Reintroduction of the Substitute rule

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by pasag

By far the worst rule in cricket ever.

Would still take it over the current chucking edict myself.

Not a fan still tho.

[pup11]

Originally Posted by aussie

Given how T20s have evolved i think having this rule back again, would make the format even more appealing.

As most would remember the way ICC structured the rule the last time, where by the captain had to name his sub before the toss instead of after the toss, really was stupid. I was always a fan of it & i believe it should come back.

Opinions??

I think the idea definitely had a lot of merit, but it was executed in a very dumb way, I think if this super-sub thing is applied smartly in OD format of the game, it can add a new dimension to the game.

I think the teams should be allowed to substitute any player, at any time they want, without having to tell the opposition who exactly he is going to be before the game starts, they didn't do this last time around, which made the rule unfair.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by pasag

By far the worst rule in cricket ever.

The previous LBW rule post 1960, was easily worst.

But its not gauged towards test cricket. Thankfully cricket is versatile enough to 3 formats, thus having this rule in T20s would definately aid in making it more appealing to non-cricket audience, since T20 - is not proper cricket.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by pup11

I think the idea definitely had a lot merit, but it was executed in a very dumb way, I think if this super-sub thing is applied smartly in OD format of the game, it can add a new dimension to the game.

I think the teams should be allowed to substitute any player, at any time they want, without having to tell the opposition who exactly he is going to be before the game starts, they didn't do this last time around, which made the rule unfair.

Word out...

[aussie]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Indeed, ****ed me no end watching bowlers dominate the WC...

Two types of bowlers where effective in the T20 WC. Quality spinners & fast-bowlers adept at death bowling. Every other bowler was smashed accordingly, so essentially it wasn't an even balance between bat & ball - theirfore not proper cricket.

[andruid]

Originally Posted by aussie

Two types of bowlers where effective in the T20 WC. Quality spinners & fast-bowlers adept at death bowling. Every other bowler was smashed accordingly, so essentially it wasn't an even balance between bat & ball - theirfore not proper cricket.

You would expect substandard bowling from bowlers lacking in tactical thought (as is being described in the 'every other bowler that gor smashed around) to get punished and, thus fail inall formats of the game. Therefore if that this manifest itself in bowlers being hit about and more than 7.5 rpo In T20 cricket leads you to dismiss as not being proper cricket, then there is no such thing as proper cricket. Given that in test matches we do see entire bowling units failing to make 10 wickets fall in innings upwards of 150 overs out of the very same lack of skill and tactical nous that comes with being a quality spinner or fast bowler.

[G.I.Joe]

Aussie, you're saying it wasn't proper cricket because bowlers who aren't quality spinners and fast bowlers adept at death bowling, got smashed? That makes no sense, dude. If anything that's a plus.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by andruid

You would expect substandard bowling from bowlers lacking in tactical thought (as is being described in the 'every other bowler that gor smashed around) to get punished and, thus fail inall formats of the game.

Bowling in a T20, is basically bowling bowling in the late 10 overs of a 50 over game - but you doing it for 10 more overs.

The type of fast-bowlers that bowl very well in this period are the good death bowlers. Other quality fast-bowlers whose strenght in taking wickets, is by swing, line & lenght are smashed. A batsman i never tested technically or mentally - its a slog fest.

For the spinners, its a spinner game as Shane Warne rightfully said the other day. So once these cats have enough variation & guile, they will always be effective in T20 when batsmen are in a ultra-agressive mode

Originally Posted by andruid

Therefore if that this manifest itself in bowlers being hit about and more than 7.5 rpo In T20 cricket leads you to dismiss as not being proper cricket, then there is no such thing as proper cricket. Given that in test matches we do see entire bowling units failing to make 10 wickets fall in innings upwards of 150 overs out of the very same lack of skill and tactical nous that comes with being a quality spinner or fast bowler.

Generally any bowling attack in tests that fails to takes 10 wickets in 150 overs is a poor attack. Although you can have remarkable circumstances like Kolkatta 01 or maybe they play @ an ARG type road, where even the best of bowlers would struggle.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Indeed, ****ed me no end watching bowlers dominate the WC...

"Cricket" where bowlers dominate by conceding 6-an-over isn't a good balance between bat and ball in my book.

[andruid]

Originally Posted by aussie

Bowling in a T20, is basically bowling bowling in the late 10 overs of a 50 over game - but you doing it for 10 more overs.

yes and the bowler is not smart enought to evolve his bowling (or outrightly refuses to)to find a way tp cope it will largely be his problem not the games.

Originally Posted by aussie

The type of fast-bowlers that bowl very well in this period are the good death bowlers. Other quality fast-bowlers whose strenght in taking wickets, is by swing, line & lenght are smashed. A batsman i never tested technically or mentally - its a slog fest.

I am faily certain a good swing bowler will know when to maximise his ability, or even alter his strategy to reamin dangerous as a wicket taker (See James Anderson, your generic swing bowler in the ear;y stages against the likes of India). If a bowler insists, for whatever reason to aid a bastman trying to score quickly (because that's his natural style and he is too inlexible to learn a new way to take wickets), that's his problem, henace he is unable to test the batsman mentally,

Originally Posted by aussie

For the spinners, its a spinner game as Shane Warne rightfully said the other day. So once these cats have enough variation & guile, they will always be effective in T20 when batsmen are in a ultra-agressive mode

Just as a test spinner cannot expect to run through any decent battiong lineup on a regular basis, his stock delivery alone. that would make him predicatble and a easy to neutralise, irre4spective of the game format.

Originally Posted by aussie

Generally any bowling attack in tests that fails to takes 10 wickets in 150 overs is a poor attack. Although you can have remarkable circumstances like Kolkatta 01 or maybe they play @ an ARG type road, where even the best of bowlers would struggle.

Just as a pooor attack in T20 cricket would get carted for 10 RPO as opposed to a more reasonably chaseable 7-8.5 rpo. just because the same lack of skill and bowling intelligence manifest iself deiiferently in different formats of the game does not make one more 'proper' than the other

Originally Posted by Richard

"Cricket" where bowlers dominate by conceding 6-an-over isn't a good balance between bat and ball in my book.

Get a new book FFS.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Richard

"Cricket" where bowlers dominate by conceding 6-an-over isn't a good balance between bat and ball in my book.

It is balance when 120 is a way below-par score, and also when they were taking wickets

[Richard]

Originally Posted by andruid

Get a new book FFS.

I like to keep things the same - I'm conservative (lower-case c!)

[Richard]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

It is balance when 120 is a way below-par score, and also when they were taking wickets

I don't think it is. I think if 120 is a way-below-par score, then that means 6-an-over is good, and that means that the balance is skewed in favour of bat (but not batsman).

[GIMH]

Well I disagree, but I guess we had this discussion a couple of weeks back. Just seems to me a bit like saying, "I have 20 pound, if I go to America that'll be 30 dollars, therefore America favours the rich"

[superkingdave]

The only reason to think 6 an over is too batsmen orientated is the history of ODI and test cricket and scoring rates in those.

Twenty20 should be judged as Twenty20 and 6 an over represents a decent performance by a bowler, ftr i don't think that would be dominating...you get plenty of instances of bowlers going for less than 20 in their 4 overs