Substitutes to be allowed in ODI's

[superkingdave]

Fielding restrictions are exactly the same proportion as in ODI's

Free hits is one, hardly a myriad

 

[King_Ponting]

I'll rephrase that fielding restrictions for 6 overs out of 20. = 30% of the time

 

[Langeveldt]

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.

hahah, brilliant... What does he think about Twenty20?

 

[superkingdave]

I'll rephrase that fielding restrictions for 6 overs out of 20. = 30% of the time

Whatever way you phrase it, doesn't make it bizarre or a change - 15overs out of 50 is 30%

 

[King_Ponting]

yeh i only relised that after i posted it

 

[Scaly piscine]

hahah, brilliant... What does he think about Twenty20?

He probably thinks it has a myriad of bizarre rule changes.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

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

Strict time limited on overs and time for batsman to get to the crease, addition of legal deliveries on which the batsman cannot be dismissed (free hits), as well as the simple fact that such stringent restrictions on how many overs a bowler can bowl completely changes the role that they can play in the match.

The point I was trying to make was that because 20/20 is a completely new format and already contains several rules which are vastly different from what is normally seen in cricket, means that introducing substitution would not be such a shock to the system. And with bowlers marginalised so much in the format already, and the lower order players rarely being required to bat anyway, it woulnd't make so much difference. Introducing substitutions to ODIs completely changes what has been one of the defining characteristics of the format as compared to test cricket - the consideration of depth of batting compared to the need for at least 5 capable bowlers. With substitutions, this consideration, and the search for all-rounders that comes with it, no longer exists as a team can safely pick 7 batsman AND 5 bowlers, one or two of which can presumably bat a bit.

 

[superkingdave]

yes the changes may be more suited to twenty20 - despite the fact that these changes have been brought in as the ICC thinks there is something wrong with the way ODI cricket is at the moment. That does not mean that Twenty20 has a myriad of bizarre rule changes -the only possible one which can be regarded as bizarre is the free hit (which has been around in cricket for a while). The time limits and bowler over restrictions are perfectly reasonable changes based on the limited length of the game and innings, you may not like them, but they are hardly 'bizarre'.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Strict time limited on overs and time for batsman to get to the crease, addition of legal deliveries on which the batsman cannot be dismissed (free hits), as well as the simple fact that such stringent restrictions on how many overs a bowler can bowl completely changes the role that they can play in the match.

Only the no-ball rule is different, the others are just things that are scaled down and there are time limits in ODIs and Tests just they aren't as strict, which perhaps they should be concerning overs in a day etc.

 

[aussie]

That does not mean that Twenty20 has a myriad of bizarre rule changes -the only possible one which can be regarded as bizarre is the free hit (which has been around in cricket for a while).

How long?????

 

[King_Ponting]

i think he means in domestic competitions

 

[aussie]

i think he means in domestic competitions

ohhh, cant belive that slipped me

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

yes the changes may be more suited to twenty20 - despite the fact that these changes have been brought in as the ICC thinks there is something wrong with the way ODI cricket is at the moment. That does not mean that Twenty20 has a myriad of bizarre rule changes -the only possible one which can be regarded as bizarre is the free hit (which has been around in cricket for a while). The time limits and bowler over restrictions are perfectly reasonable changes based on the limited length of the game and innings, you may not like them, but they are hardly 'bizarre'.

Very well, perhaps my choice of words was wrong. Although, I think the requirement that the batsmen has to be out and ready to face the bowling in 45 seconds or whatever is a bit more than just an extension on ODI restrictions, since it's so stringent as to result in the players sitting on the side of the ground ready to run out there, and there's no restriction in ODIs on time taken to get out to bat that I'm aware of, aside from the normal one as in test cricket where a batsman can be dismissed "timed out" if he takes too long.

 

[superkingdave]

3 minutes for test cricket

 

[marc71178]

im completely against the substitution rule, it effectively means that every team now has an all rounder.

But the problem is they'll not know which to select since the 11 has to be chosen before the toss.

 

[marc71178]

OK... who wants to field this one?

I can't sorry, I'm restricted!

 

[marc71178]

I'm wondering how these fielding resrictions will apply in rain-hit games, and also how D/L will cope with it?

 

[King_Ponting]

i dont think the icc has thought of the old DL.

 

[aussie]

Has Bob Willis said on commentary today, we have the prospect of 3 great one-day games between ENG & AUS with the 1st Test coming up pretty soon, so bringing those rules into those games would be an unnecessary distraction.

 

[superkingdave]

I can't sorry, I'm restricted!

lol marc, you so crazy