When I were a little lad there was basically 5-day test cricket and 3-day county cricket at the top level, but at league cricket level and below, right down to me playing for Thornleigh first eleven (bragging again...), there were always games that had to shoehorned into a day or an afternoon. What's happened is that the short form in the guise of one-day and T20, etc., has also been adopted widely at the top level. I think the debate should be whether the shorter form, which necessitates fast scoring and more risk-taking by batsmen, has affected the long game. It's certainly made cricket more popular and high-profile, some would say kept it viable. But are we really sure that it's degraded the long game? I'm not so sure about that. I seem to remember that, in test matches, 250 runs in a day was about par for the course way back when, and, without knowing the numbers, my impression is that that hasn't changed much. And we have to remember that, as with any sport, cricket moves on...

As for boundaries, going for a six entails much more risk for the batsman getting out than hitting a four. It also takes timing and split-second judgement, just as does hitting a four, but with extra power on top of that risk, which I think it's why it's rewarded with a higher score. I wouldn't fight to change that.