12 Players and Substitutions?!

[lord_of_darkness]

Just read the news from the ICC discussions.. and some of the main things they had was to start introducing 12 players in an ODI match to make things better for the viewers.. and to allow substitutions for slow player batting rates..

I dont think either of this will be good for the good old veiwers of cricket..!

What are the other things on the discussion.. and what are your opinions..?

 

[chooka_nick]

No. Sorry. I can't picture that at all. Keep trying, guys

 

[shaka]

I hope it does not happen

 

[Prince EWS]

The CC also recommended the introduction of soccer-style substitutes for international cricket wherein a player could be replaced at any stage of a match but would then be ruled out for the remainder of the match. Both the substitute and the substituted player would receive a cap and the replacement could happen at any stage of the match, including during a batting innings.

Hmm...

Sounds a bit silly at first, but the more I think about it, the more I like it.

 

[Pratters]

If you want to make ODI cricket more exciting, give a bit more to the bowlers from the pitch, let the fielding team decide the period they want to use the 15 overs restrictions and stuff.

The 12 man thing is just stupid.

 

[dinu23]

well they recomend reducing the restricted overs down to 10 at the start of the innings. then the fielding team has two more blocks comprising 5 overs each where they can use at any stage of the match. I think that's not a bad idea.

and alowing to substitute a player in the middle of the match will effect the tactics of the fielding team where they will have to think again of there plan. that will be pretty interesting to see me thinks.

 

[Natman20]

It sounds pretty stupid to me

 

[chaminda_00]

Man that sounds pretty stupid, you could have McGarth or Murali finish their overs and then get replaced by Mike Hussey or Arnold so they don't have to bat.

I like the 10 over thing and the umpire stuff sounds ok.

 

[marc71178]

If you want to make ODI cricket more exciting, give a bit more to the bowlers from the pitch, let the fielding team decide the period they want to use the 15 overs restrictions and stuff.

That on it's own won't work.

There has to be some sort of restrictions, because otherwise there's chances that the batting side don't get any benefit from the 15 overs!

 

[southern man]

I like it, would add abit more to the game.

 

[chaminda_00]

That on it's own won't work.

There has to be some sort of restrictions, because otherwise there's chances that the batting side don't get any benefit from the 15 overs!

I think the whole point is so the bowling team get more of a benefit of the restrictions.

 

[vic_orthdox]

So the 12 man thing, is it effectively just like having a designated bowler and batsman, a la the ING/Mercantile Mutual Cup a few years ago? But you just rotate fieldsmen at will?

 

[chaminda_00]

So the 12 man thing, is it effectively just like having a designated bowler and batsman, a la the ING/Mercantile Mutual Cup a few years ago? But you just rotate fieldsmen at will?

Nah it like Football (soccer for unenlightened), once a players gets sub he can't take part in the game anymore. It more to help sides who have injuries to batsmen or bowlers. But people will take advantage of it and swap batsmen for bowlers and vice versa

 

[Deja moo]

Hope they chuck away the idea. Teams without all rounders would benefit ( India, Australia etc), but it still sounds bad.

 

[Prince EWS]

I like it, but I hope they make you name your 12 (and which is your 12th) BEFORE the toss, or you will basically just be playing with 12 instead of 11.

If they make it select it before the toss, you would really have to consider it. It would also create a lot more to think about at the toss - eg selecting to bowl could make the other side WASTE their replacement by replacing a player straight away if they had a batsman as 12th man and a side with 5 specialist bowlers.

I really think it would add to the game.

 

[Simon]

its stupid... case closed...

 

[Richard]

The proposed changes to the field-restrictions are utterly ludicrous... substitutes are utterly ludicrous, it's never been done in cricket and there's no good reason to start doing so...
Most absurdly of all, it's supposedly to make it more appealing... sorry, WTF? Are most ODIs not sell-outs now? Because as far as I'm aware ODIs have never been more popular and the last thing we need is to make them more complicated and risk breaking a fixed thing.

 

[Jono]

We're low enough on champion all-rounders as it is. Now the idea of being one is useless when a team can sub a top quality bowler for a top quality batsman and vice-versa whenever they require to do so.

 

[marc71178]

I think the whole point is so the bowling team get more of a benefit of the restrictions.

But the batting line-up could feasibly have no overs with the restrictions in place - which is more than a tad unfair.

 

[vic_orthdox]

From an ICC perspective, as they try to grow the game in the minnow countries, and attempt to get more and more people to watch it, why would they make the game more complicated? If you look at "the world game", the beauty of it is its simplicity. It'd make the game harder to understand for people gaining first exposure to the sport.

It reekes of Walter Lindrum/Eddie Charlton/Michael Schumacher syndrome to me. Just because one side is having a purple patch, we'll rig the rules to try and fix it. Even though the "problem" is temporary, and the solution is pretty much permanent.

At least it might make Test Cricket more popular.