Poll on the Concept of Super Sub

[Jono]

I like the powerplay concept a lot, but the super-sub rule stinks. Just plain stinks. Whether or not the super-sub is named after the toss, I still wouldn't support it but enforcing that rule would at least improve it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I personally think that something needed to be done to liven one-dayers up; the overs from 15-40 were getting so boring, conservative & predictable that one might as well not bother watching them.

That said, I don't like them myself. The rule certainly favours the team batting second & makes captains' decisions as to the crucial balance of the side rather easier than they were.

They were right to try it, it stinks, let's move on!

 

[greg]

I like the powerplay concept a lot, but the super-sub rule stinks. Just plain stinks. Whether or not the super-sub is named after the toss, I still wouldn't support it but enforcing that rule would at least improve it.

IMO the powerplay rule is pointless, and even has a negative impact because of the effect it has on the selection of spinners. Far from increasing the tactics and flexibility for the fielding captain it actually decreases it - because it limits the times when he can bowl bowlers who cannot under any circumstances be risked with only two fielders on the boundary. If the change had just been to let the 10-15 over period "float" then that would have been OK, but to increase the fielding restrictions to 20 overs is a disaster. In practice the vast majority of the time captain's must take the powerplays immediately (or perhaps with a 2-3 over MAX break) or risk absolute carnage in the later overs.

It also massively increases the importance of the start, and in any match where the side batting first loses a couple of wickets early can basically destroy their chances (and the match as a result) before it's started.

 

[Autobahn]

Supersub: It does have some merit but most of the time the sub is a bowler who replaces the batsmen if the captain bats first. Hardly a massive tactical talking point.

Powerplays: pointless, most captains just try to get them over with quickly and so you get a 20-over restriction instead of 15, again hardly a great captaining decision.

I still don't get why tried it in the first place.

 

[Arjun]

This stupid-sub rule has been written such that the most successful ODI sides would use it the least. There's no point using a super-sub just because you can use one. Sometimes, it can backfire if it's not your day, as was the case with Solanki replacing Simon Jones. That would result in different XI selections, some of which would look outlandish- imagine picking an extra bits-and-pieces player, just in case you can't use a super-sub. The rule falls flat when you pick seven specialist batsmen and the score is still less than 300!

 

[TendulkarFan]

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

Agreed; they should be named after the toss. I voted yes as well.

 

[greg]

Agreed; they should be named after the toss. I voted yes as well.

The supersub idea attempts to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. The fact is that there is nothing unique about the number 11 when trying to find the right balance in a team. If cricket had developed as a 12 man game then exactly the same selection dilemmas would be arising (ie. extra batsman, extra bowler, allrounder?, batsman/keeper etc). So if the supersub rule was persisted with (albeit amended to pre-toss) then logically you would probably in a few years time get calls for a second supersub. Once the principle of batting XIs and bowling XIs are conceded to (as the supersub rule effectively does), then it's a short step to American Football.

 

[TT Boy]

Cricket should be 11 against 11, that's it, loathe the concept.

 

[Jono]

IMO the powerplay rule is pointless, and even has a negative impact because of the effect it has on the selection of spinners. Far from increasing the tactics and flexibility for the fielding captain it actually decreases it - because it limits the times when he can bowl bowlers who cannot under any circumstances be risked with only two fielders on the boundary. If the change had just been to let the 10-15 over period "float" then that would have been OK, but to increase the fielding restrictions to 20 overs is a disaster. In practice the vast majority of the time captain's must take the powerplays immediately (or perhaps with a 2-3 over MAX break) or risk absolute carnage in the later overs.

It also massively increases the importance of the start, and in any match where the side batting first loses a couple of wickets early can basically destroy their chances (and the match as a result) before it's started.

But there is flexibility, its just not always required. For example, the 2nd Aus v World XI match where Sangakkara and Gayle were belting the ball all around the park. It allowed Ponting to spread the field after 10 overs, and then when a wicket fell (Gayle) and the new batsman was in, he was able to bring the field back in implementing the powerplay and putting pressure on the new batsman. I think it works, the name sucks though.