Substitutes - A Genuine Farce

[a massive zebra]

Teams winning the toss in an ODI match already have a significant advantage. If the ICC/MCC were to design rules to make ODIs fairer (i.e. ensure that the best team wins more often than not), they would surely try to neutralise this arbitrary advantage.

However, the new substitutes rule enhances this arbitrary advantage, as only the toss-winning captain will be able to take full advantage of his substitute.

For example, imagine Ponting & Vaughan going to the toss, both teams having declared a batsman as 12th man. The winner of the toss in this scenario bowls first, using the substitute in their innings later. The losing captain is stymied, as to call in the extra batsman immediately foregos the bowling penetration later, but delaying the substitution makes no sense whatsoever.

Whichever way the cookie crumbles, the toss-winning captain has a team of (say) 7 batsmen and 5 bowlers (one of whom doesn't bat), versus the opposition with (say) 6 batsmen and 5 bowlers.

There is, IMHO, only one practical solution to this - abolish this new rule that has already been tried and thrown out in both Australia and South Africa.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Honestly, I agree. The substitute rule is "fun", but in terms of practically influencing cricket in a positive way, it's a long way off the mark. Not only does it, as you suggested, make the toss even more significant (as if after today we need more of that!), but it also undermines the all-rounder role which is so important in ODIs, and removes the need to select a balanced squad to meet the requirement of both 5 competent bowlers and enough batsmen to make a good total.

In no way is it a good change.

The powerplay things are king of lame and corny, but I think it's a good change overall. The subs, definately not.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The ICC has already shown that they're stubborn enough to stay the course with this rule. I can't see them snapping it back so quickly. I don't see any real need to change ODI cricket, but they have, so be it. The ICC likes to make their mistakes work. After all, look at Bangladesh.

 

[greg]

Actually there is a very simple solution to making this rule operate 'fairly' - simply change the rules so the captains announce their 12 at the toss but only have to choose their starting XI after the toss decision has been made. Whether it is a good idea in general is another matter...

 

[Scaly piscine]

If they really want a substitute rule like other sports then they should allow a team to name 3 (or whatever) substitutes before the game, then a team will have probably 2 bowlers and a batsman to choose from so both sides actually get an advantage from it AND there's a bit more thought involved. Anyway as said before, I don't like the substitute rule.

 

[age_master]

Actually there is a very simple solution to making this rule operate 'fairly' - simply change the rules so the captains announce their 12 at the toss but only have to choose their starting XI after the toss decision has been made. Whether it is a good idea in general is another matter...

i thought this was what was going to happen, obviousbly too logical for the ICC

 

[marc71178]

Naming the exact 11 after the toss would IMO be the worst rule change yet.

 

[Prince EWS]

Actually there is a very simple solution to making this rule operate 'fairly' - simply change the rules so the captains announce their 12 at the toss but only have to choose their starting XI after the toss decision has been made. Whether it is a good idea in general is another matter...

I agree with that.

 

[Sir Redman]

The powerplay things are king of lame and corny, but I think it's a good change overall. The subs, definately not.

Yeah I agree. "Powerplay" and "Supersub" have such a corny sound

 

[deeps]

yup after the toss is what i thgt wld happen

OR

have 12 players.... only 11 can bat... so one is picked as a specialist bowler...like in the aus domestic one dayers


i like the 5 over powerplays

 

[Deja moo]

Actually there is a very simple solution to making this rule operate 'fairly' - simply change the rules so the captains announce their 12 at the toss but only have to choose their starting XI after the toss decision has been made. Whether it is a good idea in general is another matter...

Spot on. It would actually fulfill the basic purpose of the substitute rule ie to weed out part timers as much as possible.

 

[James90]

I think both rules suck bigtime. It's certainly not a neccessary change, if it's not broke don't fix it and I liked cricket as it was. If any changes were to come into place they should have been tried out in Twenty20 first

 

[Deja moo]

I think both rules suck bigtime. It's certainly not a neccessary change, if it's not broke don't fix it and I liked cricket as it was. If any changes where to come into place they should have been tried out in Twenty20 first

Impossible.

The ICC does not recognise the format and hence cannot try out stuff there.