What if Test cricket had subs?

[Howe_zat]

Say you could change one player between you side when it's batting and when it's fielding. What would your team do?

The obvious thing is to change a batsman for a bowler and vice versa. But that still raises the question of whether to use it to change between 3/4 bowlers or 4/5. And you'd have to think a bit harder about how to "construct" your fielding side. Maybe you'd bring in someone to field, like a wicketkeeper or athletic allrounder for a batsman.

And I wonder what sort of effect this might have on the numbers of cricketers out there. Do we see fewer allrounders and more specialists? Perhaps it'd help cricketers to stay in the game longer if they don't always have to field?

 

[Daemon]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/59571-lokomotiv-s-proposed-changes-cricket.html

 

[Jono]

This may be a subject worth exploring.

 

[Goughy]

This may be a subject worth exploring.

I reserve the right to disagree

 

[Maximas]

interesting idea, but I always liked the fact that you put 11 guys on the field and they were the ones who did the job, no matter what they were faced with.

 

[Howe_zat]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/59571-lokomotiv-s-proposed-changes-cricket.html

Bugger, wrong account

 

[Furball]

It would be interesting if your XI didn't have to be named until after the toss. This is where the supersub idea in ODIs didn't work.

 

[salman85]

Not a fan of the sub idea TBH.

I think certain concepts need to stay within a sport, and not be shifted to another sport.The sub thing is one that should remain in Hockey, Football etc. The whole point over there is that 22 players are active on the field at all times.It's not the same way in Cricket.You only have 13 active players on the field at a given time.A lesser level of exhaustion as far as Cricketers are concerned.Plus football teams are led by a non playing member, who orchestrates the substitutions and tactics.A cricket team is led by a playing member,and someway down the road,a playing member making the substitutions wouldn't go down well IMO.This is one of the reasons the player/manager concept in football isn't all that successful.

Don't see the idea working.And let's assume,even if it does work, it would be very hard to accept it as far as i'm concerned.Kind of messes with the uniqueness of cricket.

 

[Howe_zat]

I don't think it should be brought in. I'm just wondering, what if we did?

 

[harsh.ag]

If we did, I guess there might never again be a Paul Collingwood, or a Kamran Akmal. Good for the sport, not for the tabloids.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

interesting, but probably something I'd rather play in an xbox game of cricket, not actual games. It would change the game for sure. But if you did that, then you might as well make other changes, many different ways you could go about it. But it's interesting anyway.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Say you could change one player between you side when it's batting and when it's fielding. What would your team do?

The obvious thing is to change a batsman for a bowler and vice versa. But that still raises the question of whether to use it to change between 3/4 bowlers or 4/5. And you'd have to think a bit harder about how to "construct" your fielding side. Maybe you'd bring in someone to field, like a wicketkeeper or athletic allrounder for a batsman.

And I wonder what sort of effect this might have on the numbers of cricketers out there. Do we see fewer allrounders and more specialists? Perhaps it'd help cricketers to stay in the game longer if they don't always have to field?

This is indeed an interesting idea but do you have specific details in mind?
Would it be a one off thing where you substitute a batsman after the first innings for a bowler and that's it? or can you sub them back against for the second innings.
Would it be something like an inninger per innings basis or 1 for the whole match?

 

[Dan]

Yeah, it depends on whether you'd be structuring it as 'Pick 12, of which any 11 bat and any 11 can bowl' or more like the SuperSub rule.

If the former, I think we'd see 6 specialist batsmen, 4 bowlers, a wicketkeeper and probably an all-rounder best suited to pitch conditions. So the likes of Woakes or Stokes batting at 8 (Jimmy dropping out) and supporting a 4-man attack.

For Australia, I'd be looking at one of Faulkner, Maxwell, Henriques or McDonald slotting into that role - not quite good enough in either discipline to make at 11-man team, but as a package player they'd improve both batting and bowling depth.

 

[Riggins]

Yeah, it depends on whether you'd be structuring it as 'Pick 12, of which any 11 bat and any 11 can bowl' or more like the SuperSub rule.

If the former, I think we'd see 6 specialist batsmen, 4 bowlers, a wicketkeeper and probably an all-rounder best suited to pitch conditions. So the likes of Woakes or Stokes batting at 8 (Jimmy dropping out) and supporting a 4-man attack.

For Australia, I'd be looking at one of Faulkner, Maxwell, Henriques or McDonald slotting into that role - not quite good enough in either discipline to make at 11-man team, but as a package player they'd improve both batting and bowling depth.

I don't like the idea of picking bits n pieces players in a test 11 and so don't see why you pick them in a 12. Just pick either your next best batsmen or next best bowler depending on conditions and team strengths/weaknesses.

 

[Dan]

I don't like the idea of picking bits n pieces players in a test 11 and so don't see why you pick them in a 12. Just pick either your next best batsmen or next best bowler depending on conditions and team strengths/weaknesses.

Yeah, but then there's the complexity of whether you play 7 specialist batsmen or 5 bowlers (Shore up the weakness or accentuate the strength), whether that floating position changes from game to game or series to series and whatnot.

Rightly or wrongly, I'd forsee selectors using it as a method to pick another player that they rate highly and may not be including now for team balance issues, or as a way to fix team balance issues. I suspect South African would use it to bring in a specialist wicketkeeper to ease the pressure on ABdV. India, I reckon, would pick another batsman so Jadeja can play as a 5th bowler without pushing Dhoni to 6.

Most countries around the world have expressed a desire to play a fifth bowling option at 7, but none have the strength in batting to go down to 5 plus the 'keeper. As such, I think we'd see bowling all-rounders coming into play a lot more - a 5th bowler (roughly on-par with another specialist) who can bat as well.

Secondarily, I think we'd probably see that additional slot being used to blood younger players - their inexperience can be outweighed in a 5 man attack than a 4 man attack (and similar with the batting). Whether it's right or wrong is another debate entirely, that's just the direction in which I could see selectors going with it.

 

[Furball]

Yeah, it depends on whether you'd be structuring it as 'Pick 12, of which any 11 bat and any 11 can bowl' or more like the SuperSub rule.

If the former, I think we'd see 6 specialist batsmen, 4 bowlers, a wicketkeeper and probably an all-rounder best suited to pitch conditions. So the likes of Woakes or Stokes batting at 8 (Jimmy dropping out) and supporting a 4-man attack.

For Australia, I'd be looking at one of Faulkner, Maxwell, Henriques or McDonald slotting into that role - not quite good enough in either discipline to make at 11-man team, but as a package player they'd improve both batting and bowling depth.

I think the smartest thing to do in England would be to name 4 quicks with a spinner on the bench to bring on later in the game, obviously depending on the pitch.

eg. England lose toss and are inserted on a green pitch. Team might read:

Cook
Root
Trott
KP
Bell
Bairstow
Prior
Bresnan
Broad
Finn
Anderson

Keep the 4 quicks for the team's first bowling innings then sub on Swann for the 4th innings in place of the least useful batsman (probably Bairstow).

 

[Furball]

Alternatively, a team like South Africa could name an insanely long batting lineup to set a big first innings total then sub in a bowler/hold back a spinner for when the pitch deteriorates.

Smith
Peterson
Amla
Kallis
ABdV
Faf
Duminy
Elgar
Philander
Steyn
Morkel

Still gives a first innings bowling attack of Steyn, Philander, Morkel, Kallis and Duminy. Bat long, bat big then chuck on Robbie P or Tahir for the 2nd innings.

 

[DingDong]

i would like to see cricket go all nfl style with completely different players playing for offense and defense. it might make the game a bit more interesting than the rubbish we see now

 

[NUFAN]

i would like to see cricket go all nfl style with completely different players playing for offense and defense. it might make the game a bit more interesting than the rubbish we see now

It would be interesting to see how many pure bowlers team pick in defense (I'm assuming bowling is defense) as generally batsman tend to be sharper in the field. Good suggestion Ding.

 

[Prince EWS]

If we were just going with the old "12 per side (11 bat, 11 field)" idea rather than a genuine sub I think, as has been said, teams would just look to towards six bats, a keeper and five bowlers. If anything I think this could mean less allrounders in a lot of sides as they could pick two better specialists to do the job of one bits-and-pieces player. On the other hand I think it'd give Australia an excuse to keep picking Faulkner.