THE EDITOR of WCM requested an article from me. Despite my protests on the score of age and current lack of involvement his persistence finally wore me down. So I thought I would start by harking back to my earlier contributions to Wisden Cricketers' Almanack.

My first article appeared in the 1939 issue and was headed Cricket at the Cross-roads. The title suggested that even then I was concerned about the long-term health of first-class cricket – as indeed I was.

What were my fears? Firstly, I questioned whether, for financial and other reasons, cricket would continue to attract public support to the extent of keeping it viable. I sensed some lessening of interest.

I had played in a Test at Melbourne in January 1937 when 350,000 people attended. Could this level of support continue unless the game produced more speed, action and entertainment value?

Came the Second World War and a complete cessation of cricket. Afterwards there was a clamour for sport to get going again, and for a while the game seemed to be in good shape. But it wasn't long before I again had an uneasy feeling that support was waning.

In due course came a revolution, and the introduction of limited-overs games. Their attraction exceeded all expectations, and cricket is the winner as it now caters for the needs of different audiences.

I raised the issue of limited-duration or played-out Tests, and that matter is unquestionably settled now. We shall not see Test matches played to a finish in the future.

My plea against doped pitches of the 1938 variety was heeded. They have disappeared, and a better balance between bat and ball achieved.

The lbw Law has since been amended – not exactly as I proposed, but better in one respect – namely that it now penalises the striker who makes no shot at a ball outside the off stump.

Sadly, my advocacy of an eight-ball over instead of six has not found favour with England. The game flows better with eight balls.

In 1986 I advocated the use of a third umpire or instant replay to determine close run-outs

A suggestion that we get more informative scoreboards was answered a bit like the man who prayed for rain and got floods. The modern electronic boards in Australia do everything but talk. When a man is dismissed it is amusing to see him looking intently at the scoreboard as he returns to the pavilion. No doubt he wants to check on the competence of the umpire.

So my tally of successes from 1938 stacked up fairly well.

I was again persuaded by Wisden to go into print in the 1986 edition, and the heading was Whither Cricket Now. This time, as now, I harked back to my 1938 views and commended the subsequent changes, not least the innovative floodlighting of main grounds and the use of a white ball – thereby providing a marvellous night-time spectacle.

I see no reason why we can't have Test and Sheffield Shield matches played under lights. I'm sure spectators would love them, and any technical disabilities could be overcome. Some players question such a move, but they are professionals, are paid substantial fees, and it is their province to provide the entertainment the public demands and to generate the finances required to support the structure of modern cricket.

My old mate the late Bill O'Reilly could never come to terms with limited-overs cricket or coloured clothing. He always referred to this cricket as the Pyjama Game. Sadly, in my view, he failed to see the need for entertainment as well as technique.

It is interesting to see that in 1986 I advocated the use of a third umpire or instant replay to determine close run-out decisions. Where facilities are available what possible objection can there be to making sure a decision is correct? Instead of creating dissatisfaction, it seems to have generated enthusiasm, and in the few seconds required to give a verdict there is mounting and appreciative excitement.

I hope the various countries will be forever grateful for what England and MCC have done

I made some reference to increasing bad manners and sportsmanship. This seems to have been acknowledged by the decision to appoint match referees whose job it is to discipline players who fall out of line. With hefty fines or even suspensions being the penalty for wayward behaviour the evil should rapidly disappear. The cost of referees is substantial, but misbehaviour cannot be tolerated.

I made reference to bouncers and applauded the rule in force in one-day cricket. The final answer to this problem is being grappled with and maybe in the end the solution will rest with limitation rather than a complete ban. Time will tell.

My suggestion of possibly limiting the length of a bowler's run-up has not been adopted, but at least there seems to be agreement that a satisfactory number of overs per day must be bowled or penalties will ensue. If that is policed firmly maybe future generations of fast bowlers will see the light.

There is still no solution to the mounting financial burden of Sheffield Shield cricket. Everyone agrees that the competition is essential. Losses can be accepted up to a point and perhaps can be borne while substantial sponsorships are forthcoming, but the current threat to the legality of certain sponsorships remains a tremendous worry.

I find myself very torn over the issue of so-called neutral umpires. Firstly the title is a misnomer. Ipso facto it bears the stigma that local umpires are biased. To me it is totally illogical that when England play Australia at Lord's there shall not be an English umpire – even though he be the best in the world. Also, how can a country like Australia build up the competence of her umpires if they can't be used in Tests at home?

I know the intention is fine and the appearance of neutrality is a plus. And if the two countries concerned agree on having independent umpires, let their wishes be met. But I can't bring myself to believe it should be mandatory.

A minor revolution is afoot in the repository of power. The creation of a separate ICC secretariat under the direction of Australian David Richards, the admission of Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka as Test countries, and a lessening of the voting power of foundation members of the ICC are all major initiatives.

Come what may, it seems that any authority MCC still possesses will eventually be ceded to the TCCB.

If that happens I hope the various countries will be forever grateful and appreciative of what England and MCC have done in spawning and nourishing the game of cricket to the world stature it commands.

 Sir Donald Bradman believes that bowlers would not be allowed to get away with this kind of incursion beyond the front crease ( Gordon Rorke, 1959) if the back-foot no-ball Law was reintroduced

I conclude with two comments. I still believe the eight-ball over is better than six. It may be unpopular with fast bowlers and with the television stations but it would be good for cricket.

Secondly, I remain convinced that the front-foot no-ball Law is a disaster. England introduced the rule despite opposition from Australia. It has been a dismal failure.

I don't think MCC realises the depth of opposition to this rule by the general public, also by most players and by a large number of umpires. It was introduced mainly to control a mere handful of draggers. That they could be controlled by a disc system in association with the back-foot rule which gave satisfaction for upwards of 200 years was proven beyond all doubt in Australia– by me in England in 1948 as Australian captain and similarly by Richie Benaud in 1961.

The front-foot Law places an intolerable burden on umpires, who inevitably make mistakes in l. b. w.and caught-behind decisions as a result of it. The players and spectators hate it.

Sir George (`Gubby') Allen was one of those who originally advocated changing to the front-foot Law, but shortly before he died, `Gubby' admitted to me that he now realised it had been an abject failure and he wanted to revert to the back foot.

I could fill a couple of pages of WCM by enlarging on this evil, but the Editor may not approve because up to now he has been a front-foot supporter. But my recent submissions to him make me more hopeful that he is at last beginning to accept the force of arguments against him – that he is at last beginning to realise that Bradman, Benaud, Bedser, O'Neill, the Chappell brothers, Ridings, McInnes, Egar, the late Sir George Allen, and an army of other cricket-lovers can't all be wrong.

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd