Yes, usually; but on some grounds - particularly in the subcontinent - the opposite is true because of dew. I saw South Africa trying to defend a modest total agaist India in Bangalore in 2005 under conditions where bowling was virtually impossible. India's victory in that match gave me no pleasure and I could see that the sentiment was reflected in several faces around me. Above all, ODI cricket is supposed to be exciting and to a large extent that involves the bat dominating the ball and not the other way around. As I mentioned before, 20-20 cricket has come about largely because there have been distinct signs of 'conventional' ODIs flatlining in the last few years.

Powerplays or other forms of juggling with the field setting during the game is not the answer. IMO, they should have a plan whereby the same fielding rules are maintained throughout the match. Why not restrict the number of outfielders beyond the 35-yard line to four throughout the 50 overs? Apart from that one rule, there should be no further restrictions on field-placing ie no compulsory close catchers etc. That would force the fielding captain to use his imagination a bit more in setting the field to restrict runs while trying to get wickets at the same time; and talented batsmen would get a bit more opportunity to 'go over the top'. 4 instead of 5 outfielders might seem like too small a change to make a significant difference in the pace of the game, but I think that it might work. It creates a few more gaps in the field for the batsmen to use, tempting them to take a few more risks than they now do after the PPs, whereas the fielding will have to be a bit more attacking to stop the batsmen from taking those risks. IMO, it is worth a try.