Super Sub

[ajithlalm]

Super Sub should be choosen after the toss not before the toss. The playing twelve should be choosen before the toss and the super sub should be choosen after the toss.

[Paul31]

But that makes things too predictable.

Whoever bats first, will name the strongest batting lineup from their 12, and have a bowler as super sub.

At the innings change, they will simply bring in the bowler for a batsman (presumably one who does not bowl and the weakest fielder) Eg England would probably have Harmison as sub, and then bring him on for someone like Strauss.

The team hitting second will have the opposite predictable strategy. They will include the extra bowler to start and leave out a specialist bat as sub. Once the bowler has finished his stint, they will bring the sub in, as he will add depth to the batting and will probably be a better fielder.Eg England would have possibly Solanki as a sub, then as soon as harmison bowls his 10 overs, he is done and Solanki comes on to strengthen the fielding, then adds an extra bat to the lineup

This to me adds nothing to the strategic interest that having a sub may create. It simply should make things easier and therefore more boring.

The fun for me is the strategic selection of the sub by the captain, taking a gamble on the toss outcome, or going for an allrounder as a safe bet. Then comes the strategy of when to introduce the sub.

All your method achieves is having one team for batting and another for bowling.

[Colourful Chaddi]

I find this super sub rule ridicluas and i also find ODI cricket boring and predictable. I for one (yes i am insane) would scrap ODI cricket and only allow Test cricket which should be played like it did before the 60's. Odi cricket has become very boring and predictable, its not cricket to say the least! Test cricket is pure entertainment. The end of ODI cricket means more test matches that will replace needless 2 test match series. We will also see less injuries to bowlers and we will see beuatiful graceful shots from batsmen which will make your jaws drop because ODI cricket brainwashes a young talent to sometimes play with a horizontal bat for faster scoring.

[Rachael]

The principle problem with ODI cricket remains the obsession with pitches on which attacking bowling is near impossible: once you get all the bowlers focussed on containment rather than wicket taking.

Forget the way Flintoff bowls now: that's increasingly aggressive. His rise to the top 10 ODI bowlers came before that: heavy balls, back of a length, cramping batsmen for room so that they couldn't swing their arms. Very impressive.. but at the same time.. Simon Jones wasn't even getting into his county pyjama side.... and back then Jones was by far the more attacking bowler.

Low scoring ODI matches do strike me as working: when the ball starts swinging around and you get a genuine challenge between bat and ball you get real cricket. It's the 300 or 350 runs an innings games that get predictable: you generally KNOW roughly what the score is going to be if you nip out and miss 25 overs... because 9 times out of 10.... no bowler on earth can make much impression... the best bowlers are almost as likely to go at 6 an over as the worst bowlers... and not even second rate losers are going to lose their wicket as the groundsman's on their side.

Remove ODI status from any ground that ever witnesses 300 runs in one innings and all of a sudden the predictability will just vapourise :-)

[The Phantom Ram]

Isn't it a fact that who ever wins the toss in ODI's probably wins the game? Why not then name the sides including subs prior to the toss but the team that loses the toss gets to swap their sub into the team if they wish? Would that help make ODI's a bit less predictable?

ps I think the idea of subs is a nonsense.

[CD Stags]

I dont like the sub rule either, but the general tactic should be to pick a super fielder that bats well shouldn't it? I still don't even get it fully

ODI cricket gone??? well we no that aint going to happen..... more importantly i think this Twenty20 **** needs the flick...... i don't like ODI cricket being labelled predictable, because cricket is not that, it is unpredictable constantly in all forms

[Captain]

Originally Posted by The Phantom Ram

Isn't it a fact that who ever wins the toss in ODI's probably wins the game?

then why not make it so that the loser choses either to bowl or to bat.

[Irish Left Armer]

The way the supersub is now it effectively gives the winner of the toss an extra player. Which is ridiculous.

Only in extreme circumstances (say if you bat first and suffer a collapse and then bring in your sub batsman for a bowler) would the losing team get to use their supersub as effectively. Or by blind luck if they happened to pick the opposite type of sub than the other team.

If you let them name 12 players and then sub one in and out during the game then there's really no strategy in that either. It's just effectively allowing the baseball style "designated hitter" bat for the pitcher.

I see very little value in supersubs. There's far more mileage to be had in the fielding restrictions changes but it has to be changed so that the batting team gets to choose the overs they are in place for.

As for one day international pitches, well I basically agree with Rachel. The pitches are too good, too flat and entirely too easy to bat on. It's nice to see Lara, Sehwag and Pietersen wallop sixes all over the place but it gets boring. There needs to be something in the pitch for the bowlers.

Problem is one day viewers and casual cricket fans don't want this. They want to see sixes and huge scores. I imagine they have a strong preference for the bat being on top of the ball. I personally enjoy cricket more when the ball dominates the bat.

[sreepandiat]

No more fun in one day cricket.. it is outdated.. we have to find something new and interesting...

[ahsan32]

I agree that Super sub should be chosen after the Toss