Super Sub Question

[Neil Pickup]

If a batsman gets out, can he be subbed in that innings for another batsman?

And yes, I did notice the misspelling in the title but unfortunately I can't change it.

He can, but it would be a very, very poor bit of tactics...

 

[Prince EWS]

He can, but it would be a very, very poor bit of tactics...

It depends on how you interpret the second use of the word "batsman." If he means someone picked for his batting, then yes, it could happen. However, if he means someone that is able to go in and bat, then no, it cant happen at all, regardless of how wise or unwise it may be.

 

[Neil Pickup]

It depends on how you interpret the second use of the word "batsman." If he means someone picked for his batting, then yes, it could happen. However, if he means someone that is able to go in and bat, then no, it cant happen at all, regardless of how wise or unwise it may be.

Yeah, but why post that when you can be flippant?

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, but why post that when you can be flippant?

Because it saves having to a make another post when he comes in here, reads your flippant post, becomes confused and asks you to elaborate on it.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Because it saves having to a make another post when he comes in here, reads your flippant post, becomes confused and asks you to elaborate on it.

Why do that when I can rely on you to do it for me?

 

[Prince EWS]

Why do that when I can rely on you to do it for me?

Which is exactly why I posted what I did instead of a post full of flippancy.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Which is exactly why I posted what I did instead of a post full of flippancy.

I'm bored now

 

[James]

Does anyone have any proof as to what the law is around supersubs and them getting a "cap" even if they aren't subbed on?

I haven't been able to find anything.

 

[Jono]

I always thought that if you were part of the original XI, but got subbed off without doing anything (ala Simon Jones against Australia during the Natwest Challenge) you are credited with a cap, however if you are the super-sub and are not subbed on, then you do not gain a cap. I was pretty sure of this actually, but now you people have me doubting myself.

This would make sense, seeing as Cricinfo have credited caps this way.

 

[mavric41]

Will the supersub rule make it to the world cup or will it be subbed off for something different and regarded as something which sounded really really good at a drunken board meeting but in practice has been a total failure.

The only way to improve it that I can see it is to pick 2 subs and the captain can use which ever one at his discretion. (13 picked -12 play, the other can be the sub fielder)

 

[GIMH]

The whole thing is up for review soon isn't it? Can't see it being kept on, so I wonder what they will trial next

 

[marc71178]

Ricky's finally said something sensible:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/236150.html

 

[adharcric]

I actually like this Supersub idea. It helps India with their lack of all-rounders. It also gives young talents like Suresh Raina an opportunity in an otherwise overcrowded batting lineup. The toss imbalance is indeed a problem, why not just name the Supersubs after the toss. Or would that make it a clear 12 on 12 contest?

 

[Jono]

I actually like this Supersub idea. It helps India with their lack of all-rounders. It also gives young talents like Suresh Raina an opportunity in an otherwise overcrowded batting lineup. The toss imbalance is indeed a problem, why not just name the Supersubs after the toss. Or would that make it a clear 12 on 12 contest?

Exactly, it helps teams with a lack of allrounders. Hence it is taking away the beauty and value of an allrounder in ODI cricket. That is not good for cricket. We need more of those like Flintoff, Bravo, Pollock etc.

 

[luckyeddie]

Does anyone have any proof as to what the law is around supersubs and them getting a "cap" even if they aren't subbed on?

I haven't been able to find anything.

I'm awaiting a reply from the ECB on this as to whether there is a hard and fast rule. Will post it here upon receipt.

 

[adharcric]

Exactly, it helps teams with a lack of allrounders. Hence it is taking away the beauty and value of an allrounder in ODI cricket. That is not good for cricket. We need more of those like Flintoff, Bravo, Pollock etc.

You find me an Indian version of Flintoff, Bravo or Pollock, and I'm ready to let the "beauty and value of an allrounder" flow freely again, without any Supersub inhibitions. Then again, Pathan is here.

 

[Jono]

As much as I care about the interests of the Indian ODI team, I care moer about the future of the game.

 

[adharcric]

damn. i agree.

 

[James]

I'm awaiting a reply from the ECB on this as to whether there is a hard and fast rule. Will post it here upon receipt.

Thanks Eddie.

It looks like I've found out that it doesn't count as a match for the super sub if he isn't super subbed on:

Take the 5th ODI between India and Pakistan:
http://nz.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/IND_IN_PAK/SCORECARDS/IND_PAK_ODI5_19FEB2006.html

Pakistan full substitute: Faisal Iqbal (unused).

India full substitute: M Kartik (unused).

Both these players weren't used, and their Last ODI stats within their profile isn't updated:
http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/40088.html

So, if the super sub isn't subbed on it doesn't count as a cap