• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Moments of Ingenious Captaincy

Burpey

Cricketer Of The Year
Is it just a glorified version of Batting/Bowling 12th Man ? That was trialled in ING Cup in Aus and to my knowledge was a failure and is no longer used
 

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I tend to disagree. Having a side score over 200 and a bowler short makes for a much more interesting game than a game where a side only scores 120 or 130. I think the super-sub has shown itself to be a good move thus far.

And the ING cup never used a super-sub, it was a case of having 12 players at any time, only 11 could bat and field, and bowlers still had a maximum of 10 overs.
 

Barney Rubble

International Coach
Scallywag said:
I can see the day when a team realises that using the wicketkeeper for super-subbing is a big advantage.
I had that thought the other day. I think I mentioned it in another thread. Can't quite figure out a way to make it work though - unless your keeper is a rubbish batsman, in which case it's just like having a bowler as supersub.

Perhaps you could play an extra all-rounder instead of the keeper, then sub the keeper after a while for either a bowler if you bat second, or a batsman if you bat first? There's probably something wrong with that, but this whole supersub rule is so damn confusing when you're inventing scenarios that I can't be bothered to work out whether or not there's actually a way to do it.
 

Top