Substitution Tactics

[age_master]

in terms of Australia McGrath wont bat. the will bring him in if they bat first of take him out if bowling first. as for the 2 5 over periods they will probably depend on whats happening, if the run rate isn't that high they will probably be from 10-20, if it starts to pick up move fielders back until there have been a couple of wickets of something and have them then

 

[age_master]

How about replacing one of the opening bowlers with an exceptional fieldsman (acting as 12 th man) after, say, the initial 5-over spell.

Then, rather than the returning bowler replacing the 12th man, he simply changes places with another bowler at the completion of his spell.

In this fashion, the fielding team can have a specialist fieldsman on the field for all bar the first few overs and can "rest" its' weaker fieldmen in between spells.

I even have a name for it. It's called the "S-O-L-A-N-K-I" manouvre.

Think it will catch on ?

Collingwood suggested this, i doubt it will catch on as while a good fielder might save 10-15 runs a good batsman might hit 60-70 pretty regularly, the trick would be to get a good batsman who can also field well - ie Hussey or Katich atm in the Aussie team

 

[age_master]

If he replaces a bowler, he can complete that bowlers 10 over quota - so if he's bowled out, he can't bowl at all.

If he replaces an already dismissed batsman, he can't bat.

yep that sounds right, one question, if a batsman retires Hurt can he be replaced?

 

[chaminda_00]

I think you will find that countries would pick their second best all rounder to fill this role, or the best all rounder not in their 1st XI. The guys that will fill the role for each side IMO:
Australia - S Watson
Sri Lanka - G Wijekoon
England - V Solanki (he will come on for guys like Jones once they bowled or Strauss once he bats)
South Africa - A Hall
West Indies - M Samuels
New Zealand - A Adams
Pakistan - Azhar Mahmood
India - A Agarkar

One option teams might use is go in with an extra batsmen and have a bowling all rounder as 12th man.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Collingwood suggested this, i doubt it will catch on as while a good fielder might save 10-15 runs a good batsman might hit 60-70 pretty regularly, the trick would be to get a good batsman who can also field well - ie Hussey or Katich atm in the Aussie team

Social was making a point about England's dodgy use of the 12th man rule as it currently stands, having Solanki on the field instead of a bowler for most of Australia's innings yesterday.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think you will find that countries would pick their second best all rounder to fill this role, or the best all rounder not in their 1st XI. The guys that will fill the role for each side IMO:
Australia - S Waston
Sri Lanka - G Wijekoon
England - V Solanki (he will come on for guys like Jones once they bowled or Strauss once he bats)
South Africa - A Hall
West Indies - M Samuels
New Zealand - A Adams
Pakistan - Azhar Mahmood
India - A Agarkar

One option teams might use is go in with an extra batsmen and have a bowling all rounder as 12th man.

Why? Think about it... England pick Solanki and bat first, Brett Lee cleans up Andrew Strauss, and he is replaced with Vikram Solanki... who now cannot bat as he has already been dismissed, and isn't much of a bowler anyway!

The best thing would be to pick a specialist bat who also excels in the field... for example Brad Hodge or Michael Hussey.

Scenario: Australia picks all five specialist bowlers in their team, in Hogg, Kasprowicz, McGrath, Gillespie and Lee, and wins the toss and bowls. Glenn McGrath sends down his 10 overs straight up, leaves the field and is replaced with Hodge, who excels in the field, cutting off runs and so on. When Austrlaia bats, they have 7 specialist batsmen, plus a couple of bowlers who can bat a bit.

Alternative scenario: Australia picks the same team (or Watson instead of Kasprowicz would be fine too), but loses the toss, and is sent in to bat. If Australia is going along fine and bats out their 50 overs without losing more than 5 or 6 wickets, Hussey/Hodge stays in the pavilion and takes no part in the game until a bowler who is weak in the field is bowled out. If Australia get 5 or 6 down and need a batsmen, the switch is made for Australia's weakest seamer... probably Michael Kasprowicz. Hodge/Hussey can then bat and field, and Australia will need to send down 10 overs from Symonds and Clarke.

Therefore, my Australian team for the first NWC game:

Hayden
Gilchrist
Ponting
Martyn
Symonds
Clarke
Hogg
Lee
Gillespie
Kasprowicz (or Watson)
McGrath
Substitute: Michael Hussey

 

[chaminda_00]

Why? Think about it... England pick Solanki and bat first, Brett Lee cleans up Andrew Strauss, and he is replaced with Vikram Solanki... who now cannot bat as he has already been dismissed, and isn't much of a bowler anyway!

Cus they don't have any all rounders they can pick as a reserve. Do you think they are going to pick Rikki Clarke, Garerth Batty or Ian Blackwell. Solanki is a better option as a specialist fielder then any of these three guys. Who do you think England will pick as 12th man?

 

[social]

Social was making a point about England's dodgy use of the 12th man rule as it currently stands, having Solanki on the field instead of a bowler for most of Australia's innings yesterday.

Correct and, btw, they have done it all series.

I can only assume that the Aussies are waiting for a more opportune moment to complain (say, vital times in the test series) as it is against the laws of the game not just the spirit.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Cus they don't have any all rounders they can pick as a reserve. Do you think they are going to pick Rikki Clarke, Garerth Batty or Ian Blackwell. Solanki is a better option as a specialist fielder then any of these three guys. Who do you think England will pick as 12th man?

Yeah, I agree Solanki is a likely pick (or Bell, if he's a quality fieldier... not sure), but not as an all-rounder, and not to replace someone like Andrew Strauss after they've been dismissed. Why would you sub in a batsman when he can't bat?

If a team picks a batsmen as their sub, they should bowl first and bring them in for a bowler who has bowled out, or if they bat, bring them in only if they get in trouble and need the extra bat, otherwise save them just to field when a bowler has completed later on. This is definately the best way to use the sub... think about the advantage for Australia taking out McGrath or even Warne (who has said he might return with these new rules) for Michael Hussey when they have finished 10, and how much stability it would add being able to pick 5 specialist bowlers, and bring in an extra batsman for one of the bowlers if needed. It basically allows you to change the selected side after the game begins.

 

[Craig]

Blimey this has got me lost here

And for Marc's comment, the old Mercantile Mutal Cup (now ING Cup) used to be able to bring on the 12th man to be able to bowl, but couldn't bat. No prizes that McGrath is automatic 12th man on the rare chance he got to play for his state.

 

[shaka]

If he replaces a bowler, he can complete that bowlers 10 over quota - so if he's bowled out, he can't bowl at all.

If he replaces an already dismissed batsman, he can't bat.

but he would then be able to bowl

 

[Mister Wright]

Blimey this has got me lost here

And for Marc's comment, the old Mercantile Mutal Cup (now ING Cup) used to be able to bring on the 12th man to be able to bowl, but couldn't bat. No prizes that McGrath is automatic 12th man on the rare chance he got to play for his state.

I think the new rule should be changed to replacement player rather than subsitution. A replaced player gives the impression that they replace that player and can only finish what they haven't finished, whereas a substitution implies that the player can be substituted and do whatever they want to do (or captain wants them to do).

 

[chaminda_00]

Yeah, I agree Solanki is a likely pick (or Bell, if he's a quality fieldier... not sure), but not as an all-rounder, and not to replace someone like Andrew Strauss after they've been dismissed. Why would you sub in a batsman when he can't bat?

Yeah they probably wont replace Strauss as he is a better fielder then Gough or Harmison.

I think we will see teams that play 7 batsmen play bowling all rounders as the 12th man and teams that have 5 bowlers play batsmen/fielding all rounders as 12th man. That will be the tactic that i would think teams play.

 

[Jamee999]

What if you lose the toss though?

 

[Jamee999]

The ULTIMATE man for this job would be Tatenda Taibu. I'm just gonna pretend he plays for England.

Team:

Trescothick
Strauss
Vaughan
Flintoff
Pietersen
Collingwood
G.Jones
Giles
S.Jones
Gough
Harmison

Sub: Taibu

SCENARIO 1: England win the toss and bat.

England Bat. Geraint Jones is replaced by Taibu who keeps.

SCENARIO 2: England lose the toss and field.

England bowl, if a bowler messes up, Taibu comes on and shares the rest of their overs. He then bats for them. If no messups occour, Taibu replaces Harmo and bats at 8.

The ULTIMATE man for the job.

 

[howardj]

The best thing would be to pick a specialist bat who also excels in the field... for example Brad Hodge or Michael Hussey.

Scenario: Australia picks all five specialist bowlers in their team, in Hogg, Kasprowicz, McGrath, Gillespie and Lee, and wins the toss and bowls. Glenn McGrath sends down his 10 overs straight up, leaves the field and is replaced with Hodge, who excels in the field, cutting off runs and so on. When Austrlaia bats, they have 7 specialist batsmen, plus a couple of bowlers who can bat a bit.

Alternative scenario: Australia picks the same team (or Watson instead of Kasprowicz would be fine too), but loses the toss, and is sent in to bat. If Australia is going along fine and bats out their 50 overs without losing more than 5 or 6 wickets, Hussey/Hodge stays in the pavilion and takes no part in the game until a bowler who is weak in the field is bowled out. If Australia get 5 or 6 down and need a batsmen, the switch is made for Australia's weakest seamer... probably Michael Kasprowicz. Hodge/Hussey can then bat and field, and Australia will need to send down 10 overs from Symonds and Clarke.

There's the nail

There's FaaipDeOiad hitting it right on the head

 

[shaka]

can a team retire a player and then the substitute bat as well?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

can a team retire a player and then the substitute bat as well?

No, unless the player is retired hurt, I should imagine. It's not been clarified, but I would assume someone who is substituted in can do everything the player taken out could do, including returning after retiring with an injury. Retiring without an injury is a dismissal in the scorebook though... you are out, retired. So, the substitute could then not bat.

 

[chaminda_00]

yeah im pretty sure if a guy retires hurt the other guy can bat for him.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Yeah, I agree Solanki is a likely pick (or Bell, if he's a quality fieldier... not sure), but not as an all-rounder, and not to replace someone like Andrew Strauss after they've been dismissed. Why would you sub in a batsman when he can't bat?

If a team picks a batsmen as their sub, they should bowl first and bring them in for a bowler who has bowled out, or if they bat, bring them in only if they get in trouble and need the extra bat, otherwise save them just to field when a bowler has completed later on. This is definately the best way to use the sub... think about the advantage for Australia taking out McGrath or even Warne (who has said he might return with these new rules) for Michael Hussey when they have finished 10, and how much stability it would add being able to pick 5 specialist bowlers, and bring in an extra batsman for one of the bowlers if needed. It basically allows you to change the selected side after the game begins.

That's the call, I think - with the tradeoff between Solanki and Bell as the twelfth between Solanki's fielding and Bell's bowling.