The way ODIs were played in the 1990s and now have far more in common than the 1980s and 1990s. You watch a ODI in 1986, with white clothes, red ball, where bowlers have to concede less than 4-an-over to be taken seriously, and you'll never recognise it for the game in 1995, where almost everyone plays with white ball and coloured clothing and an economy-rate below 4 is the preserve of the exceptional very best bowlers around.
I didn't like the Powerplay ideas when they first replaced the original 15-over rule, but I don't mind them too much now. A little tinkering here and there always helps improve a middle-of-the-road product.
The essence of the matter, though, is that 50-over cricket isn't the ideal product. 60-over cricket was always better. What ODIs need is to become less like Twenty20. If something new was tried, that has never been tried before, in making the 60-over ODI universal (there have only ever been 60-over ODIs in the 1975, 79 and 83 World Cups - never anywhere else), I reckon that'd have great potential. But it's not remotely likely, for several reasons.
