Like for like injury replacements

[Spikey]

in the particular case of the final, we could simply get rid of over restrictions, which are extremely stupid.

I personally would be ok with a designated batter/bowler too.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

I don't think I'd want injury replacements in the limited overs formats but it'd definitely be awful for Tests, where endurance is a key aspect of the game. Be like allowing subs part way through a triathlon.

 

[GIMH]

in the particular case of the final, we could simply get rid of over restrictions, which are extremely stupid.

I personally would be ok with a designated batter/bowler too.

Wasn’t limited overs cricket really tedious in the days before over restrictions

 

[Daemon]

Pratt was MOTS for England in 2005

Not a terrible poster but was pratters really that good in ‘05

 

[Burgey]

Not a terrible poster but was pratters really that good in ‘05

I will happily answer your question, but first you must send me a picture of yourself...

 

[Spikey]

Wasn’t limited overs cricket really tedious in the days before over restrictions

can't past judgement, but a quick check of the english OD comp suggests that over restrictions were introduced from the 3rd comp (1965) so they made their minds up quickly. this is before they introduced fielding restrictions I think so not sure we can read too much into it. going through Greg Chappell's first few ODIs, although the total overs in the innings changed in those games (ranging from 35 to 55 overs), it all follows the pattern we have today of a bowler being capped at 20% of the total allowed overs (ie 7 overs, 11 overs)

I don't see why in the modern era it'd be anymore tedious than some shitty no-rounder getting a gig and having to bowl. at the very least we could break up the pattern and allow bowlers to bowl 25% of the allowed overs

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Juggling the bowling attack is part of the art of One Day cricket.

 

[Spikey]

yeah and it's a ****ing **** art

 

[Shady Slim]

i'm one of the posters most likely to take literally any excuse to denigrate or detract from english sporting achievements and i think this is an awful idea

over restrictions are good and if you build a team with no sixth bowler wiggle room for an injury and you get an injury, you made your bed tbh.

 

[Ashes81]

Most teams in all sports push the rules to the limits to gain an advantage and cricket is no different.

In cricket, whether it be sledging, aggressive appealing to put pressure on the umpire, doctoring pitches, claiming catches that have hit the ground, not walking, all teams have done all of the above at some point.

Sub fielders is no different. I'm sure most teams have done it at times, some more than others and England more than most.

However, I genuinely don't think we did it in this tournament with Jordan as you wouldn't take Livingston off unless he was injured, he's an exceptional fielder.

 

[Bijed]

Would people's views be any different if the subs were restricted to 'freak' occurrences, for example a bowler collides with a batsman whilst trying to field the ball during a quick tip-and-run and unluckily one of them tears a muscle as a result of going down badly or something? Not really a failure of endurance in that case, although like-for-like would be always be a concern in any scenario (for batsmen, I guess if someone would be acceptable as a concussion sub, they'd be fine to replace for other injuries too)

 

[honestbharani]

If they have medicos around to judge concussion subs, I see no reason why we cant have injury subs. Always felt it was an unfair part of the game.

 

[cnerd123]

I like the idea of tactical subs for limited overs cricket tbh. Name a 13 man squad, pick your starting 11 and 2 subs prior to the toss, and at any moment of the game you can make one substitution. The sub replaces the original player completely - so if the original player has bowled 2 overs, the sub can only bowl 8. If the original player has been dismissed, the sub cannot bat.

Not a fan for a multi-day cricket tho.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Would people's views be any different if the subs were restricted to 'freak' occurrences, for example a bowler collides with a batsman whilst trying to field the ball during a quick tip-and-run and unluckily one of them tears a muscle as a result of going down badly or something? Not really a failure of endurance in that case, although like-for-like would be always be a concern in any scenario (for batsmen, I guess if someone would be acceptable as a concussion sub, they'd be fine to replace for other injuries too)

A little different. I can get behind this but I don't think it's really necessary. Concussion subs are to protect players who will play on so as not to let the team down, which isn't going to happen if you collide and break your leg. Hard to fake an unbroken leg.

 

[Prince EWS]

I really ****ing hate this for Tests because the conditions change so much and the game is effectively turn-based - you never get someone who is really like for like. Part of the challenge of Tests is staying fit over the course of the five days too, IMO.

I've come to accept it could work for T20 cricket though. Captains should have to name who their like-for-like replacement player for each of their eleven before the toss and the umpire and the opposition captain should have to agree to them to avoid any absolute ****ery, but I'm okay with it in this format. I don't think staying fit for 40 overs is really a key part of the game either.

 

[Jack1]

Poor Jack.

OK.

 

[_00_deathscar]

I like the idea of tactical subs for limited overs cricket tbh. Name a 13 man squad, pick your starting 11 and 2 subs prior to the toss, and at any moment of the game you can make one substitution. The sub replaces the original player completely - so if the original player has bowled 2 overs, the sub can only bowl 8. If the original player has been dismissed, the sub cannot bat.

Not a fan for a multi-day cricket tho.

Yea - basically this. Don't mind it for T20s, keep tests as is.

 

[Adders]

This site has always been full of trolls, but I get banned sometimes for ages. It's just funny at this point to me and I am just awaiting to get banned for nothing again.

Didn't have to wait long.

 

[ParwazHaiJunoon]

My take:-

All 15 players can take part in LOI match.
Anyone can bat or bowl.
For Fielding team, max 11 players are allowed on field.
No one can bowl overs >10 in ODIs & >4 in T20s.
For batting team, max 10 Outs are allowed.

 

[DriveClub]

I remember they trialled supersubs around 2005-6 as a tactical play but it didn't work. It gave 1 team an unfair advantage depending on who won the toss.