Substitutes and split fielding restrictions approved

[Teatime FatCat]

I don't like it, it stinks, we don't need it and it makes a mockery even of the pyjama game! We don't need to make one-day cricket any more exciting. It has already become more exciting over the years and we now frequently see games with 300+ scores. Also we have players like Afridi, Gayle, Sehwag and KP that are great to watch.

We have 20/20 to satisfy the quick fix, why bother with all of this crap, it's so uneccessary. I am well ********** off by it all. It ain't broke, so don't fix it. No doubt, many of you will have a counter argument to put to me, but I have decided to be curmudgeonly, so yag boo sucks to the whole idea!

[Zainub]

Spot on Teatime. How more exicting can one-day cricket become then Bangladesh beating Australia?

Totally uncalled for this. If it isn't broke don't fix it sprins to mind imediately.

[Seamer]

When it comes to cricket, i am a conservitive. But i think we should give the new rules a chance. It adds a new strategic and tactical element to the game which appeals to someone like me.

[Goatman]

The fielding restrictions just add another tactical element to the game, and so I am all for them. They should certainly change the frequently dull middle part of the game.

Originally Posted by Goatman, but this bits bollocks

, and make life very difficult for third rate "bitsa" trundlers and spinners. Team A's captain brings on his dodgy candidate/s to fill up the 5th bowler slot, and team B's captain says "Ta very much, lets have everyone in the ring and belt them over the top!".

You can get into real tactical dilemmas with this one too - Team A's 3 specialists have bowled 18 overs between them (6 each), and they bring on thier allrounder/bitsas in the middle overs - Team B declares fielding restrictions - Team A brings the specialists back for 4 overs, and then tries the bitsa again - team B declares the second restricted period - Team A brings the specialists back again - Team A's captain suddenly realises that he still has the last 20 overs of the match to go, and his specialists only have 4 overs left between them - DOH!

end of the bollocks (I hope...)

Life will get more interesting, and I reckon this is a Good Thing.

The subsitute rule is less of a cut and dried Good Thing. As has been suggested above, one of the great things about cricket is the difficulty of balancing your side. This really takes away from that. Another great thing is seeing people like Courtney Walsh with bat in hand, and this is spoiling that a bit. Also, the ability to get an extra specialist on board takes away from the equation is was describing above - at first glance, the two reforms push the game in opposite directions.

One thought though; you name your man before the toss. Name a batting XI and a Walsh character you hope to substitute, and the opposition will make you field (in comes Walsh for the first innings, and he has to stay for the second). Vice versa if you name a non bowling batter as sub (with a bowling-strong XI), though the substitution can be done later as if you get 35 overs in with no wickets down, you can leave your non-batting bowlers in the side.

So, tactically, what effect will this have? Lets say we're playing under lights, and I want to bat first. I name a team with 4 specialist bowlers and an allrounder, with a bat as sub. "Aha" says you, "if I put the sod into bat, he'll probably have to swap one of those bowlers for the batter, and I'll 'ave 'im". "Wait on though" says your coach "They want to bat first - we're playing right into thier hands! And what if they compile a good innings - then we'll have to bat second AND face the 4 bowlers - thats not good!".

It might well be an interesting addition to the game. Sides which are stronger in one discipline than another can name thier "best" side as they see it, safe in the knowledge that they can name a sub specialising in the weak discipline so that in the event of early wickets/getting flayed in the field that can bolster themselves a bit.

I also suspect that what you will see is that teams will probably consistently name a strong bowling outfit and a batsman as sub. If you bat second, you will always win out in that equation. If you bat first and things go well, you will also win. If you bat first and things go badly, then you have a get out of jail card to play - but at the cost of weakening your bowling later in the match. The upshot is that more specialist bowlers will get a game in international one day cricket. And that, surely, is a good thing!

I'm rambling now, but I think this substitute thing might be a whole lot more interesting that it looks at first glance!

[Andy Mellon]

Do you get a full international cap if you come on as a substitute? We might find a load more jack-of-all-trades types get international caps without truly deserving them with this new regime.

[Occasional Fan]

Yes, you do - at least according to the ICC press statement. But I thought caps were awarded by the Boards, so shouldn't they choose?

[Maranello]

Goatman, I agree that the changed fielding restrictions do add another interesting dimension to the ODI game, and as such can only be a good thing. However, you may wish to restate your examples; the restrictions will be imposed at the discretion of the fielding team, hence in the cases you cite, its Team A who decides when to call its fifth bowler and its also Team A who chooses when to impose the fielding restrictions.

[Goatman]

Oh.

Thats much less interesting though!

[Maranello]

Yes OF caps are awarded by the Boards, but I think what merits a cap is decided by the ICC. Hence, the ICC has decided that both players involved in a substitution get a cap, which is sensible really, and is what happens in other team sports.

Andy, not sure why more bits and pieces chaps will get caps this way; I think substitutions would mean more specialist bowlers will be playing than before, and even specialist wicket keepers might get a chance!

[Maranello]

Maybe it is less interesting, but consider this. England are batting, its over 16 and MPV + Solanki are the new batsmen at the crease, both looking to nurdle it around a bit. Ponting calls the first set of fielding restrictions, and suddenly, the singles dry up. Now England have to hit out, and in doing so, Solanki holes out. Flintoff slides in, ready to take advantage of the vast open spaces, but the 5 overs are soon up, Ponting does not call for the next set, and England begin rebuilding again, with the plan that either Flintoff or KP are around for the next set of fielding restrictions! This really could enliven the 15-35 over period of an innings, which of late has been completely one-dimensional and often predictable.