A LOI rule suggestionWe know that bowling sides are sometimes reduced to being punching bags for batsmen who wield the 15-over rule, only 1 bouncer per over rules etc. to rein in the spinners and seamers. I've always had a small improvement in mind in the ODI rules that I think can address this imbalance. I find it a little unfair that a batting side has the opportunity to use an in-form batsman for as much of the 50 overs as possible, while the bowling side can give its in-form bowlers only upto 10 overs each. Additionally, with the balance of teams tilting towards a buffer batsman, the bowling side always has a weak 5th/6th bowler that is targeted by the opposing batsman; this only causes a spiralling effect in the imbalance. I clearly rememebr a match between India & Australia in the tri-series Down Under in 1999 (the third team being Pakistan). I think it was at Sydney, where the conditions were exceptionally favourable for the seamers. India was out for a low score, but the Aussies got into trouble straightaway with Srinath bowling grenades and bombs in a straight 10-over spell. The fact that the Aussies were able to play out Srinath's 10 and that Symonds could give the other batsman (SRW or Bevan?) some support meant that they won.
My suggestion to allow the bowling side the option of allowing atleast one bowler to have a quota of upto 12 or 13 overs. You want to see the best batsmen of one side take on the best bowlers of the others, not them wait for those 10 overs and bash the 5th bowler up. By allowing an increased quota (it could even be 11/12 overs each for two bowlers perhaps) would give beleagured captains an fair chance to overcome situations where one other bowler is having an off day. If Srinath had bowled a couple of more overs that day, India might've won!
I look at it as easing some of the restrictive trade practices in cricket :-).