Never been the case for wicketkeepers until recently.Yeah I mean there has been no batsmen ever who have needed subs for fielding but batted coz of injury in the history of cricket. Lol.
Did not realize every point of yours was the same as your username. Like I said, the salt is magnificent.Never been the case for wicketkeepers until recently.
Hey I just thought how NZ could have solved the bowling lineup conundrum - select five bowlers, leave Blundell out but sub him back in to keep wicket for the entire match.
It's cynical tactics, quite blatant.Did not realize every point of yours was the same as your username. Like I said, the salt is magnificent.
So why the **** should a batsman get a substitute fielder, say a specialist slip fielder or a short leg fielder who gets replaced by the same specialist fielder all game but the injured guy can bat, and yet same can't happen for a keeper. The only ones being cynical here are a couple of NZ supporters. FWIW, Saha is a far better keeper than anyone else in India and trust me, none of our bowlers would want Saha to not keep if he could.It's cynical tactics, quite blatant.
Was always going to happen when the ICC changed the rules, but that doesn't mean we can't criticise it.
It doesnt really make sense though. Saha is a great keeper and a Bharath is seen as a better batsman at the moment. If India really wanted to game the system they're doing a **** job of it and giving NZ an advantage.It's cynical tactics, quite blatant.
Was always going to happen when the ICC changed the rules, but that doesn't mean we can't criticise it.
Because Saha is literally as fresh as a daisy when he bats. Injury notwithstanding.So why the **** should a batsman get a substitute fielder, say a specialist slip fielder or a short leg fielder who gets replaced by the same specialist fielder all game but the injured guy can bat, and yet same can't happen for a keeper. The only ones being cynical here are a couple of NZ supporters. FWIW, Saha is a far better keeper than anyone else in India and trust me, none of our bowlers would want Saha to not keep if he could.
Fair, it likely wasn't India's intention and for the most part I was just having a lend. It's still slightly off that Saha doesn't have to do the hours of hard work keeping either side of run-scoring, but meh... though I can now see how a team might properly abuse this in future if they want to.It doesnt really make sense though. Saha is a great keeper and a Bharath is seen as a better batsman at the moment. If India really wanted to game the system they're doing a **** job of it and giving NZ an advantage.
This doesn't appear to be the case at all.India is down a bowler
Just saw him come back, but the point still stands.This doesn't appear to be the case at all.
Did u even see him bat? Or any injured batsman ever bat?Because Saha is literally as fresh as a daisy when he bats. Injury notwithstanding.
Thats not particularly relevant.Yeah I mean there has been no batsmen ever who have needed subs for fielding but batted coz of injury in the history of cricket. Lol.