Reintroducing Supersubs

[honestbharani]

Well, having watched that great game between Oz and RSA and the reactions to it, I am getting the feeling that captains will be stacking up their batters more and more in times to come in ODIs. Therefore, would it really be that bad an idea to reintroduce super subs with the provision that they can be named AFTER the toss? At least, it will mean slightly better quality of cricket with one more specialist bowler bowling instead of a bits and pieces trundler...... Just a thought that I felt was worth discussing about. What do you guys think?

 

[BlackCap_Fan]

Possibly.

There needs to be changes to the rules of it though - it relies alot on the toss.

If we could swap supersubs for powerplays, I would gladly do so.

 

[aussie]

yep i agree with that once it after the toss, it would be a top rule. But get rid of power-plays & get back to the normal 15 over restriction.

 

[vic_orthdox]

It's amazing how much depth it added to the sides, when you saw how Aus used to have Hussey batting as low as 7. But in the end, I think it's just better left behind. You might try and tweak it, but it'll still have its detractors. Bring it back to 11 vs 11.

 

[adharcric]

Agreed. It might work out, but better to keep things simple and force teams to find bowling options.

 

[DanielFullard]

Im afraid I am in thr Anti-super-sub camp. Its not necessray at all

 

[age_master]

It's amazing how much depth it added to the sides, when you saw how Aus used to have Hussey batting as low as 7. But in the end, I think it's just better left behind. You might try and tweak it, but it'll still have its detractors. Bring it back to 11 vs 11.

11 vs 11 or 12 vs 12

is there any real difference in the end?

 

[Scaly piscine]

11 vs 11 or 12 vs 12

is there any real difference in the end?

No real difference, that's why it's not worth devaluing the game by faffing about with core parts of it.

 

[open365]

I think we should all forget that supersubs ever happened.

Ok, if you work hard enough, they might make a difference to the game, but in the end, would anyone really care if we didn't introduce them again?

 

[marc71178]

11 vs 11 or 12 vs 12

is there any real difference in the end?

A huge difference IMO.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

What's the point in re-introducing the rule now? They tried it. It failed.

Yes, if it's after the toss it may work, but is it worth the effort of re-instating the rule?

Does it really matter if we continue playing ODI cricket in the same way that it's been played for the last few decades? Has the interest in ODI cricket really fallen away that much?

 

[neutralguy]

yep i agree with that once it after the toss, it would be a top rule. But get rid of power-plays & get back to the normal 15 over restriction.

Instead of 20 over powerplays, just have no powerplays at all or 5 over powerplays.

 

[Autobahn]

Well, having watched that great game between Oz and RSA and the reactions to it, I am getting the feeling that captains will be stacking up their batters more and more in times to come in ODIs. Therefore, would it really be that bad an idea to reintroduce super subs with the provision that they can be named AFTER the toss? At least, it will mean slightly better quality of cricket with one more specialist bowler bowling instead of a bits and pieces trundler...... Just a thought that I felt was worth discussing about. What do you guys think?

To be fair it showed why having specialist bowlers is important, i mean no good hitting a world record breaking score if your bowling attacks consists mostly of military-medium guys on a flat wicket, but at the same time bits and pieces players will always feature in ODI cricket to be/support the fifth bowler and hit the quick 20 or 30 down the order or see the side past the last couple of runs.

 

[Dick Rockett]

I'm not a fan of the supersub at all. To me cricket is 11 vs 11. Arbitrary perhaps, but as someone already said, a core element of the game.

Mind you, if they did have to bring it back, I'd be much happier if they ditched the dribbly American hyperbole. Super this, power that....

Anyway, powerplay is an ice hockey thing - it means the opposition are short one guy in the penalty box.

 

[sqwerty]

pointless

personally I cannot see any reason to have the rule. If you want to deepen the batting which is what the rule appears to achieve you may as well go the whole hog and do it gridiron style........have your bowling side and your batting side.

 

[honestbharani]

I know it sounds odd but with the extra specialist bowler, I think there might just be a bit more of a balance between bat and ball than there is at this time.

 

[Richard]

David Richardson said quite clearly that it was designed to increase the use of all-rounders.
As such, it was never going to be named after the toss as some suggested.
Frankly, I think it's best we just forget it and remain with 11-vs-11... as it's been for the past 43 years.