• 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.

Reintroduction of the Substitute rule

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
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??
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Would go well enough in Twenty20 I guess (I obviously don't care either way) and could possibly have been useful in ODIs, but I'm happy enough it's been abandoned, as it didn't really add much.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
It was an epic fail. I'd agree that it could have been used better but would not like to see it again.
 

andruid

Cricketer Of The Year
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??
It was an epic fail. I'd agree that it could have been used better but would not like to see it again.
It was as an epic fail cos they tried to force it in where it was almost completely inconsequential. Perhaps if they could implement it for injuries. Perhaps if a player is injured before he takes to the crease to bat or to bowl in a way that rules him out, there could be a case to get a replacement.(e.g if a batsmen turn ankle, or didlocates a shoulder when the team is fielding first they can have an option of bringing in a replacement batsman rather than chase wityh only 10 fit men)
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
It was as an epic fail cos they tried to force it in where it was almost completely inconsequential. Perhaps if they could implement it for injuries. Perhaps if a player is injured before he takes to the crease to bat or to bowl in a way that rules him out, there could be a case to get a replacement.(e.g if a batsmen turn ankle, or didlocates a shoulder when the team is fielding first they can have an option of bringing in a replacement batsman rather than chase wityh only 10 fit men)
Would be abused IMHO.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Nah, nobody's ever abused the substitute fielder rule so I don't see why this would be any different
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Unlike the general impression seem to have T20 has very few innovations as far as rules etc. go. It is basically just an old style ODI (ie when it had 15 powerplay overs) cut down to proportionally to a 20 over per side. The only difference I can think of is the free hit.

ODIs these days have far more gimmicks and complicated rules. You've got the regular power play at the start, then you have another two power play chosen by each side with slightly different fielding restrictions to the first power play. You've got the ball being replaced at 35 overs. You've got a more exaggerated day/night element. Still have the free hit. And of course on top of that the rules change on a regular basis.
 

superkingdave

Hall of Fame Member
Nah, nobody's ever abused the substitute fielder rule so I don't see why this would be any different
that used to be the case but IIRC in the first test of the 06/07 Ashes, the Aussies CATSOTG(completely against the spirit of the game) decided to employ Ryan Broad when the could feel the game slipping away from them as Strauss settled in for a triple at the start of England's second innings when they only needed a paltry 648 to win.
 

Jungle Jumbo

International Vice-Captain
No, no way. Tried and failed. Cricket is an eleven-a-side sport; it was often rendered redundant by the toss; it confused an already confusing form of the game, without adding anything of any substance to it.

Also with Scaly here, I don't think I could explain the basic playing conditions of ODIs ATM, so what chance has the average punter in the ground got?
 

Howsie

International Captain
I was never a fan of it, and I don't feel as though the ICC used it well enough. We don't need our sport slowly turning into baseball.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
that used to be the case but IIRC in the first test of the 06/07 Ashes, the Aussies CATSOTG(completely against the spirit of the game) decided to employ Ryan Broad when the could feel the game slipping away from them as Strauss settled in for a triple at the start of England's second innings when they only needed a paltry 648 to win.
Fair point, that's the reason I don't acknowledge the series at all tbh
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Haa...damn very surprised at the reactions so far.

Well given that T20 isn't proper cricket & basically is the format that will be used to generate future income for the sport - and potentially attract other nations to the game. The substitute rule woule be perfect for this format.


Also, although i can see with those who believe the beauty of cricket is that its a "balanced team sport". Im quite sure if the rule wasn't so poorly structured by the ICC in the first place many people wouldn't have a problem today. Its not going into test cricket so no issue...
 

four_or_six

Cricketer Of The Year
Don't really like the idea of bringing it back in. I'm a real fan of watching all-rounders, and this rule would mean you don't even have to play one.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Don't really like the idea of bringing it back in. I'm a real fan of watching all-rounders, and this rule would mean you don't even have to play one.
The original idea was that it'd increase the presence of all-rounders due to the fact that people would realise using a specialist was a huge gamble on winning the toss.

The only way to stop it using all-rounders would be to name 12, toss, then name 11. That'd be the fairest way.

In any case, something that decreases the use of bits-and-pieces players and increases specialists is all good by me, and it's the only reason I was remotely in favour of the idea of subs. However, I'm perfectly happy without.
 

Top