Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
Not if they bat well enough to only lose two or three wickets!Prince EWS said:What if they lose the toss and are sent in though??
They then have to waste their substitution even before a ball is bowled.
Not if they bat well enough to only lose two or three wickets!Prince EWS said:What if they lose the toss and are sent in though??
They then have to waste their substitution even before a ball is bowled.
If they are sent in the wicket keeper doesn't bat and replaces the batsman in the field.Prince EWS said:What if they lose the toss and are sent in though??
They then have to waste their substitution even before a ball is bowled.
That's just the same gamble effectively as if your sub is a bowler or batsman - great if you win the toss, useless if you lose it.Mister Wright said: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.
Not necessarily. If you win the toss and bowl first your keeper can be replaced with the batsman for the 2nd innings. If you lose the toss and are sent in you can play your keeper instead of a bowler which should strengthen your batting line up and then when you bowl you can replace the bowler with the batsman.Scaly piscine said:That's just the same gamble effectively as if your sub is a bowler or batsman - great if you win the toss, useless if you lose it.
OK it's a little better than useless if you have to field first, but to get any benefit out of it you'd have to have someone like (using England as an example) Trescothick keeping wicket for the first 20 overs whilst someone bowls out, then you sub the bowled out bowler and end up with 6 batters an all-rounder, wicket keeper and 3 bowlers - but then you've also had Tresco keeping wicket for the first 20 overs. Teams would really need someone who can be a solid fill-in keeper against pace bowling to get an advantage out of this strategy.Mister Wright said:Not necessarily. If you win the toss and bowl first your keeper can be replaced with the batsman for the 2nd innings. If you lose the toss and are sent in you can play your keeper instead of a bowler which should strengthen your batting line up and then when you bowl you can replace the bowler with the batsman.
Like I said, it won't benefit most teams, however could be an option for the teams with weaker keeper/batsman.
I think, going by your idea, it would Mohammed Kaif for India.FaaipDeOiad said: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
Or Geraint and Read.Scaly piscine said:OK it's a little better than useless if you have to field first, but to get any benefit out of it you'd have to have someone like (using England as an example) Trescothick keeping wicket for the first 20 overs whilst someone bowls out, then you sub the bowled out bowler and end up with 6 batters an all-rounder, wicket keeper and 3 bowlers - but then you've also had Tresco keeping wicket for the first 20 overs. Teams would really need someone who can be a solid fill-in keeper against pace bowling to get an advantage out of this strategy.
I actually meant "What if they lose the toss and and are sent in TO THE FIELD."Neil Pickup said:Not if they bat well enough to only lose two or three wickets!
Who else can you use? The physio?Craig said:Either way this is confusing which way you went - it is a gamble to use a wicketkeeper/batsman/bowler/all-rounder , if you are sent in or are ordered to field.
it isn't if you use an all rounderCraig said:Either way this is confusing which way you went - it is a gamble to use a wicketkeeper/batsman/bowler/all-rounder , if you are sent in or are ordered to field.
Using an all-rounder offers flexability, but not added strength to the team really, unless that player is genuinely as good as a specialist in both disciplines, which few are. If you bat first with an all-rounder as your sub, you could bring him in for a bowler if you lose a series of wickets, or save him for when a bowler completes his spell and bring him on in the second innings. If you bowl first its easier, and you just replace a bowler when he has finished 10 and get someone who can bowl some overs and also bat.chaminda_00 said:it isn't if you use an all rounder
The sub inherits how many overs the person they've subbed has bowled, so if the player going off has bowled 10 then that leaves the player coming on unable to bowl.FaaipDeOiad said:Using an all-rounder offers flexability, but not added strength to the team really, unless that player is genuinely as good as a specialist in both disciplines, which few are. If you bat first with an all-rounder as your sub, you could bring him in for a bowler if you lose a series of wickets, or save him for when a bowler completes his spell and bring him on in the second innings. If you bowl first its easier, and you just replace a bowler when he has finished 10 and get someone who can bowl some overs and also bat.
Yeah, forgot about that. Well, another argument for the inclusion of a batsman who is good in the field, rather than an all-rounder. If you bowl first, bring him on for a bowler who has completed his 10, and if you bat, bring him on if and when you get in trouble. It allows teams without an all-rounder to nullify the problem of not being able to pick five bowlers without reducing the quality of the batting.Scaly piscine said:The sub inherits how many overs the person they've subbed has bowled, so if the player going off has bowled 10 then that leaves the player coming on unable to bowl.