NatWest Challenge 2005/1st match-Headingley Thursday 7th July.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by BBC

Matt Prior is set to be England's first-ever tactical substitute for the NatWest Challenge against Australia, which begins on Thursday at Headingley.

Matt prior will be chuffed, but he has been picked as a batsman, although he will provide cover for Jones.

Sounds like a complicated system to me, but that might be half the fun of it.

Pre match chat is welcome, but please post the match comments on this thread.

Thanks all, we may work out the rules together.

[Mongoose]

Why pick Prior? It seems to me that picking a specialist batsman or bowler would be the way to go. Or a bits 'n' pieces player, who could replace a bowler or batter depending on what you've done first up. Picking a keeper/batsman? Doesn't make sense. Can anyone here present a plausible case for this selection?

[Ernest]

No you would think if they picked Prior, then he should be in the starting line up as a batsman/keeper, does not make sense.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

He might be a decent outfielder, although kabir Ali, solanki (if he aint playing) or even maccarina (or whatever his name is) might have been a better bet.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

or even maccarina (or whatever his name is) might have been a better bet.

Yes what happened to him?, he was all the news last year, a specialst bat ot an all rounder would have been a better bet (I can't spell his name either)

[Aussie-Yank]

I must be a traditionalist because I really can not see this new system as improving the game of cricket. All I can see is the real possibility of the extra player not even playing. IE, if it is an extra bat being selected for a bowler, and the team bats first, then the extra Batsman would not be played or they would lose the bowler before even bowling a ball.

So you could say that the team wining the toss is even more crucial in these games as they are now.

To me its in the second 50 overs that this system will make a difference, either bringing in an extra bowler for the fielding team or an extra batsmen for the batting side. If you translated this into the tied ODI, and you dropped say Hussey for Kasper when England where at 5-33. Game would have been over and one of the best ODI games for a while would not have occurred.

[Rachael]

The obvious sub for the Aussies is Watson: he's a better bowler and fielder than (say) Hayden.. and a better batsman than McGrath... so you could guarantee him adding something to the side if he were substituted for the second innings. Same goes for a player like Giles, Batty or Wharf on the England front.

The use of specialists as substitutes would have to be considered in relation to pitches and conditions... and match situation: a desperate team could gamble everything on winning the toss and pick a sub accordingly... but in normal circumstances it's a great way of influencing the decision that would be made if the opposition won the toss.

e.g. England pick Prior... Australia would perhaps be less keen to bat first.... or England pick Tremlett... Australia might think twice about putting England in.

[Aussie-Yank]

By the way, is this a contest solely to test the new ODI rules, or is this a tournment played in England before each Ashes Test?

[Trescothick]

Prior is a very decent batsmen from what i've heard although I wouldn't mind seeing Shah as a specalist batsmen sub coming into the team. Hes been in good nick for middlesex

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Aussie-Yank

By the way, is this a contest solely to test the new ODI rules, or is this a tournment played in England before each Ashes Test?

There's always a Natwest Challenge, but it's usually against an international team that didn't play in the Natwest Series tournament. Australia are in town though, so the ECB wanted to maximise their profits.