Is cricket need rules of substitution?

[shery_rsa]

too much injuries in these days bcoz of too much cricket so y not icc think about again rule super sub.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

No Supersub. Definately cut the amount of cricket played, or allow larger squads like Rugby teams

 

[RoboRocks]

I don't see how the Supersub rule would make that much of a difference.

 

[shery_rsa]

I don't see how the Supersub rule would make that much of a difference.

way icc implement dat rule was not right, if captain picks any player in squad any time like in soccer then u can see how much differnce it will make.

 

[RoboRocks]

way icc implement dat rule was not right, if captain picks any player in squad any time like in soccer then u can see how much differnce it will make.

But substituting one player isn't going make a great difference besides the supersub rule was one of the worst rules the game has had.

 

[manee]

too much injuries in these days bcoz of too much cricket so y not icc think about again rule super sub.

Try to type in proper English not txt speak please.

 

[shery_rsa]

today wat happens to shoaib every one he is injured during game if we have substitute rule so it can help pakistan to bring another bowler.

Try to type in proper English not txt speak please.

sorry for that.

 

[RoboRocks]

today wat happens to shoaib every one he is injured during game if we have substitute rule so it can help pakistan to bring another bowler.


sorry for that.

Look, Cricket has always been an 11 a side game and we don't need to have the supersub for the sake of injuries. Just decrease the lack of cricket being played like Zorax said. Its that simple.

 

[barmyarmy]

I agree that it can be a problem, especially in a test match, if one of your main bowlers breaks down but I can't see there being a fairly applied rule to overcome it. Any substitute for injuries rule would be abused as it's impossible to assess at exactly what point a bowler becomes unable to bowl.
It seems to me that this is just another of those things in cricket which ultimately favours certain teams in the short term but evens out over time.

 

[manee]

I agree that it can be a problem, especially in a test match, if one of your main bowlers breaks down but I can't see there being a fairly applied rule to overcome it. Any substitute for injuries rule would be abused as it's impossible to assess at exactly what point a bowler becomes unable to bowl.

I think there could be a rule but the rule should be that it must only be enforced in the first innings of the match and can only be done once to prevent abuse. The rule can effectively mean a team could pull out a player who passed the fitness test but broke down early in the match, ala Shoaib Akhtar.

 

[usy]

NAh lets keep it classic.

 

[Master Khan]

Well the player need to get tired so he can get out easily

 

[aussie1st]

It's not a thing that happens every test match, if your side is unlucky enough to have a guy that picks up the injury in the match then you have to hope your other bowlers can pick up his load. We've lived with no subs for over 100s years no point in changing it now.

 

[SciD]

No need for any subs in Cricket just as good without them. Teams like Pakistan should not select players like Shoaib who they know will break down in match. If they are selected then should have ample cover for them.

Anyways a sub fielder is alwasys given to the team.