Substitution Tactics

[Neil Pickup]

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!

 

[Mister Wright]

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.

 

[Scaly piscine]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Pratters]

I would like to know how good a fielder Prior is.

Havent checked this thread before.

On the subs :

If a team has a quality all rounder, he would be an option which is safe as he can come in in either inning.

A batsman or bowler with excellent fielding skill (faaip mentioned about the batsman) can also be a superb option but there is little danger the sub may not be used for his specialist job.

The case for the bowler as a sub has not been debated too much and I would like to go into that first. I think the vital aspect of a sub is to boost a team and it depends vastly on how the first XI of the team is when you want to consider your sub.

A team like South Africa which batted deep down in the 90s till say Symcox would not require a batting sub in most situations. They would rather have had some one like Brett Schultz as their sub. A team which has a weak bowling line up but a decent batting line up, like India for example, would go for a bowler as well (also they do not have a decent all rounder but even if they had this would be a legitimate option).

A very weak team like Bangladesh for example who have nothing to lose in a match versus Australia can take a bit of a gamble with their subs. They can go easily for a specialist batsman or a bowler which may not pay off if the toss does not go favourably. However if the toss does go favourably, they can make the most of the sub in an attempt to scale the balance.

So the possibilities with the sub have opened up. We have all criticised the subs. But one good point of them is it gives the teams a second chance. If test cricket has a second inning, one day cricket now has subs.

It is here to stay I guess as the more we think of the possibilities, the more interesting it gets. It changes totally fromt he game we know as one day cricket I think to a new one day cricket we are looking at now though.

 

[Scaly piscine]

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.

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.

 

[marc71178]

Why not use the 20 overs all from the start then with that option?

 

[honestbharani]

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

I think, going by your idea, it would Mohammed Kaif for India.

 

[Jamee999]

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.

Or Geraint and Read.

If you win the toss you get Geraint's batting and Read's keeping, if not you get an extra batter in Read.

 

[Prince EWS]

Not if they bat well enough to only lose two or three wickets!

I actually meant "What if they lose the toss and and are sent in TO THE FIELD."

I made a crucial error leaving those 3 words out - made it seem like I was implying the exact opposite of what I was really implying...

 

[Craig]

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.

 

[Mister Wright]

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.

Who else can you use? The physio?

 

[chaminda_00]

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 rounder

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

it isn't if you use an all rounder

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.

Compared to that, if you switch your side to include 5 specialist bowlers (excluding teams which already have that like England) and add a fielding specialist batsman as a sub, you can use the same tactics with replacing a bowler when he has completed his 10, but you get a genuine batsman, a quality fielder, and because you picked 5 bowlers you can still send down 50 specialist overs but pick 7 batsmen as well. If you are sent in to bat, you just use the specialist bat if your team gets into trouble, again like you would with an all-rounder, but with a true batsman coming in. If you don't get into trouble, you stay with your five speicalists until one is bowled out, and bring on a good fielder.

The only advantage an all-rounder offers, is that in the "team is in trouble when batting" case, he can strengthen the batting without reducing the bowling stocks for the second innings much, but with decent part timers like most sides have, why bother?

If England bat and get in trouble, they bring on Solanki for Gough or Jones, and use 10 overs from Collingwood/Vaughan. If Australia bat and get in trouble, they bring on Hussey or Hodge for Gillespie or Kasprowicz, and use 10 overs from Clarke/Symonds. If you bowl first, it's a no-brainer.

I really can't see the argument for picking an all-rounder for the spot at all. Even if your all-rounder is as good as Flintoff in both disciplines, he'd be better off in the starting XI than as a sub, unlike someone like Solanki or Hussey.

 

[Scaly piscine]

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.

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]

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.

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.