Are bowlers under threat in one-day cricket?

Batsmen have chased down successfully targets of over 300 runs twice in four completed games in the ongoing one-day cricket series between India and Australia. Sports writer Suresh Menon examines whether the bowlers are under threat in the shorter version of the game.

In the early years of one-day international cricket, 250 runs from 50 overs was considered a good score.

Once the asking rate went up to six an over in the chase, it was assumed the game had gone out of reach for the team batting second.

Today, 300 is a par score at most venues, 350 a good one and so long as the asking rate is kept around eight an over, the chase is on track.

Progress? Or its reverse? Is batting in one-day cricket getting too good for its own good? Are the seeds for the elimination of this format being sown by the game's rulemakers?

If a match has twice produced over 700 runs in the India-Australia ODI series, don't blame the rules alone.

Mediocre

We must acknowledge that the two sets of bowlers have been depressingly mediocre.

Even Mitchell Johnson, the man who rattled India's middle order (meaning Suresh Raina and Yuvraj Singh) twice, bowled badly, too short, too wide and too fast.

The day after India chased 350 and won against Australia in Nagpur,South Africa and Pakistan played out a close finish in Sharjah where the two teams combined made only 365.

The rules didn't make this a feast of sixes and fours because the bowling was so superior.

Unlike Test matches which are won by bowlers, one-dayers are won by batsmen.

This is the essential difference between the two formats.

The dice were loaded against the bowler from the start - the assumption then, as now, was that spectators came to watch boundaries being hit rather than the ball beating the bat.