Subs have gone, and rightly so. Even though the trial was a failure, I believe it proves the worth of trying things out for a trial period. The ICC hve done the right thing, having a go at something different, and doing so in the ODI series that accompany test series, all in good time before the World Cup. I'm sure it won't be the last idea they try, or the last that ends up being chopped. But it was worth a go, and having had the chance to see the reality of using subs, I feel more confident in my opinion that it's not something the game needs.

__________________
Just what is going off out there?

OF. At first I thought we should keep them as I thought they were a way to make the shorter game more interesting but with:

a) a reluctancy to change the choice of sub till after the toss
b) the subs really really favouring the side that wins the toss

I now feel that too much is based upon winning the toss in close games...it's too much of 12 versus 11. I thought originally that it would not be like this.

__________________
Watch this for a perfect about.
James May

Understood, Vrock7. As Mongoose says, it was probably worth trying. Although I was a sceptic from the start - and I am about some other things as well, notably the increasing use of technology to second guess umpires - I'm prepared to see things tried before they are binned. Overall, I won't mourn the passing of the super-sub, though.

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

Me neither. I say we should just bury the Ashes of the super sub, well Australia can't...they lost them in September

(May I just point out that what I said was a complete punned joke and intended in no way to offend any fan)

__________________
Watch this for a perfect about.
James May