I wouldn't be so sure. There's an issue of "face" involved here. Far more likely would be some tinkering and an extension to the experiment - perhaps by allowing the substitute to be named from the twelve after the toss. I just can't see the ICC going back to the old system somehow (even though I think it would be the right answer).

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

Right: consider the worst case scenario... a day night game. England vs Australia, series level, both sides at full strength and feeling confident.... what's the significance of supersubs?

My guess is that 9 times out of 10, when faced with that scenario, teams will back themselves to win if they bat first.... and will fear the worst if they have to bat second... so wil pick the extra batsman as 12th man.

What's that done to the significance of the toss? If you bat first you get the best conditions... and if you bat second you get the supersub: it's evened things out. The toss has become LESS critical.

Equally... England vs. Pakistan... England confident of their chasing ability - and knowing Pakistan like to set a total and then defend it - stack the batting in the First XI and then pick Plunkett as supersub. All of a sudden, Pakistan have a problem: do they follow their instinct and bat first anyway.. or negate the impact of the supersub.

Either way.. England minimise the impact of the toss.

.
I think Super-sub is ok but it needs fine tuning.... something like... Every team sould have the option of selecting its Super-sub from a pool of 4-5 players (not only 1 player) and should have the option of selecting it whenever the Captain wants to not before the toss... Well i mean it should be more like football.... Well this is what i have in mind...

.

I hated the idea to start with, and if we keep picking a has been offspinner as our not-so-supersub, I don't think I'm going to warm to the idea any time soon. I half hope that Solanki spanks our attck around the ground so the message might get through to Woolmer.

Shaka. I don't think you can really blame Pakistan's somewhat pointless super-sub choice on the reason that the super sub rule is daft. Although Solanki did show the advantage of having the super-sub today.

__________________
Watch this for a perfect about.
James May

England should NOT have played Solanki as supersub today: that was the most brainless piece of management I've seen in a long time. England are 1-0 up in the series and ended up gambling on winning the toss!

In Blackwell, England have an ideal play-safe supersub: had Solanki been in the starting XI it's quite possible that Blackwell wouldn't have been needed as a batsman... and then he could have come on for Pietersen.... but had things gone terribly he could still have come on for Andserson. Equally... had England bowled first he could have been held back to the 25th over to see who was / wasn't succeeding.. and then come on for whoever looked most expendable.

The selection suggests that England still lack confidence in their own ability to win the game when they have won the toss.

I am glad England didn't win after making the sub to try to rectify an awful batting performance.The better side won and deservedly so.I hate the idea of substitutes but i guess i will just have to get used to it.

Well we don't have to get used to it, we could always bin it, as the title of the thread so reasonably suggests!

And, as we have seen, quite rightly so.

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

I don't think they will though.Hence getting used to it.