a bowling resurgence this decade? © AFP

Sir Neville Cardus wrote “a true batsman should in most of his strokes tell the truth about himself.” Cardus was, indeed, right, but should have gone further: a batman’s strokes also tell the truth about the state of cricket. Applying Cardus’ logic, what do the batsmen’s strokes in world cricket today tell us? Simple: the bowlers are beginning to strike back.

It is widely agreed that, in recent years, some Test matches had become a chore to watch, mainly due to an imbalance that had grown between bat and ball. It is immaterial whether this disparity had arisen because of a lack of quality bowlers or poor pitches (or both). The truth still remained that scores of 600-5 were becoming far too familiar. It’s not that watching batsmen compile big scores is not entertaining; the problem is when you only watch batsmen compile big scores, and this was the case on a far too frequent basis. India against South Africa in Chennai in 2008 and Pakistan’s tour of India in 2007 are good examples of the negatives of batsmen-dominated Tests.

However, 2010 seems to have bucked the trend. Batsmen are not just scoring runs, they are also getting out. Test matches are not always fading into insignificance, they are getting results within four days. Pakistan’s Test series against England and Australia have provided engrossing and unpredictable contests, while England’s visit to South Africa at the beginning of the year, despite not getting results in every Test, exhibited fine displays of fast bowling. Even Sri Lanka and India in the subcontinent have managed to bowl each other out. The common factor in all these series? The prominence of the bowler.

Nonetheless, things are not perfect: India’s bowling attack currently looks slightly toothless, with a lack of quality and in-form fast bowlers, while Sri Lanka are yet to find adequate replacements for Muttiah Muralitharan and Chaminda Vaas. Concomitantly, world spinning stocks, too, look rather depleted; aside from Graeme Swann, spinners such as Daniel Vettori and Harbhajan Singh only seem capable of containing, not taking wickets. Even so, Pakistan’s pairing of Mohammad Amir and Mohammad Asif, South Africa’s duo of Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel, and England’s James Anderson and Swann are showing that bowling has turned a corner.

This is not an attack on free-flowing centuries - far from it. The game needs Virender Sehwag, Sachin Tendulkar and others to keep challenging the bowlers and scoring big tons. However, it would be a welcome change to think that the batsmen are earning their runs and that, at any minute, they could still be out. This year has provided the glimmer of hope that cricket fans have been waiting form. Maybe, just maybe, the curators and officials are beginning to understand: cricket needs bowlers to have an influence on the game. Maybe, just maybe, we are entering the decade of the bowler.

From Alan and Philip Sutherland, Australia

The ICC must think of Ireland's inclusion © Getty Images

If the ICC is serious about the retention of Test cricket as the ultimate form of the game, and surely it is, then it must act immediately on the simmering issue of a Test Championship. Cricket must decide, every four years and without doubt, which team is best. Association football and athletics have their World Cup and Olympic Games and the media interest generated by these events is massive. While Test cricket cannot compete on an equal footing with the global nature of these other sports, it can attempt to lift its status.

There appears to be ample support for a Championship among senior players (both current and former) such as Steve Waugh, Kumar Sangakarra and Graeme Smith to name a few. The difficulty, it seems, is the nature of the game. A Test generally takes four or five days to conclude and this is obviously a lot longer than a ninety-minute game of soccer or a ten-second sprint. Therefore, condensing Test cricket into a tournament, like the one-Day or T20 world championship, is entirely impractical.

However, that doesn't mean an end to the idea. The alternative is, quite simply, playing an on-going championship over the entire four years. It is unfortunate but, in order to accommodate this, teams would need to be split. At the moment there is a top tier of five Test-playing nations who are of similar standard. These are India, South Africa, Australia, Sri Lanka and England. If these five nations were to schedule home and away series against each other over a three to three-and-a-half-year period, the top two teams could then play off for the title of undisputed world champion. The fourth and fifth ranked teams would play to avoid relegation. Equally, the victor of the sixth and seventh ranked teams (drawn from the pooling of Pakistan, New Zealand, the West Indies, Bangladesh and, hopefully, Zimbabwe and Ireland) would have the opportunity to move up to the top group. Competition would thus be far more even.

Naturally, other series could still take place. India would be free to take on Pakistan and New Zealand could play Australia, but they would probably need to be limited to one or two Tests per series in order to fit in within an ever-tightening schedule. Limits may also need to be imposed on the ever-growing T20 circuit. The Australian Big Bash, Champions League and IPL have all shown that the 20-over game is viable at domestic level. There is a strong case for it remaining there. The game cannot afford both a 20-over version and a 50-over one at international level without reducing fixtures. The ICC must decide which shortened version it wants or impose some balance to the schedules.

If T20 is to remain internationally, it must be on a four-year World Cup rotation. Currently, the schedule is squeezing any possibility of a Test Championship out. The schedule must be eased. Dividing the Test world in two, at least on paper, is not an idea which will be easy to sell. Yet, there is little choice. Lovers of the game should welcome the day when Bangladesh goes into bat against Zimbabwe in the deciding rubber of a Test Championship. That day is, unfortunately, a long way off. In the current Test rankings, Bangladesh have just 273 points from 28 matches. The number-one ranking India have 4719 points in 38 matches. The discrepancy is too great for a game of nine or ten nations to bear.

Yes, the minnows will improve by playing the best teams, but they need also to win more games and they will do so quicker in a schedule which is weighted more towards their form. We must think of Ireland's inclusion. One-off Tests against Australia as a lead-up to the Ashes in England, as suggested here in Inbox, are exactly what will be needed. But equally, major series against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, West Indies, New Zealand and Pakistan, would give Ireland the opportunity to enter the Test scene without the fear of constant and unedifying thrashings. A quick glance at the ratings will show a difference between fifth and sixth places of over 20%. A two-tier system would heighten the competition exactly there, in the middle.

The result would be unlike football relegations because there would be far fewer teams involved and there shall always be an opportunity to play outside a division, especially in the shorter formats. One can only hope that the introduction of such a system may provide encouragement for other emerging nations to join the Test fold.