Substitutes to be allowed in ODI's

[Swervy]

I think the rule changes are the worst, most faffy way of altering things. Removing the 10 over per bowler limit (or raising it to 15 etc.) would have addressed the "marmite dross inevitably filling ten overs" far better than the substitute rule, it also gives the captain more input. I also personally would have preferred to have seen the maximum number of fielders outside the circle reduced to 3 for after the 15 overs.

if you were to have a 15 over limit, you would find the scoring rates drop, as the dominant bowler in the team would get 30% of the bowling.

This new way you are getting a higher quality of bowling without the drop in scoring rates(as the batting quality will be higher as well with the extra batter).

Remember this is geared towards entertaining the public...the public are entertained by high quality and high scores...at the moment we are getting a lot of low quality and high scores

You have said you want the captain to have more input..but also only 3 fielders outside the ring after 15 overs..is that not limiting the captains options even more

 

[tooextracool]

I would say that the fact that you have marmite dross inevitably filling ten overs is a particularly bad thing, and this irons it out.

i dont really see why its a bad thing. plenty of teams have struggled in the past because of the lack of an all rounder, and it has resulted in the 5th bowler getting tonked all over the park. i'd think that teams like england who have a genuine all rounder in the side, would lose a significant advantage, because a team like australia can simply swap mcgrath with simon katich.

 

[Scaly piscine]

if you were to have a 15 over limit, you would find the scoring rates drop, as the dominant bowler in the team would get 30% of the bowling.

This new way you are getting a higher quality of bowling without the drop in scoring rates(as the batting quality will be higher as well with the extra batter).

Remember this is geared towards entertaining the public...the public are entertained by high quality and high scores...at the moment we are getting a lot of low quality and high scores

You have said you want the captain to have more input..but also only 3 fielders outside the ring after 15 overs..is that not limiting the captains options even more

The batting quality won't be higher, you'll just get a team with an extra batsman who'll obviously not be as good as the guys who're already playing (if he was as good he'd have been picked already - do we really want to see more of Solanki folks?). Obviously the same goes for bowling, extra bowler who wasn't good enough to make the original 11 - tho the bowler who bats the worst will likely be the sub (so we'd see more Jon Lewis and you'd have to wait til the Tests to see Harmison batting).

As for entertainment, I'd have thought people would want to see Pietersen face the best bowlers instead of playing against the 4th, 5th bowlers and only facing the best when he's in crowd killing mode at the end.

 

[tooextracool]

but surely that will actually raise the standard of play..you will have more top flight bowlers bowling to more top flight batsmen

you'll have one more player, but the fact is that the value of an 'all rounder' to an ODI side would be seriously diminished, even if he still has some value in the side. the all rounder is so important in ODI cricket, that even australia who are stacked with quality batters and bowlers, are persisting with mediocre players like watson at the ODI level.

 

[Craig]

What I want to know is when you must confirm your starting XI by - before or after you know if you're batting or fielding first?

One would assume you would have to do the former.

 

[Jono]

the key thing about ODIs though is how and when you bowl your 5th bowler(s). i dont really like the idea that most, if not all teams will now have 5 frontline bowlers in the side, and yet have 6 batsman + a keeper.

At least we'll see some good bowlers for a change. 5 front line bowlers (If they're of any quality of course) may actually stop the batsmen from piling on 300+ runs every game, getting 80 off a crappy 5th bowler.

I do see your point regarding all-rounders though. We have already seen a fall in them this era, and we may possibly lose more if specialist players are chosen to take advantage of this rule.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The fielding restrictions are a decent idea, but a bit complicated I think. Cricket is already a hard sport to follow for many people, and this won't make it any better. It might improve the middle-overs issue though.

The substitutions are an absolutely awful idea, in every sense. It diminishes the value of an all-rounder, COMPLETELY defeats the purpose of having 10 overs per bowler restrictions, and brings ODIs completely out of line with other forms of cricket. Why is it necessary to have absolutely different rules even when it comes to team makeup for ODIs as for tests? I doubt this will ever happen with test cricket, but it shouldn't happen in ODIs either.

Save this sort of crap for 20/20 cricket. It would actually be quite reasonable there, since there are already a myriad of bizarre rule changes.

 

[Richard]

it will be hard to get used to, but I think overtime both these moves will be considered very positive for the game....esp the field restriction bit..those middle overs are just crap at the moment, you might as well watch 50 replays of the same drive along the ground to long on or off

Changing the field-restrictions, especially to the stupidity they're proposing, is utterly ridiculous and I frankly couldn't give a toss about the substitutions stupidity compared to that.
Take away the "middle-overs" period and you're struggling to credit ODIs as cricket.
And a 10-month "trial"... Jesus...

 

[Swervy]

Changing the field-restrictions, especially to the stupidity they're proposing, is utterly ridiculous and I frankly couldn't give a toss about the substitutions stupidity compared to that.
Take away the "middle-overs" period and you're struggling to credit ODIs as cricket.
And a 10-month "trial"... Jesus...

it isnt taking away the middle overs, its just rejigging them around the innings a tad.

A slight exaggeration saying that will mean ODIs will be struggling to be credited as cricket....and when I say slight, I mean huge

 

[Scaly piscine]

The fielding restrictions are a decent idea, but a bit complicated I think. Cricket is already a hard sport to follow for many people, and this won't make it any better. It might improve the middle-overs issue though.

The substitutions are an absolutely awful idea, in every sense. It diminishes the value of an all-rounder, COMPLETELY defeats the purpose of having 10 overs per bowler restrictions, and brings ODIs completely out of line with other forms of cricket. Why is it necessary to have absolutely different rules even when it comes to team makeup for ODIs as for tests? I doubt this will ever happen with test cricket, but it shouldn't happen in ODIs either.

Save this sort of crap for 20/20 cricket. It would actually be quite reasonable there, since there are already a myriad of bizarre rule changes.

It wouldn't be any more reasonable in Twenty20, which does not have a myriad of bizarre rule changes at all - the only differences are it being 20 overs and the free hit for front foot no-balls which barely comes into it. From what has been said on Test Match Special you have to name the substitute before the toss, so that makes it a bit more of a lottery really.

 

[Scaly piscine]

David Graveney said concerning the rule changes "I think it'll be good actually".

This confirms beyond all doubt the substitute rule is a load of tripe.

 

[Mister Wright]

I like the new fielding restriction rules, they will add a new development to cricket, and will sort out the captains from the 'captains'.

I'm not a big fan of the substitution idea, but will give it a bit of time before I make my final assessment on it.

I still like my new ball at 40 overs idea.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I don't think the fielding restrictions rules will work as desired, you'll still get dull periods somewhere between 10 and 40 overs. What will probably happen is if 2 guys are in the marmite bowlers come on while the field is spread out far and wide, then if someone gets out there'll be a 5 over period used and the best bowlers come back on and the field closes in a bit, which is what happens anyway. Then when they're back in again it's back to binary overs with the marmites on.

 

[The Baconator]

Do they have to name one substitute or can they pick from the whole squad?

 

[Mister Wright]

Do they have to name one substitute or can they pick from the whole squad?

I'd say they have to name 12 players before the toss.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I'd say they have to name 12 players before the toss.

Yea that's effectively what they've said on TMS.

 

[superkingdave]

Save this sort of crap for 20/20 cricket. It would actually be quite reasonable there, since there are already a myriad of bizarre rule changes.

What are these myriad of bizarre rule changes in twenty20 then?

 

[King_Ponting]

free hits?

 

[King_Ponting]

fielder restrictions for 30% of the time?

 

[Scaly piscine]

fielder restrictions for 30% of the time?

OK... who wants to field this one?