Glenn Turner, writing on stuff.co.nz, dispels some of the myths surrounding ODI cricket. There is no need, he says, to keep wickets in hand for the death overs, consolidate after the fall of a wicket or set targets. When broken down, the game, he says, comes down to scoring runs without worrying about losing wickets and restricting runs in the field.

"A good score on this pitch is ... " The obvious answer once again should be "as many as we can get". This may appear a flippant answer, but it is a senseless question. The infinite numbers of factors that come into play throughout a game are hard enough to judge at the end of the contest, let alone at the beginning. This is just another addition to the dreaded predeterminations that players are often exposed to.

It is often said that one-dayers are all about containment. Ian Chappell, writing in Mid Day as part of its World Cup pull-out, says that the best way to do that is by sending the batsman back to the pavilion. Attacking captaincy, he feels, is the way to go in the one-day format.

There's no doubt employing aggressive tactics is more difficult with the improvements to the modern bat. However, this is often used as an excuse by nervous captains and the good ones retain fielders to grab the mis-hits that stay in the field of play.

Good captaincy in any form of the game requires cricket commonsense, a high priority on taking wickets and a slice of luck. The brave captains are always the lucky ones.

From left field, John Stern, editor of theWisden Cricketer, has a unique idea for an innovation in one-day cricket: an American football-style squad system, wherein sides can name an almost unlimited number of players in their squad and use them as and when the game requires them.

There would be no tail-enders, no rubbish bowlers. There would be no selection of an XI – only batting, bowling and fielding line-ups that could be switched at any time. Players could be substituted at any time though no more than 11 players could bat or be in the field at any time and the over restrictions on bowlers could remain. You could pick your best wicketkeeper without worrying how many runs he’ll get you. You might have a keeper who’s great standing back and one who’s a whizz up to the stumps. They’ll both be in your squad and they will both get on the field.

Neil Manthorp, writing for supersport.com, has had enough of one-day cricket in its current form and feels that all attempts to arrest its declining popularity have failed. There is hope, however, in the form of Richard Wood’s simple yet innovative proposal for multiple split-innings ‘5IVES’ cricket which is akin to the invention of the wheel in cricketing terms.

Some of the greatest brains in the game have failed to arrest the decline in popularity of one-day cricket, both internationally and domestically. There have been flirtations and dabbling with playing conditions, some of which have been very good and some just plain stupid (substitutes).

But did the ICC’s Cricket Committee really slap each other on the back and say “that’ll get the crowds flooding back” when they introduced the batting power-play? Now, however, there is a new format for Unions and Boards to consider, and it is so good -- and simple -- that it ranks among the invention of the wheel in cricketing terms. It was created by a man who most certainly does not rank among the greatest brains in cricket -- perhaps that is why it is so successful. Richard Wood is a South African actuary who took a completely dispassionate view of the game and looked at it as only ‘numbers men’ can. There was no outdated, emotive rubbish to consider about what you ‘can’ and ‘can’t’ do during an innings or bowling spell.

Cricket Australia’s latest proposal to revitalise the one-day format would give one batsman from each team the opportunity to bat twice. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the proposal has come in for some stick from both players and the media. While Daniel Brettig of the AAP likes some of the other modifications – allowing two bouncers an over, for example – he says giving one batsman a second chance is just not cricket.

However the prospect of one nominated "super striker'' getting the chance to bat in the second bracket of overs having been dismissed in the first is as cheap and nasty as it is unnecessary. Batting is based upon the harsh but fair concept that one mistake can mean the end of the road for a batsman. So for one player to get twice as much opportunity as the rest is a scenario that clearly defies this most basic tenet.

Among the numerous arguments against the idea is that it will unfairly reward teams with insufficient depth - Chris Gayle's West Indies, for one - while there is also the matter of what would be done with scoreboards and records.

The 50-over format has merits and continues to be popular but we need fewer such games infused with greater context to ensure its survival, writes Mike Selvey in the Guardian.

If fault there is in 50-over cricket, it lies not, for example, in the so-called boring middle overs, but in the number of ODIs that have been played over the past two decades, with little or no context, and the negative impression created by the continual quest for innovations: we are not happy with our product, seems to be the message, so why should you be? Add in a few ICC-manufactured matches that left dear old Bill Frindall and his fellow stattos shaking their heads, and the number of one-day internationals surged through the 3,000 barrier at the Rose Bowl.

The latest attempt to inject life into the one-day format comes courtesy of Cricket Australia and involves split-innings of 20 overs each. The new format will be introduced in next season’s FR Cup, and if successful, could be used at the 2015 World Cup. However, not everyone is convinced. Writing in the Guardian, Andy Bull says split-innings is not the solution to one-day cricket's problems.

This is not a viable long-term solution for 50-over cricket's ill health. With the exception of Tendulkar's point that both teams have to bat in the same conditions, the arguments in favour of split innings all stem from the novelty of the format. At the rate games are currently scheduled, that will soon wear off. If the aim is to reduce the predictability of matches there are other broader cures that the ICC should look at: reduce the number of fixtures, ensure that all games are played in the context of meaningful competitions, and encourage pitches that offer a balance between bat and ball. Splitting the innings is just a quick fix.

	Fifty-over cricket looks jaded © Getty Images

Observing the empty top deck of the MCG stands closed and quite a few of the other layers half-empty during the first game between Australia and West Indies, Peter Roebuck in the Sydney Morning Herald says it's hard to avoid thinking the ODI is running out of gas. Unable to rely on entertainment alone, one-dayers have not survived the ensuing scrutiny about their relevance.

Changes are needed. Shorter boundaries could be introduced and eight awarded for clearing the boundary. Earlier starts might be considered. Especially on weeknights and in term time, 10.30pm finishes take a toll. And the game can go along quicker, with faster over rates and so forth.

But these ideas exist around the fringes. No less important is to give the matches some context. Hitherto the main purpose of one-dayers has been to offer the public a good night out at the cricket. No longer could anyone claim that the game belonged to stuffed shirts. As far as night entertainment is concerned, T20 now serves the purpose better than its longer-winded older brother. Over the years, cricket has spent an inordinate amount of time maintaining the illusion that it occupies higher ground. Gradually, it has retreated from pomposity.

The current ICC Champions Trophy has been packaged for the consumer, because one-day cricket is now in a buyer’s market, writes Harsha Bhogle in the Indian Express. He says this tournament will also decide on the future of bilateral contests and single venue tournaments.

Now the viewer and the spectator will sit in judgement and that is how it should always be. They are pretty uncomplicated fellows and they don’t really care much for either heritage or the future. They will look at the offering, if it’s good they will buy it, otherwise they will move on. And this tournament will give us a very good idea of which way they are going.

The viability of ODIs in the wake of Twenty20 cricket has been a subject of much discussion in recent months. There have been suggestions made by current and former cricketers to liven up the format, but Michael Atherton, writing in the Times, feels the best way to keep ODIs alive is to deregulate it so that it becomes less formulaic or predictable.

If captains could place their fielders where they wanted to, rather than where regulations dictate, there is a chance they might start to think again and a chance that one side’s tactics might differ significantly from another’s. If a captain could bowl his best bowler for more than the stipulated ten overs, there is a chance that he would and that attacking cricket played by the best players would become more a feature of a one-day match. Powerplays dictate the pace of the game to batsmen; do without them and watch batsmen take the initiative again.

	A decent balance between bat and ball will make for good viewing during the Champions Trophy © AFP

Even though Twenty20 cricket has proved to be the rage for fans and sponsors, with two World Cups already scheduled – in 2011 and 2015 – claims of the demise of the 50-over format may be a touch premature. Anand Vasu explains in his blog on the Hindustan Times website.

As for the charge of too many ODIs, the people who complain most about this phenomenon, the players, are the most culpable, for they have always wanted to squeeze in as many games in a career to chase every last buck possible.

The likelihood of the 50-over game being scrapped for good for the sake of Twenty20 and even shorter formats seems inevitable, writes Peter Williams in the New Zealand Herald. With each decade, the attention spans of the viewing public has only decreased, which explains the rapid success of Twenty20.

If the 2007 World Cup was the most tedious international cricket tournament of all time, will the 2011 event have any relevance in an evolving marketplace? Will the 2015 event, scheduled for New Zealand and Australia, even happen?

India's steady rise as a feared and respected ODI team has everything to do with the results they have achieved in the last eighteen months. While captain MS Dhoni may have powered the growth, the team have also matured as a group. Anand Vasu has more in the Hindustan Times.

While there are no lengthy team meetings and strategy sessions analysing the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition -- the computer most used is the one between Dhoni's ears -- there's a strong knowledge of what needs to be done to secure a win in any given game. Sports psychologists call this situational awareness, and it is this heightened ability to assess what needs to be done and then implementing plans that separates the consistent teams from the rest.

In his column in the Indian Express, Harsha Bhogle says he will keep a close eye on the upcoming Champions Trophy to decide if it really is time to write off the one-day game.

Shorn of their context, one-day games are a weaker offering. Put in the right ambience, they could be thrilling. It is a bit like the great violinist being ignored when he plays outside a subway station but being flattered with expensive tickets and applause when he plays in a theatre. Before writing an obituary we need to give the patient a good shot at survival.

Dileep Premachandran, in his blog in the Guardian, says ODI cricket generally lacks in importance, barring the World Cup, and discusses ways in which the format could be made more relevant.

Very few players will admit it on record, but one-day games outside of the World Cup scarcely get the blood pumping. That's not to say they don't take them seriously. It's just not that important. No one will retire and then lament the absence of a Singer/Natwest/Pepsi Series medal from the trophy cabinet. I'm sure Sunil Gavaskar regrets not being able to win a Test match in Pakistan. I doubt very much, though, if he loses sleep over the tri-series that India lost in Australia in 1985-86.

Any format that lacks a basic, natural complexity will ultimately collapse as options run out. It is happening to 50-over cricket now and Suresh Menon, writing in Dreamcricket.com, predicts a similar fate for Twenty20 in time.

But artificial solutions will only make the game more confusing. You cannot play the 50-over game as a series of 25-over games and hope the spirit of Twenty20 will revive it. The survival of the sport depends on making the three formats distinct from one another. A Test match aspiring to be a 50-over contest or a Twenty20 aspiring to be a Test match is both confusing and unnecessary.

The one-day game, once cricket’s mainstay, is losing ground alarmingly to Twenty20 in terms of sponsor interest and revenue generation. If comparative valuation figures are any indication, the raging debate over the 50-over format’s future may be entirely justified. Indranil Basu takes a look in the Times of India.

	Three's a crowd © Getty Images

The 50-over game is in serious trouble with the England and South African boards doing away with it in domestic fixtures. And with Cricket Australia having one more year left with its Ford sponsorship of the domestic 50-over competition, Dean Jones believes it's high time that ODIs need to be revamped. Different formats of 40 overs each, changing a six to an 'eight', no overthrows when the fielders hit the stumps along with three on-field umpires, are his proposals in the Age.

One umpire would stand at the bowler's end, one at square leg and the other umpire side-on at the bowler's end watching for no-balls. This would allow the umpire at the bowler's end to concentrate on the speed and line of the delivery and not worry about the bowler's feet. This will give the umpires that spilt second of time they crave for to make better decisions. Umpires would also rotate every innings.

In the Daily Telegraph, Derek Pringle writes that the 50-over game desperately requires radical changes. He lists five innovations to spice it up, such as allowing both the fielding side and the batting side to take their Powerplays after the 20th over.

Remove the playing condition that restricts bowlers to having a maximum of five fielders on the leg-side. Packing that side of the wicket can restrict the scoring, but it would open up the off-side field allowing bold batsmen to score boundaries that are such rarities in the middle overs these days.