New ODI Modifications, your verdict?

[vvvrulz]

What does everyone make of the new laws put into practice in an attempt to raise interest in the ODI circuit?

Personally I never agreed with them in the first place, and continue to do so, its not funky little perks that make the ODI game more interesting, its the contest, the fire, the atmosphere. The whole super-sub and powerplay concepts are very ho-hum in my opinion. Watching Strauss take consecutive fours of McGrath, or Michael Clarke's off stump go for a walk, now THATS what cricket is all about !

Thats my opinion though, what do you think?

[Notts Exile]

I don't mind the Power-Plays concept only the batting side should be able to decide when to use them not the fielding.

The substitute thing is stupid. We're just getting on the way to having two teams - one for fielding and bowling the other for batting. Teams should be punished for having bad fielders or bowlers who cannot bat, that's part of the game!

[flanflinger]

These new rules are supposed to have made the middle overs more exciting, and stopped one-sided games... have they done that? - both games have been low-scoring one-sided affairs where the "Power-Plays" have been dull and the "Super-Subs" fairly pointless.

For me the jury is still out, but the news rules have done nothing at all, and have in no way improved the game...

[greg]

Although they didn't need him yesterday,Australia substituted McGrath and Haddin would have batted.This practice which is allowed,will end up with all sides batting 2nd having a huge advantage over the side batting 1st.England did the same in Game 1 with Jones and Solanki.They should have left it as it was.We had a brilliant Final under the old format at Lords only 9 days ago.Why change a system that works?

[Paoli]

An absolute waste of time. Powerplays are turning out to be, as first expected, taken in the first twenty overs. Why not just extend the fielding restrictions to the first twenty overs? The whole substitute thing is stupid as well. To make it more interesting they should be named before the toss, so you have the option of taking a punt, and going for a specialist (the likes of Haddin or Gillespie) or you could play it safe by naming an all-rounder (Watson, Collingwood etc...). I can't wait until the old system is passed back through.

[flanflinger]

Greg,

I get the feeling you are spot on here. Most sides will take an extra batsmen and hope to win the toss and bat second. Rather than makng things more intersting they have the potential to make things more predicatable!!

I really don't think these have been thought through at all...

[Victor Frankenstein]

I thought you had to name your sub before the toss? if it was after the toss it would be a bit fairer as at least you could choose which to use first.

neither of the games so far have really been influenced by that extra person so the jury is still out a bit, i still think they'd be better off having a two innings 20-20 game if they're trying to inject excitement whilst retaining a days worth of cricket revenue.

[flanflinger]

VF,

That's the conclusion I reached... If it is about entertainment then for me the best change would be two innings Twenty-20's

The average scores in twenty-20 is creeping nearer 200, so you could see 800 runs in a day, and plenty of wickets to boot...

[Richard Jenkins]

I think this sub thing does need to be better thought through. Replacing a player due to genine injury is ok in my book, but brinking on king kong to crush the opponents isn't.

[Mongoose]

Sub thing doesn't work. I hope to see the back of it soon. The five optional overs could be more interesting ...