I'd say that 20:20 has certainly influenced the One Day game, and I suppose it's advertising the game in a positive way - it's a good way of getting kids along to the ground for the first time etc. That said, I do feel sorry for bowlers.
One of my bugbears in the County Championship is that teams are penalised when they host a game on a ground which favours the bowlers and in which wickets fall quickly, and yet when games are pointlessly played on featherbeds like we've already seen at Taunton and Chelmsford this season, there is no punishment for the home side. This smacks of inequality to me - just because a lot of wickets fall and the game is over quickly, it doesn't make the match itself any poorer. Infact, such games are often far more interesting and close than games like Somerset v Middlesex a couple of weeks ago.
So yes, I do feel that something needs to be done to balance out batting with bowling in all forms of the game, and that includes the limited overs format. There is nothing wrong with the occasional high scoring game, even if it's one-sided, but it only displays certain facets of the game, such as power hitting. We also need games like Ireland v Pakistan in the WC - it was low scoring and batting was difficult, but it displayed a wholly different array of skills. Infact, in many ways, I'd rather watch an innings like Niall O'Brien's 60 odd on a tricky wicket than a bludgeoned century on a flat track.
That said, I don't want to detract from Surrey's performance today. 496 in 50 overs is pretty awesome, I'd have loved to have been there to see it unfold.
