It's a shame the Super Over didn't exist in 2005, would've been carnage (although I think McGrath would probably have outbowled Goughie).That was the one. The England v Australia final in 2005 was also good, as were some other matches in another format between those two that year.
‘Jones…Bowden…Kasprovicz the man to go’.It's a shame the Super Over didn't exist in 2005, would've been carnage (although I think McGrath would probably have outbowled Goughie).
Great scorecard, arguably Geraint's finest hour....
ENG vs AUS Cricket Scorecard, Final at London, July 02, 2005
Live Cricket Scoreboard: Get England vs Australia Final, cricket scorecard, NatWest Series 2005 dated July 02, 2005.www.espncricinfo.com
The tinkering of the rules I got, the powerplay has been a good thing.This illustrates some of the issues which led to the end of the ‘golden era of ODIs’ referenced upthread.
firstly, that a thre match series was squeezed in a few days after the tri series ended - ‘leave them wanting more’ has never been a mantra of cricket administrators.
secondly, the tinkering with the rules. The super sub was happily short lived but soon after got the frequently changing power play rules, a version of which we still have today and which switches the balance of power even further to the batsmen.
He's the hero of @GIMH apparently.It's a shame the Super Over didn't exist in 2005, would've been carnage (although I think McGrath would probably have outbowled Goughie).
Great scorecard, arguably Geraint's finest hour....
ENG vs AUS Cricket Scorecard, Final at London, July 02, 2005
Live Cricket Scoreboard: Get England vs Australia Final, cricket scorecard, NatWest Series 2005 dated July 02, 2005.www.espncricinfo.com
Yeah, this is a good idea. We had a tri series two years ago (?) with Pakistan and Bangladesh, in October/Nov whenever it was, and those two teams basically froze to death.I think I'd quite enjoy a tri-series even if it was T20 honestly.
It'd be cool if we got team A touring team B for a Test series, then team C arrives and they play a tri-series, then team C and B play a Test series
While I do love ODIs I just can't see that being part of their future. The World Cup is great though.
Come on bro this is a stretch. England weren't "forced" to do anything. They chose pre-game to have Solanki as their sub. Then chose to sub out Jones for him because the top order **** the bed. He also second top-scored for them when subbed in! They benefited massively from the sub rule in that game, without it they would have lost even more convincingly. edit: and Katich didn't even bat lolMind you, also from that year was this game featuring that ridiculous substitute rule. England forced to sub Solanki in for Jones before he had bowled, Katich replacing McGrath after he had!!
I wasn't complaining about the result - I leave that kind of thing to Aussies. England, by being rubbish, were forced to bring in Solanki, but it meant that they were a bowler short as a result. And as you pointed out, if you won the toss it effectively meant you had 12 players at your disposal which was why the daft idea was very quickly killed off.Come on bro this is a stretch. England weren't "forced" to do anything. They chose pre-game to have Solanki as their sub. Then chose to sub out Jones for him because the top order **** the bed. He also second top-scored for them when subbed in! They benefited massively from the sub rule in that game, without it they would have lost even more convincingly. edit: and Katich didn't even bat lol
More generally, I don't think there was any issue with the sub rule at all. Most teams chose an all-rounder for the sub. But a lot of teams chose to take a punt by having a specialist as the sub which meant if you lost the toss you basically forfeited a player. Win the toss though and you get an extra batsman. But that was part of the gamble.
Only if you chose to do that. No one forced teams to pick specialist bats as their subs. That's not a problem with the innovation, it was just tactics. You could pick a specialist and be entirely reliant on the toss as to whether you benefit, or pick an all-rounder and have a bob each way.if you won the toss it effectively meant you had 12 players at your disposal which was why the daft idea was very quickly killed off.
I just happened to spot it whilst looking for the Nat West Series Final scorecard. It's no doubt that the sub rule made England more competitive in that game, but in general, it favoured the team who won the toss too much. The only way they could've made it even is if you had 2 subs, one bowler and one bat who you could bring in, thus nullifying the toss advantage. But that's what they've done in the IPL and it's just caused bigger scores due to more batting available.It's funny you brought up the Solanki game because that's actually the one that I usually bring up when extolling the virtues of the super sub experiment. It's a perfect example of the unconventional tactics and innovation that it brought into the game, especially given how well it worked for England (in the 1st innings at least).
Bro you're not listening. It only did that if the team knowingly made that choice. The rule did not favour either team, or have anything to do with the toss. The choices and tactics made by some teams taking the 50/50 risk did that.I just happened to spot it whilst looking for the Nat West Series Final scorecard. It's no doubt that the sub rule made England more competitive in that game, but in general, it favoured the team who won the toss too much.
No that's dumb. Just gives you an extra player and doesn't add anything in the way of tactics or intrigueThe only way they could've made it even is if you had 2 subs, one bowler and one bat who you could bring in, thus nullifying the toss advantage.
Funny how in this example both teams had batsmen as their sub. Clearly the plan was to win toss, bowl first and then sub in your batsman for the Number 11. Whoever won that toss was going to have an advantage…Bro you're not listening. It only did that if the team knowingly made that choice. The rule did not favour either team, or have anything to do with the toss. The choices and tactics made by some teams taking the 50/50 risk did that.
No that's dumb. Just gives you an extra player and doesn't add anything in the way of tactics or intrigue