Reintroduction of the Substitute rule

[War]

Firstly i'm not a fan of T20s. But given how T20s have evolved i think having this rule back again would be pretty cool. Especially since T20 isn't proper cricket & basically is the format that will be used to generate future income for the sport - and potentially attract other nations to the game. The substitute rule woule be perfect for this format i think.

As most may remember the way ICC structured the rule the last time crica 2005-2006, where by the captain had to name his sub before the toss instead of after the toss. That was quite dumb. I was always a fan of it & i reckon if the rule wasn't so poorly structured by the ICC in the first place many people wouldn't have a problem with it today.

Opinions??

 

[stefan]

Personally I like the sub for all cricket. I just think it needs to be like football where you name your bench and then you can only use a set number from there. Not naming the sub before the game or using all subs. But I think naming 3 subs and having the option to use 1 during the game is a good idea.

 

[War]

Personally I like the sub for all cricket. I just think it needs to be like football where you name your bench and then you can only use a set number from there. Not naming the sub before the game or using all subs. But I think naming 3 subs and having the option to use 1 during the game is a good idea.

Hmm not sure if should be too similar to football with the subs. The beauty about cricket is that its a "balanced team sport". So we shouldn't want to to change to too much. With the substitute rule, you just have one sub at your disposal which is enough i'd say.

 

[angryangy]

The biggest problem with all these rules is that the captains can't use them. The supersub could have been used to buffer teams against losing the toss, but they usually used it to disadvantage themselves. Similarly with the batting powerplay, teams frequently hold it off until their tailed is batting.

As I've said before, I think the best change in T20 could be the the removal of bowler restrictions. There's really little need for them. In a lot of games, teams will still be desperate for another bowler. However in the ones that aren't so favourable to batsmen, it would be nice to see bowlers having the batsmen on their toes, rather than the batsmen somehow getting away with a feeble innings.

 

[Insomniac]

The biggest problem with all these rules is that the captains can't use them. The supersub could have been used to buffer teams against losing the toss, but they usually used it to disadvantage themselves. Similarly with the batting powerplay, teams frequently hold it off until their tailed is batting.

As I've said before, I think the best change in T20 could be the the removal of bowler restrictions. There's really little need for them. In a lot of games, teams will still be desperate for another bowler. However in the ones that aren't so favourable to batsmen, it would be nice to see bowlers having the batsmen on their toes, rather than the batsmen somehow getting away with a feeble innings.

But then teams like Pakistan and India will be playing only 1-2 specialist bowlers, with batting all the way down to 10.

In Pakistan's case, play Gul and Aamer as your specialist bowlers (and Aamer and Gul can hold a bat, so batting to #11), and pack the side with batsmen. Afridi can bowl, as can Alam.

It's not a great idea in my opinion.

 

[pcfan123]

Its just not cricket, and Twenty20 (as much as I detest it) is cricket

 

[afridi118]

good idea and nice point insomniac. but if they put a rule in that like cannot be an opener and opening bowler and cant bowl in power play.
will be a good idea for t20 though.

 

[rahuldravidfan]

Three Words - Supersub Vikram Solanki. I remember watching that match and England used the supersub for the first time ever. And Solanki performed, scoring a crucial 50. Don't remember what happened to result, but it was a good innovation.

 

[angryangy]

But then teams like Pakistan and India will be playing only 1-2 specialist bowlers, with batting all the way down to 10.

In Pakistan's case, play Gul and Aamer as your specialist bowlers (and Aamer and Gul can hold a bat, so batting to #11), and pack the side with batsmen. Afridi can bowl, as can Alam.

It's not a great idea in my opinion.

Do you think teams aren't doing this already? I suggest looking at the data.

The fact of T20 is that bowlers normally have to be rotated around regardless of how good they are. In the majority of games, captains don't feel like they have enough bowlers.

At the higher end of the scale, you have the recent CSK vs RR game or the KKR vs KXIP where nine bowlers conceded more than 32 runs. Only one bowler in the first match was any sort of candidate for a 5th over. Bollinger's unlikely performance might have been extended to a greater advantage, but not much more. In these games, teams who bring in extra batsmen and sacrifice bowling depth put themselves at a disadvantage, because no. 7 doesn't need to bat. In fact, in the latter game, noone below no. 5 batted for either team.

 

[Owzat]

I think the only format I'd be happy seeing substitutes used in is the one format of cricket I wouldn't want to muck about with - Tests. ODIs flopped for me because sides had to name their sub and tried to use them to gain an advantage by bringing a batsman for a bowler after they'd bowled to strengthen the batting. For me the only way it would work is if they were like for like when players are injured or playing poorly. To prevent the inevitable use the sides put the substitute to as aforementioned, use it in two innings matches so the gain is lessened.

Does cricket need such innovations though? What next? Play a specialist batting line up and bowling line up like yank sports?!? If it were to be used make it more of a replacement set-up, batsman on for batsman and bowler on for bowler.

 

[aussie1st]

Definitely wouldn't reintroduce it for ODIs, that was a failure and I'm happy with it the way it is.

If you were going to introduce it somewhere, obviously it would be for T20. But atm I don't see a need for it, T20 is flying atm and people can't get enough of it. You only make changes when the crowd starts getting bored of it. In saying that, I could see the IPL bringing it in, they are known for trying new ideas.

 

[shirazu]

The sub rule would be better if teams could have named two subs and used one per game. Then it would have the desired effect of both teams having an extra batsman in place of a bowler. Personally I think this would be good for both forms of the limited overs game. We'd see more aggression in batting with the extra batsman, and more wickets being taken. The all-round cricketer would be hurt by this rule but not too badly, and these days all-rounders can't seem to stay healthy anyway so that would solve another problem.

If cricketers were smart they would push for this in the IPL. Extra subs in each game means larger demand for cricketers. Although it might just lead to salaries being slashed as it is divided among a larger pool, it could also mean more money for cricketers overall.

 

[War]

The sub rule would be better if teams could have named two subs and used one per game. Then it would have the desired effect of both teams having an extra batsman in place of a bowler. Personally I think this would be good for both forms of the limited overs game. We'd see more aggression in batting with the extra batsman, and more wickets being taken. The all-round cricketer would be hurt by this rule but not too badly, and these days all-rounders can't seem to stay healthy anyway so that would solve another problem.

If cricketers were smart they would push for this in the IPL. Extra subs in each game means larger demand for cricketers. Although it might just lead to salaries being slashed as it is divided among a larger pool, it could also mean more money for cricketers overall.

It think you have hit the nail on the head with this reasoning sir. Well said.

 

[IanG]

No! No! No No No No No!

 

[Owzat]

Y-O-Y-O-Y-O-Y do people want more batsmen and think it will improve a game?!?!? I enjoy watching tailenders bat, it's fun. I think of Gough, Lawrence and Daffy batting albeit often in losing causes. Does the game need more runs? If it does then it must be watched and run by more rons. Extra bowlers won't make much difference, if the four or five in the starting XI are the best then will the fifth or sixth best make a difference unless it is a spinner or something like that.

But personally I think cricket with XI is ideal, it makes tactics so much more important in team selection. Do you go with five bowlers or an extra batsman? Do you play none, one or two spinners? Do you pick the keeper on batting or keeping ability? Start putting subs in and you end up with an extra batsman more often than not as that't the only really obvious gain to be had and you can lose some of the tactical nuances (if that's the right word) and intrigue as sides have to make most of their own tactical decisions without any way out.

This is also why I do like ODIs as much if not more than Tests, having to choose the balance of the side to get through your 50 overs bowling and have enough batting depth. It also produces a result more often than not, isn't over in a blink of the eye or spoiled by luck or collapses, and when televised there is more cricket than ads which by ITV4's coverage of Disney India 3 is not likely true of T20 (I usually change channels at the first swing of the 4 that signals the start of the ads)