The BCCI's Technical Committee recently proposed to revamp the Ranji Trophy points system on the premise that India's premier domestic first class tournament needs to incentivise result-oriented cricket. I believe the premise is correct. The last three Ranji Trophy seasons have seen 52% of all matches being drawn. The corresponding percentages are 43% in England's County Championship (Division One) and 29% in Australia's Sheffield Shield. There is no debating the fact that India's domestic system needs a rejig that pushes teams into playing more attacking cricket.

However, I'm not entirely convinced that the technical committee's recommendations are in favour of the best interests of the players or the sport. They have proposed that the present system of awarding three points for a first-innings lead be done away with. Also, granting one point to a team that saves a match after conceding a first-innings lead will be abolished. Instead, teams will be given a point for making 300 runs inside 85 overs during the first innings or for picking up seven wickets in the same period. The points awarded to teams for outright victories - six, plus a bonus point for an innings victory or a ten-wicket win - remain the same.

There are a number of reasons why it is important to ensure that first-innings points are up for grabs. Firstly, there are 27 teams playing the Ranji Trophy, easily the most in any first-class tournament, which means that the talent is spread across teams. This also means that teams often don't have the quality to regularly bowl out the opposition twice, which is further aggravated given that in India there is more batting talent than bowling.

This is not to say that the BCCI technical committee has got it entirely wrong. The idea is right ­ force teams to go for a win. However, awarding zero points for securing the first-innings lead in drawn games could sometimes leave both teams with nothing to show after four days of hard-fought cricket, simply because they don't have the artillery to bowl teams out twice. The aim ultimately could be to abolish first-innings points altogether, but it can't be done when the talent available is distributed across so many teams.

Under the current circumstances, a workable middle ground between the status quo and the committee's proposals could be to increase the difference between points for an outright win and those for securing a first-innings lead in a drawn game. It may be worthwhile to consider awarding up to 10 points for an outright victory, while giving three points for securing the first-innings lead in a drawn game (as is done under the current system). This will give teams an incentive to go for the win, while also ensuring that teams securing a first-innings lead don't go completely unrewarded.

"A workable middle ground could be to increase the difference between points for an outright win and those for securing a first-innings lead"

Another significant consideration is scheduling ­- a typical Ranji Trophy season sees 115 matches inside three months, unlike in Australia or New Zealand, where a season comprises only about 30 games. This means that teams are often playing back-to-back games with only three or four days of rest. It is almost cruel to expect players to always go flat out for an outright win when playing in such conditions.

This is not to say that players aren't playing to win at the moment; just that in the middle of a gruelling season, a team might, for example, come up against a strong side on a flat wicket in humid conditions. It might be good strategy in those circumstances to simply ensure that you come away with some points from the game instead of draining every ounce of energy in what is likely to be a futile attempt to win in sapping conditions. This helps ensure that players are not injured or unfit for the next game, which is probably only a few days away. Or else, the system should be revamped to ensure that games are not played so close to each other, thereby making certain that players are well rested and in a position to play every game at full tilt.

I played in a Mumbai-Karnataka match in 2007 where Karnataka were bowled out for 195, and Mumbai then scored 337 to take a first-innings lead. In their second innings Karnataka went on to bat for 135 overs. It took us all by surprise because they made no effort to set a target and go for the win. The game was drawn. The rationale behind the move was that Karnataka didn't want to burn out their players in the oppressive Mumbai heat and were happy to just keep them fresh to push for an outright win in their next game, which they did win ­ beating Himachal Pradesh at home by an innings and 126 runs. It must be remembered that these are league games and not knockouts, so winning does not have to be the only way for teams to get enough points to progress to the next stage.

I believe there is already enough incentive for teams to win matches, because: (a) the higher up a team finishes in its group, the easier their match-up in the next round; (b) teams want to qualify for the quarter-finals as early in the season as possible. A prime example is Delhi, who often choose to play at the livelier Roshanara Club Ground and not the Feroz Shah Kotla, so they can play result-oriented cricket. So it is not a case of teams devaluing victories but that pitch and weather conditions in India are often not conducive to forcing a result.

Gujarat Cricket Association curator Dhiraj Parsana inspects the Motera pitch along with Sudhir Naik ahead of the first India-New Zealand Test AFP

In my experience, it is extremely difficult to prepare a perfect four-day wicket in India ­- one that offers pace and bounce early in the match and gradually breaks up over the course of the game. There are a variety of factors that contribute to this, such as the type of soil, humidity levels and temperature. The pitches are usually either flat tracks or dustbowls, with the occasional green wicket thrown in, usually in north India. If the proposed points system is implemented, we may see state associations clamouring to prepare "result-oriented" wickets, which are likely to be underprepared tracks that allow for exaggerated spin and movement off the surface. These do nothing for the quality of cricket, but simply glamourise bowling performances and allow bowlers to return exaggerated figures.

Instead of repeatedly fiddling with the points system, it may be worthwhile for the BCCI to invest in creating sporting wickets. They may need to incur significant costs to engage curators, scientists and other experts, while also having to import soil, grass and whatever else is necessary to control the nature of the surfaces. Make no mistake, this is no easy task, especially if we are to try to retain the distinctive flavour that Indian wickets have historically offered. If the wickets provide any encouragement at all to bowlers, they will bowl with the primary aim of taking wickets.

The BCCI cannot control the weather, though, and if a certain team happens to play at a home venue that is susceptible to rain, it will become extremely difficult for them to consistently force results in rain-affected games, thereby diminishing their chances of progressing to the next stage.

Another flaw in the proposed points system is that it doesn't look to reward consistent performances over a period of time. For example, a team that has achieved a first-innings lead in each of their league games (all drawn) could theoretically finish on zero points, while a team that has won one and lost all of its remaining games could be better off, points-wise.

It is true that we won't know how exactly the proposed system will pan out unless we actually try it. But then again, you don't want to actually jump off a high-rise to find out what's waiting for you at the bottom.