Should never have been introduced.Bin it now.

Get rid.

If you make teams name their super subs before the toss then it puts too much emphasis on a completely random event. The toss is often vitally important anyway as it is so it doesn't need any more importance being placed on it.

And if you let teams name their sub after the toss then it's just like giving each team an extra player.

It's been tried and I think it's utterly pointless.

Keep the powerplays but change it so that the batting team gets to decide when they use them.

The critical thing with the supersub is that it evens up contests. It might not do so on a match by match basis... but over the course of a series it certainly should: top sides who are confident that they have an edge end up uncertain as to what to do and come under pressure to play safe (they are expected to triumph when the win the toss... so come under pressure to pick a supersub who'll increase their odds when they lose the toss)..... whilst weaker teams get the chance to gamble to even things up as 12 vs 11 (maximise the advantage of winning the toss).

The downside of weaker sides gambling and stronger sides backing themselves should turn out to be weaker sides facing marginally stronger opposition when they lose the toss (11.5 players rather than 11) but a marginal edge when they win (12 to 11.5). The lost-toss scenario looks bleaker than ever... but those games generally looked pretty bleak prospects anyway... but the won-toss scenario looks better than ever (like a genuine chance).

Of course... if you get two evenly matched sides... the division falls more between those leading ina series and those trailing in a series: those leading come under pressure to play the percetages... where those trailing come under pressure to gamble on winning the toss. Even in a 5 game series that becomes significant... and once you hit extended series the significance grows.

Many observers seem overly caught up on short-term, game-by-game analysis of the supersub rule: over the longer timespan of entire series and tournaments... the "pick before the toss" format has a lot going for it.

Get rid of the supersubs, and the "powerplays"

i'm guessing the ICC will keep supersubs unfortunately, though hopefully they will amend the rules so you can name your 12 before the toss and nominate your sub after the toss so that its more fair for the team who lose the toss.

Speaking ahead of yesterday's game in Lahore, Marcus Trescothick told The Guardian:


It occured to me when I read that that it was the first comment I had seen on the new rules from a captain. Does anyone know if the captains' views have been sought yet, or if they will be sought at the end of the trial period in about May? Or, come to that, if any captains other than Trescothick have yet expressed a view?

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

That would defeat the entire point of supersubs: the genius of the system lies in forcing teams to play safe or gamble...

However, Rachael, as things stand, 70% of ODIs are now being won by the team which wins the toss. There have been 33 games played to date under the new rules. I'm no statistician, so I can't even begin to tell you if that is really enough to be statistically meaningful, but to the complete layman it begins to sound as though the super-sub rule as presently operating gives too much advantage to the side winning the toss. To answer my own question partially, Ricky Ponting is also on record against the super-sub rule as it presently operates.

I've just read this article in this morning's Independent on Sunday, which deals with exactly this point (and is the source for the numbers I mention above).

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

Ponting has every reason to be against the supersub rule: it favours teams who are weaker or behind in a series!

On the stats front... have you looked at at the proportion of games were won by the team winning the toss BEFORE the supersub rule was introduced? I suspect it was pretty high. More significantly... have you considered that for teams like Bangladesh... and for any team chasing a series they are losing... having a bigger chance when you win the toss is going to lead to far better ODIs!

Of course the system will favour the side winning the toss when the weaker / chasing side is gambling on that.... because when they DO win it their team is massively improved (which is what we want to see). What's less clear is that stronger / winning teams are made MUCH stronger when THEY win the toss: a team in a dominant position is far more likely to hedge their bets with their supersub... to limit the damage of LOSING the toss.... and they correspondingly gain less when winning it.

Part of the problem is the time being taken for sides to work out their best strategies against different opponents and in different series-situations: once that settles down you'll still get SOME poor games (but that was the case even with 11 against 11) but you'll hopefully get fewer of them.

Sadly, as I sugested earlier, "fans" tend to look at each game in isolation rather than at the bigger picture: a series in which Bangladesh were able to compete more strongly against England on two out of three occasions and on which England were able to murder Bangladesh quite comprehensively in the third series is going to get slated for making the toss more critical... but what's the alternative... three games in which Bangladesh can't really compete?

The short answer on the stats point is that I haven't got any more numbers than those which appeared in the paper. But I will have a look to see if I can extract some history.

Sorry: I really don't know where to look for this information. Any ideas?

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

Anything that makes the toss more important is bad for the game, supersubs should be discarded asap ( and I think they will be ). I like powerplays though, breaks up the monotony of the game and makes it less predictable than the fast start / accumulate / blitz formula teams have adopted in 1 dayers.