Substitution Tactics

[PY]

Think you've nailed it there FaaipDeOiad, I can't see any bowlers being picked because generally with exceptions batsmen are stronger fielders than bowlers so they have two things going for them.

I guess in a small way, it's made fielding even more important in ODI now because your fielding could literally earn you place in the side. Also, what's the position on caps and things like that? Do you earn a full cap even if you don't get a game and can captains bring you on for a over at the end to get you a cap?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Think you've nailed it there FaaipDeOiad, I can't see any bowlers being picked because generally with exceptions batsmen are stronger fielders than bowlers so they have two things going for them.

I guess in a small way, it's made fielding even more important in ODI now because your fielding could literally earn you place in the side. Also, what's the position on caps and things like that? Do you earn a full cap even if you don't get a game and can captains bring you on for a over at the end to get you a cap?

Caps go to all 12 players, regardless of participation.

 

[PY]

Ergh, that makes ODI appearances nice and meaningful.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Ergh, that makes ODI appearances nice and meaningful.

I think it will be a fair while before anyone isn't used at all honestly. Maybe if you get a really lopsided game, but I think captains will be keen on using them.

 

[SpeedKing]

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.

I think that has pretty much hit the mark there. I feel that would be the most profitable way of using the sub. McGrath is ofcourse the culprit here. An Aussie 12 of Gilchrist/hayden/Punter/martyn/Symonds/Hussey/Clarke/Hogg/Watson/Lee/Gillespie/McGrath

If they bat first, that squad without McGrath is sent out. When they come out to bowl, A hayden/ [Trescothick for England who doesn't bowl/ is slow in the field] is replaced by the Aussie's premium bowler.

If they bowl first, The above scenario is simply reversed, McGrath starts/ Hayden comes on to bat.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Yes, but you have to name your 11 + sub before the toss!

 

[SpeedKing]

Ofcourse these substitutes are all in theory, they can backfire if both players [the sub and the substituted] have a bad day.

Like a Simon Jones has 10 overs to forget, Trescothick substitutes him and gets out on the cheap.

However it will help teams judge conditions better. eg, a captain is not sure about the pitch and dont tnow whether to take the sole spinner or go in with 2. If the paceman has a torrid time on a now dusty deck, the he is substituted with a spinner who would be able to use the condition much better

 

[SpeedKing]

Yes, but you have to name your 11 + sub before the toss!

is it, i thought you have to name your 12 and then decide who will sit on the bench at the toss

 

[SpeedKing]

That means you have to have an allrounder-kind-of-guy as sub, unless you wannna risk it and hope the toss goes your way.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

That means you have to have an allrounder-kind-of-guy as sub, unless you wannna risk it and hope the toss goes your way.

No, ideally you would have a batsman who can field imo. If you win, bowl and sub him in for a bowler who has finished, and if you lose the toss and are sent in, only sub him in if your team gets in trouble and needs the batsman, otherwise you keep five bowlers.

 

[Jamee999]

But you need a part-timer then

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

But you need a part-timer then

Well, that's why ideally you pick 5 bowlers, and most teams have a part timer or two as well.

In England for example, you pick the current team with say Solanki or Bell as a sub, and if you are batting and get into trouble, sub out Jones or Giles for Solanki/Bell, and rely on Collingwood and Bell and Vaughan to give you 10 overs. In Australia, you might sub out Kasprowicz or Gillespie for Hussey or Hodge, and rely on Clarke and Symonds for 10 overs.

That's an emergency though, if the team is in trouble. If you cruise to 4/275 from your 50, well obviously you stick with 5 bowlers, hence the advantage from the sub. Bowling first is ideal, as you can bowl out someone like Harmison or McGrath and replace them with a Bell or a Hussey.

 

[marc71178]

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

Yes, as he's not been dismissed.

 

[marc71178]

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

That'll be why it's never been pointed out till now...

 

[marc71178]

but he would then be able to bowl

Not if the player he replaces has bowled 10 he won't.

 

[marc71178]

If they bat first, that squad without McGrath is sent out.

The 11 has to be named pre-toss.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

That'll be why it's never been pointed out till now...

Actually, one of the Sky commentators mentioned it about halfway through the series. England were doing it for every match where Solanki was 12th man, at least. That's not to say nobody else has ever done it, as Australia used Lee in the same way in Sri Lanka, even if there was a bit more justification for it there in terms of legitimate injury than for England currently.

 

[shaka]

the 12th man would be used as either a batsman or a bowler, in the 2nd innings, and if bowling first, might be used to fill up the rest of the overs, a guy like Cairns or Andre Adams would be useful here as they are able to do both quite well, and therefore would replace a weak bowler / better batsman or weak batsman/better bowler

 

[Mister Wright]

What about the replacement player being a wicket keeper? I know most of the keepers in sides these days are pretty much batsman. But just think about it. If the team bats first they play the extra batsman, then when they field they replace the batsman with the keeper. It could help the sides with the weaker keeper/batsman like the West Indies and India.

 

[Prince EWS]

What about the replacement player being a wicket keeper? I know most of the keepers in sides these days are pretty much batsman. But just think about it. If the team bats first they play the extra batsman, then when they field they replace the batsman with the keeper. It could help the sides with the weaker keeper/batsman like the West Indies and India.

What if they lose the toss and are sent in though??

They then have to waste their substitution even before a ball is bowled.