Poll on the Concept of Super Sub

[Maison]

Trying to "liven up" the game and make it more "public friendly" were some of the reasons.

yes making it 'public friendly'... more like 'more confusing'

took me about a few matches before i caught on.

bring back the old i say!

maybe time will tell?

 

[open365]

Yeh a better structure might be:
10-20 overs: max 2 fielders outside circle
20-30 overs: max 3 fielders outside circle
30-40 overs: max 4 fielders outside circle
40-50 overs: max 5 fielders outside circle

to confusing for the captain and spectators IMO.

something like 2 outside for the first 25 overs and 4 for the last 25 would suit me.

 

[Scaly piscine]

to confusing for the captain and spectators IMO.

something like 2 outside for the first 25 overs and 4 for the last 25 would suit me.

Not remotely confusing for the captain and if specators were confused by that then they'd be confused by just about everything else that happens in cricket.

Regardless fielding restrictions aren't something a spectator has to understand to watch the game anyway.

 

[Maison]

Not remotely confusing for the captain and if specators were confused by that then they'd be confused by just about everything else that happens in cricket.

Regardless fielding restrictions aren't something a spectator has to understand anyway to watch the game anyway.

lol not really

i didnt find the original rules confusing at all, and i was like 2 yrs old back then :/

 

[J.Coney]

i think its pointless. it doesnt have any real merit.

i thought it would have made the game a little more interesting if it had a slight test cricket patten.

team A 1st inn. bat 25 overs or the loss of their first 5 wickets.
team B "" ""
team A 2nn inn 25 overs or the loss of their next remaining 5 wickets.
team B "" """
*however you just play down the batting order, not start again like a test.
*also force to follow on rule can be applied if you restrict or take 5 of your opponent wickets for 50 runs or less in the 1st inn.
*also the bat on rule can be applied if your team has scored 50 runs or more than your opponent after the 1st inn.

example: Aust vs NZ dec3 Auckland.
Aust 1st Inn 3-140 A Symonds 0* , B Hodge 8* 25 overs completed.
NZ 1st inn. 5-28 N.Astle 13* 10.6 overs (loss 14 overs & trail by 112 runs.)

I would assume Aust force the follow on. NZ begin there 2nd Inn.

NZ 2nd inn 10-105 C.Cairns 37* 17 overs competed.

aust win by an innings and 35 runs.

 

[shankar]

I don't mind the rule if the modification is made to choose the super-sub after the toss.

 

[steds]

Pointless

 

[open365]

just a question,what did people think of the ODI changes before we saw the matches using them?

i thought the powerplays might do ok and the supersub would change it alot,but i was suprised that it obviously gave the advantage to the team batting 2nd.

 

[Scaly piscine]

just a question,what did people think of the ODI changes before we saw the matches using them?

i thought the powerplays might do ok and the supersub would change it alot,but i was suprised that it obviously gave the advantage to the team batting 2nd.

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?t=13690&page=1&pp=15


I thought the substitute rule was crap then and I think it's crap now.

 

[archie mac]

Some of the best OD games I have watched, have involved low scores on bowler friendly pitches. I find it boring when the first side makes 320 and the 2nd team scores 295 all out in the 48th over.

I liked to watch some bowling skills in my cricket, not flat track bullies.

 

[age_master]

Some of the best OD games I have watched, have involved low scores on bowler friendly pitches. I find it boring when the first side makes 320 and the 2nd team scores 295 all out in the 48th over.

I liked to watch some bowling skills in my cricket, not flat track bullies.

i like either, as long as they keep you interested until the end. the problem is that if Australia bat first and make a big score, 95% of the time it ends up as a huge win thanks to McGrath, Lee and co.

 

[Natman20]

I admit that the more I see of it the better it is. It adds another tactical and strategic element to the game. I still see quite a few disadvantages with it though but I don't think they are going to change the rule anytime soon anyway

 

[roseboy64]

Good concept. Could do with restructuring though to make it more even.

 

[marc71178]

i think its pointless. it doesnt have any real merit.

i thought it would have made the game a little more interesting if it had a slight test cricket patten.

team A 1st inn. bat 25 overs or the loss of their first 5 wickets.
team B "" ""
team A 2nn inn 25 overs or the loss of their next remaining 5 wickets.
team B "" """
*however you just play down the batting order, not start again like a test.
*also force to follow on rule can be applied if you restrict or take 5 of your opponent wickets for 50 runs or less in the 1st inn.
*also the bat on rule can be applied if your team has scored 50 runs or more than your opponent after the 1st inn.

example: Aust vs NZ dec3 Auckland.
Aust 1st Inn 3-140 A Symonds 0* , B Hodge 8* 25 overs completed.
NZ 1st inn. 5-28 N.Astle 13* 10.6 overs (loss 14 overs & trail by 112 runs.)

I would assume Aust force the follow on. NZ begin there 2nd Inn.

NZ 2nd inn 10-105 C.Cairns 37* 17 overs competed.

aust win by an innings and 35 runs.

Just when I thought the current rules couldn't get any worse...

 

[marc71178]

just a question,what did people think of the ODI changes before we saw the matches using them?

IIRC, most people thought them to be a bad idea.

 

[aussie]

its a fair concept IMO, dont mind it

 

[JASON]

Pity it's not a public poll - would love to see who voted yes!

Apologise for not making it a public poll.

 

[J.Coney]

ahhh. sorry for boring the pants off ya, but if you check out my attachment it may shareds some light on concept.

or

 

[honestbharani]

i like the concept, i think they should be named after the toss.

me too. It makes it 12 Vs 12, but it makes things interesting. Most importantly, you can still have 11 fit players who can do all jobs on the field if one gets injured and has to go off.

 

[SJS]

i like the concept, i think they should be named after the toss.

DITTO