Substitutes to be allowed in ODI's

[C_C]

I dislike all these rules, particularly the substitution rule.
Substitutions should be allowed only in the case of a serious injury.....otherwise all this does is increases the gap between the good and the not so good- something that is detrimental to the sport.
also, screwing around with the '5 over blocks of fielding restrictions' will make bad gameplay most of the time.......it aint gonna be fun seeing good players choked early on and then the field being relaxed when the score is 180/7.

 

[Pratters]

Okay the substitution rule really makes it NOT CRICKET as stated by some one earlier.

The 5 over thing makes cricket so muh more complex.

Regarding the chosing of first XI, a point raised by Neil in the beginning, if a team choses the squad before the toss, which is being said, and goes with an extra batsman, they are doomed if the other team wins the toss and decided to bat having a disadvantage from the beginning.

If a team goes in with an extra bowler, and the opposite happens, they are at a disadvantage again.

So it would mean teams would have to go with a safe XI and substituting usually in the eventuallity of some one not performing that well? Then the idea of the 5th bowler being used is limited.

Suppose India and Pakistan are playing. Both chose regular XIs. India won the toss and decided to bat first. Can Pakistan go in for a 5th bowler considering they will be a batsman short while batting? No. Doesnt that leave Pakistan with a distinct disadvantage?

The team batting first on the other hand can decide to not exercise the option of the extra batsman if their batsmen are playing well and bring in a bowler in the second inning, or, bring in an extra batsman if there is a collapse if they are say headed for a very low score and consider bowling with a 5 pronged bowling attack instead of a 6 bowler option a team like South Africa has.

 

[Pratters]

Okay 12th person has to be declared earlier. Then a bit of what I said earlier gets discounted. But does indeed become a lottery with the substitutes.

 

[Barney Rubble]

It will be very interesting to see how the substitute rule affects team selection. What they were suggesting is that teams pick their key all-rounder as their 12th man all the time, e.g. England pick an extra batsman or bowler, and Flintoff as 12th man.

This is because if you bat first, you can get the extra batsman in early, and when he gets out you bring in Flintoff to bat and then bowl his ten. If you bowl first in this scenario, it changes a little, because if Flintoff comes in for, say, Darren Gough, he can only bowl the overs that Goughie doesn't bowl, so if Gough bowls 7 of his 10, Freddie can only bowl 3. This makes things a little more complicated.

However, I think to begin with, teams will simply choose a first-choice XI, and bring in the substitute if they feel it is necessary. Most teams, I imagine, will choose a batsman as the sub to begin with, and bring him in if they bat second. I don't think many captains will be trying any big risks or bizarre innovations with the system first up.

 

[Pratters]

I think Fraser is spot on when he says

I think the 12th man will be used on most occasions by teams in one-dayers.

I also think most teams will end up picking an all-rounder as their substitute.

If you do well with the bat then you have the benefit of an extra bowler. Likewise, if you are struggling with the bat then you have the option of bringing on an extra batsman.

The later a captain uses the 12th man then the better position he will be in to make a decision that will have a greater effect on his side.

 

[honestbharani]

I think the new rules would make the game more interesting. But I guess the substitute rule does make it NOT CRICKET, as many have pointed out earlier.

 

[howardj]

But I guess the substitute rule does make it NOT CRICKET, as many have pointed out earlier.

For sure. One of the best things about cricket is that its fabric is so different to that of other sports. What other sport can you rumble along for five days and still not get a result? Put simply, cricket is unique. So why borrow from football/soccer and have substitutes? It just alters the whole fabric of the game. The only reason for it, is because it's fashionable; because it's done in football/soccer.

I can understand the change behind the over restrictions rule - the middle overs are enough to put anyone to sleep. Thus, there's a reason for the rule change - the change improves on what currently exists. But what's the reason behind the substitution rule? How does this change improve the game? It doesn't. It changes the fabric of the game, just for the sake of change. The ICC stands condemned.

 

[honestbharani]

I still think that the idea of allowing bowlers to bowl 1 extra over for every wicket they get was the best. It was not my idea. I think it was someone else at CW who suggested it but it seems he has gone away or he has forgotten the idea, but I still think THAT is the rule that should be tried. Can we all like sign some petition and write to ICC or something?

 

[Mister Wright]

I want to know if you can substitute a batsman mid-innings (I would hope not!). Say if the batsman is batting too slow, or doesn't look in good touch. Can you substitute him with a batsman that you have as your substiture? I assume a bolwer doesn't have to complete their 10 before they are substituted.

 

[shaka]

Shane Warne say's that he will return to ODI cricket if these rules are implemented. link is below:
http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,15762404-23212,00.html

 

[Pratters]

Shane Warne say's that he will return to ODI cricket if these rules are implemented. link is below:
http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,15762404-23212,00.html

haha. That he would return was expected. That he would take the excuse of the new rules is a joke.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

haha. That he would return was expected. That he would take the excuse of the new rules is a joke.

Oh well, happy to see him returning anyway. Warne's always had the ability to turn matches with astonishing spells in ODIs. I can't see him having lost that in the two years.

 

[Pratters]

Oh well, happy to see him returning anyway. Warne's always had the ability to turn matches with astonishing spells in ODIs. I can't see him having lost that in the two years.

Warne is indeed needed by Australia as the number 1 spin option to be a strong contender for World Cup 2007.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Warne is indeed needed by Australia as the number 1 spin option to be a strong contender for World Cup 2007.

I hate to be nit-picky, but I reckon that Australia would still be a "contender" for the World Cup 2007 without Warne. They'd have more chances of winning it with him in the side - sure - but they'll be a "contender" with or without him.

 

[Pratters]

I hate to be nit-picky, but I reckon that Australia would still be a "contender" for the World Cup 2007 without Warne. They'd have more chances of winning it with him in the side - sure - but they'll be a "contender" with or without him.

I used strong contender and I mean it. Can Hogg keep the pressure on as Warne can? No. Australia knows this and has no other option but toaccept back Warne.

Not the best comparison but if Mushtaq Ahmed suddenly decides to make a come back to one day cricket, would he make the Pakistan one day side? No.

Its unfortunate Australia have not found a good enough second alternative to Warne. Ofcourse Hogg is a good one day player and would make some other international one day sides. But is he of a good enough class like the other players in the XI of Australia?

Yes Australia will be a contender and maybe even the favourites even without Warne. But to be a strong contender, a team far ahead of the rest, they need Warne.

Hogg coming in just would mean a slight pressure off and an opportunity for other teams for some breather. With Warne, Australia can have the strangle hold much better.

 

[vic_orthdox]

But to be a strong contender, a team far ahead of the rest, they need Warne.

This is the problem I have with what your saying. "Strong contender" and "a team far ahead of the rest" aren't meaning the same thing at all.

I don't disagree with what your saying it its entirety, but the point (which is nit-picky) that I'm emphasising is that "strong contender" usually refers to the top 3 or 4 competing at the top, while (it appears) your saying that without Warne Australia will not be a "strong contender", while at the same time saying that they'll be one of the favourites for the WC.

Yeah, nit-picky, I know.

 

[Pratters]

This is the problem I have with what your saying. "Strong contender" and "a team far ahead of the rest" aren't meaning the same thing at all.

I don't disagree with what your saying it its entirety, but the point (which is nit-picky) that I'm emphasising is that "strong contender" usually refers to the top 3 or 4 competing at the top, while (it appears) your saying that without Warne Australia will not be a "strong contender", while at the same time saying that they'll be one of the favourites for the WC.

Yeah, nit-picky, I know.

Okay I agree

Cheers

 

[nts]

this'll effectively mean bigger scores on batsmens' tracks, more wickets on bowlers' tracks. On even ones it wont make any difference except less getting annoyed because one duffer goes for loads of runs or gives his wicket away, spoiling the others' hard work. better competition.
Seems alright to me!

in odi's i reckon they should have a fielding sub too. that way we could get rid of the Geraint Jones week link!

starting 11 must be stated after the toss or this sub rule is just a p. take!

 

[marc71178]

No, mkaing the 11 named after the toss is much worse than before.

 

[Deja moo]

Okay, I dont think anyone has yet commentated on the third and most important IMO rule change.....Umpires can now refer any decision to the third ump.