full subs

[Flem274*]

born from the sri lanka v south africa thread

im interested. it could raise the overall standard of the game. if you can fire your bowlers at an opposition for a day then switch one or two out for more, it means we get more peak cricketer and less bits and pieces player filling in overs. plus it showcases depth, because thin sides will not keep up.

occasionally some boomer mentions there used to be no subs in rugby but decades on nobody cares and subs are just another tactical part of the game. there are international players selected as specialist reserves to come on and be 'impact players' plus some positions now only play half a game. it doesn't cheapen the experience at all.

i have no issue with cricket as is, but i think full subs could be an interesting new twist and we'd finally get rid of day 1 bowling injuries destroying test matches which they do in most cases, melbourne excepted.

 

[Shady Slim]

ISR

 

[cnerd123]

Game ending injury due to external blow/collision, or a confirmed concussion?
Like-for-like sub, nominate pre-toss

Game ending internal injury, either due to pre-existing injury/overexertion/lack of fitness
No sub

Not particularly a fan of proper Subs that can be drafted in at any point, football style, but I think if you allow teams to field 13 players and can only allow 11 to bat + 11 on the field at any point, and let sides roll through them then that could make for some interesting viewing. Giving each side an extra bowler and batsman in effect.

 

[trundler]

I draw a line at the ***ual stuff. A 24/7 sub just sounds like you want to abuse your partner.

 

[Daemon]

Game ending injury due to external blow/collision, or a confirmed concussion?
Like-for-like sub, nominate pre-toss

Game ending internal injury, either due to pre-existing injury/overexertion/lack of fitness
No sub

Not particularly a fan of proper Subs that can be drafted in at any point, football style, but I think if you allow teams to field 13 players and can only allow 11 to bat + 11 on the field at any point, and let sides roll through them then that could make for some interesting viewing. Giving each side an extra bowler and batsman in effect.

Yeah this.

Anything that can be faked goes into the second category. We probably need independent doctors to assess this though.

 

[cnerd123]

There are currently rules in place about when a player can or cannot have a runner during a game. I'll dig it up later, but I suspect simply extending that to cover Sub players as well would be appropriate.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Just because other sports use subs (or do anything else for that matter) is not a reason to introduce them in cricket.

 

[GotSpin]

Nah, against

 

[Daemon]

Nah, against

Alright then I’m convinced

 

[OverratedSanity]

100% for. Would make for fun combination changes mid test and a super sub coming in and turning a match is something great which the sport is missing out on.

 

[OverratedSanity]

As an aside, what exactly is the problem with just having subs as a tactic in tests? We agree that its fine for certain injuries, but why not just have a set number , say 3, available for use even for non injury situations. You're all saying physical endurance is a part of the game (although I'd argue it barely contributes to the actual viewing pleasure of a test match experience), which is fine, but imo cricket is probably missing out by not giving teams the flexibility to switch things around if things arent working. I think it could make for a far more fun and potentially higher quality sport if they were an accepted part of cricket and teams were given the opportunity to bring on a super sub if one of their starting XI is stinking things up.

Just give everyone 3 subs to use as they fit across the 5 days, regardless of the like for like thing imo. If you want to change team composition, so be it. Want to rest one of your bowlers after a gruelling two days in the field and sub in a batsman, yeah why not? I think the downside of some of the players not being tested on all aspects of the game fully is massively outweighed by a potentially more interesting game to follow, good players on the verge of breaking down being given rest so they can actually play more games later leading to an overall higher level of quality.

Physical endurance is probably the single least interesting thing that test cricket actually tests.

Well said

 

[GotSpin]

Alright then I’m convinced

Good

Anyway, part of Test Cricket is selecting your XI and taking the risks and rewards from that. It would be a real shame to mess with that

 

[OverratedSanity]

Good

Anyway, part of Test Cricket is selecting your XI and taking the risks and rewards from that. It would be a real shame to mess with that

If your XI isnt working, and you decide to sub out a player mid game, that just adds to that risk reward, doesnt it? The sub could backfire if he gets owned

 

[StephenZA]

I`m not a big fan of having subs. Biggest reason I would consider them though is because players supposed alpha mentality... all very admirable but I do think that many players hurt themselves far more than they need to by trying to be brave and fight through the injury when they should not. If subs where available then that attitude may change a bit.

 

[cnerd123]

If your XI isnt working, and you decide to sub out a player mid game, that just adds to that risk reward, doesnt it? The sub could backfire if he gets owned

While I'm a traditionalist and not a big fan of tampering with Test matches too much, I always hoped the 'Suber Sub' concept in ODIs would eventually evolve into the football style sub system. 3 subs on the bench, use them whenever you want at any point of the game.

Teams could then effectively field an extra batsman and an extra bowler with no risk, which means improved quality of cricket. Less of a reliance on on part timers and bits and pieces cricketers. More fun cricket. And ODIs are a bastardisation of the real game anyways, so who cares if we **** around with it?

 

[GotSpin]

If your XI isnt working, and you decide to sub out a player mid game, that just adds to that risk reward, doesnt it? The sub could backfire if he gets owned

Yeah I just don't think there's any need to change the tactics in tests.

 

[Spikey]

I'm pretty liberal in terms of subs. I would like it greatly expanded but it took yonks to get approval for something as obvious as concussion subs, so subs for non-brain related injures will probably take forever

 

[Flem274*]

another fun thing i just thought of is subs would take the toss out of the equation without removing the potential for fun conditions, so curators would feel a lot more free to play around with their pitches and definitely not have the fear of producing a terrible toss dependent game which led to some severe pitch homogeneity around the world in the 00s.

 

[harsh.ag]

Am for the football style subs too (though only 2 per game at max). Would really raise the quality of the games, lower injury rates (esp grave injury rates), and more people get to play test cricket.

 

[GIMH]

My instinct is to be against but really there's no good reason why. I was against 5 subs being allowed in footy and now I've already accepted it after a month or two.

The format of cricket doesn't lend itself to subs as well though, eg subbing a batsman in the middle of their innings would not seem right. If you could have a few players on the bench though it'd make for some interesting tactical decisions. Spinners who aren't worldies benched for the first innings. Spare batsman on the bench to come for a bowler if you're batting for a draw. David Warner left on the bench in England unless Australia have managed a first innings lead. Etc