Batsmen who can keep and can bowl some filthy offspinners.Stubbs gets a wicket. Isn't he a keeper?
Did he get injured or why hasn't he batted yet?
Batsmen who can keep and can bowl some filthy offspinners.Stubbs gets a wicket. Isn't he a keeper?
He's not injured. Ricky's holding him back.Batsmen who can keep and can bowl some filthy offspinners.
Did he get injured or why hasn't he batted yet?
Made no sense. If they wanted a safety option then surely the one to hold back is hope.He's not injured. Ricky's holding him back.
Post made @3.33
The impact sub was added so teams had specialist bats facing as many balls as possible and on paper had all 20 overs covered by specialist bowlers and not junk part timers. There's obviously arguments around all-rounder development, but purely from a cricket quality/entertainment perspective I don't see the issue.Rohit on Impact Player rule: 'I'm not a big fan'
He says it is holding back the development of allrounders, with the likes of Dube and Washington not getting a chance to bowl in the IPLwww.espncricinfo.com
BRohit with the truth bombs.
If they remove the impact sub and simply allow injury subs, and go back to 1 bouncer per over, this would be so much better as almost every other innovation seems to have been good.
Its just an idea of now getting used to 12 players than 11 and while quality is one aspect, balance is another one and cricket has always made it important for teams to find a balance, esp. in LO cricket.The impact sub was added so teams had specialist bats facing as many balls as possible and on paper had all 20 overs covered by specialist bowlers and not junk part timers. There's obviously arguments around all-rounder development, but purely from a cricket quality/entertainment perspective I don't see the issue.