Substitute fielder

[Arjun]

For some teams that have a few weak links on the field, or hae some bowlers, or batsmen, very tired, they could probably use a substitute fielder every once in a while, as it happens in one-dayers. Do you think they should keep the substitutes on the field a little longer by periodically replacing a different player each time? Could the same be used in Tests? You could pick a few players (at least 1) just as substitute fielder so that you could bring him on to field when needed. In some long tours, someone might always end up a journeyman and not a player. In his place, we can have such players, picked for fielding. Your opinion?

[luckyeddie]

The rules for using a substitute fielder are quite clear (well, actually, they are not) - but to summarise, you can use a substitute if a player is injured, needs treatment or requires a call of nature IF the injury occurred in that game (same as batting with a runner).

The fielder should not be a specialist for the position - and in any case, the opposition captain can object to the substitute being used anyway.

[Bazza]

I don't think it should change. In fact I think umpires should enforce players to stay on more rather than going off for a rest for the sake of.

[Arjun]

Some teams have a few weak links on the field, but those weak links are vital players. Look at the Indian team- their captain can't field for toffees! Though there's no hope of replacing him, some others, such as Laxman, Kumble and ESPECIALLY Nehra, should be substituted. Similarly, for England, Hussain and Butcher should be replaced on field. There might be a rule, saying that the player should not bat or bowl for the same time for which he is out.

[Adamc]

Originally posted by Arjun
There might be a rule, saying that the player should not bat or bowl for the same time for which he is out.

I think you will find that such a rule already exists.

[luckyeddie]

Originally posted by Arjun
Some teams have a few weak links on the field, but those weak links are vital players. Look at the Indian team- their captain can't field for toffees! Though there's no hope of replacing him, some others, such as Laxman, Kumble and ESPECIALLY Nehra, should be substituted. Similarly, for England, Hussain and Butcher should be replaced on field. There might be a rule, saying that the player should not bat or bowl for the same time for which he is out.

The fact thatteams have weak links in the field is just part of the game - the onus is on them to become better fielders.

What you are advocating is tantamount to making cricket a squad game - why not go the whole hog and allow batters to not field, bowlers to not bat and Inzy to stay in the canteen all day?

I'm sorry but, like it or loathe it, cricket is 11-a-side, and substitutes should only be allowed for bona-fide injuries (and if a keeper is injured, a specialist keeper should be the substitute)

[Arjun]

This is a strategic move- If I don't want Inzamam or Laxman in the outfield, I think it would be a good idea to keep him off the field so that a few more runs can be saved. The problem is- neither can be dropped, even though they can't field. To be honest, some of these players, especially Ganguly, deserve to be dropped for a match if they make a mess on the field, just to make a statement, that lapses in the field will not be excused. It's a pity the people in command of teams such as India are so indifferent towards fielding- it's an insult to serious Indian (and other) cricket fans, if not the million Tendulkar fans all over the world.

[luckyeddie]

I fully appreciate what you are saying, Arjun - it is a strategic move and I am sure that many managers and coaches would welcome the possibility of removing baggage such as Inzy and Ganguly from the fielding side, but they would also be the first to object when the opposition did it.

You struck the nail firmly on the head with a later point, though - make an example of the dummies. You don't have to drop them, but say, in Nehra's next fielding practice session (does he practice?) you have 2 other players involved - one with the bat and ball and a keeper by the stumps.

Now the ball is hit by the batsman to Nehra's vicinity. He has to field cleanly, pick the ball up and throw it back on the run to the keeper. Now here's the rub - he has to do it 10 times on the trot before he can leave the field. He'll soon improve his ground fielding.

(Incidentally, that's how I was coached at cover point).

[anzac]

I don't want the game to become a squad merry go round with 'designated fielders' etc, but as I said earlier I do not have an objection to the 12th man being used as a replacement in ALL aspects for an injured player if cleared by an independant DR & the match ref......

stop all these recent 10 v 11 Tests when bowlers have been injured - could even be expanded to include situations like occured on a NZ tour to India (I think), ehrn even Brian Waddle was on the field because so many of the players were out with food poisoning or something!!!!!

situations like these make the match a farce & do nothing to attract the public to watch the remaining days of a Test.......

[Arjun]

I don't want the game to become a squad merry go round with 'designated fielders' etc

There can be at least 1, who can be brought on at strategic times, where the slip fielders are relocated, and you need some men in the outfield. For instance, VVS Laxman is a good slip-fielder (not counting drops) but a weak link on the outfield, and he bats later in the order, so it might be a good idea to replace him with, say, Sodhi, for a few minutes. But not as far as replacing Laxman with Sodhi, Tendulkar with Kaif and Ganguly with Yuvraj and making it a true merry-go-round.

A list of players worth swapping-

1. Lead fast bowlers who need to be used in short spells (helps prevent injuries)
2. Spinners to be introduced late- real late
3. Anyone who's carrying an injury (they should not even be picked!)
4. Weaker links on the field (at least 1)

stop all these recent 10 v 11 Tests when bowlers have been injured - could even be expanded to include situations like occured on a NZ tour to India (I think), ehrn even Brian Waddle was on the field because so many of the players were out with food poisoning or something!!!!!

That was during a time when just about anyone and everyone could get on the field as a substitute- in that incident, they had team managers, journalists, even drivers and hotel cooks on the field!

Even in the recently concluded India/NZ Test series, the NZ team had not 11, but 12 players on the field.

in Nehra's next fielding practice session (does he practice?) you have 2 other players involved - one with the bat and ball and a keeper by the stumps.

Now the ball is hit by the batsman to Nehra's vicinity. He has to field cleanly, pick the ball up and throw it back on the run to the keeper. Now here's the rub - he has to do it 10 times on the trot before he can leave the field. He'll soon improve his ground fielding.

I hope so, but if he does, the way he fields, the whole practice serves no purpose!

Anyway, this is a good plan (worth forwarding to the Indian and English team management groups), but it has to be done on a regular basis. Even the physio and fitness trainer have a role to play, since fielding requires top fitness.

[anzac]

sorry mate - I don't agree as to why a team should be able to stack their squad & be allowed to substitute 1st choice players to accomodate for a weakness - even if lack of fitness coming back from injury etc..........IMO it's all part of the differences that are the small things that have an impact on the game, and where some of the countries not blessed with many resources have a chance to take it to the Big Boys....

eg NZ does not have a lot of 'stars' as their playing pool is very limited - yet their 1st choice team is amongst the best fielding units in the game - under your system any advantage NZ may have is instantly erased!! To put the boot on the other foot - why should India be 'rewarded' for not making their players get off their arses & pull their fingers out, when they have a playing pool 2nd to none in the world?????

apart from the odd 'comfort stop' or treatment - IMO if you're off you're off for the duration - which is why I propose that the 12th man should be allowed to replace the player is all aspects esp if it means you otherwise have a 3 man bowling attack thru injury....

not only are you screwed for that game, but if you are facing 2 or so days in the field & then back up for another test how well do you think your remaining 3 frontline bowlers are going to recover to be competitive for the next Test????

[luckyeddie]

Injuries are one thing - just basically having rubbish fielders is quite another.

[Neil Pickup]

As far as I'm concerned, cricket's a game of balance, and subbing fielders because they're inept is no different - and no less acceptable - than picking Devon Malcolm to only bowl, Inzamam to only bat, and Rikki Clarke to only field...

You pick your 11 and you stick with it!

[Richard]

Personally I don't see how strategic subsitutions should be allowed in cricket.
Fielding, batting and bowling are all equally important disciplines. If you're not good at one, try to get better. And fielding is something that it's easier to improve than the other two.
I have always thought LE's method is a good one. But people must always be taught to see the benefit of fielding being as near-faultless as possible.