• 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.

Australian Domestic Season 2020/21

aussie tragic

International Vice-Captain
Trying to figure out when would you use the new BBL X-Factor sub.

(1) team 1-100 off 10, allrounder at 6 or 7 not likely to be needed for batting, sub him for a pure bowler

(2) team bats first and sees pitch taking a lot of spin, sub out a pacer for a 2nd spinner (and vice-versa)

(3) team struggling at 3-50 after 10, replace your 'bits & pieces' allrounder for a pure batsman

Don't really like any of the replacement scenarios as it compromises the specialist allrounder position or covers up a captains mis-read of the pitch. Just not cricket ;)
 

Line and Length

International Debutant
CA are making the game even more gimmicky and further removed from traditional cricket than ever. I regard the BBL as being a step above backyard cricket - enjoyable in small doses but not really caring about results.
 

Nintendo

State 12th Man
Engagement in bbl is dropping because the season is way too ****ing long, everyone I know who likes the bbl even a bit like it because it's a good simple bit of Saturday night entertainment, why try to complicate it for no reason with stupid ass gimmicks.
 

aussie tragic

International Vice-Captain
What's to stop a team picking an extra pace bowler, have him bowl flat out for the one over he's allowed and then sub him for a batsman you would have had in the XI anyway?

Ridiculous rule
 

stephen

Hall of Fame Member
It reminds me of those awful super sub rules they tried to introduce into ODI cricket a few years back. They ended up giving the team that won the toss a huge advantage. These look no better and on fact worse since t20 cricket has less need for the full 11 players than any other format already.
 

TheJediBrah

Hall of Fame Member
It reminds me of those awful super sub rules they tried to introduce into ODI cricket a few years back. They ended up giving the team that won the toss a huge advantage. These look no better and on fact worse since t20 cricket has less need for the full 11 players than any other format already.
We've had this discussion before, and while what you say is technically correct, it's only because teams misused it and opted to take the punt with the toss. It was all part of the tactics. The idea was originally to choose an all-rounder type as your supersub to cover bases, but a lot of teams just said "nah" and chose a specialist which made it entirely dependent on the toss. As far as I'm concerned if they willingly and knowingly took that risk then they're not in a position to complain when they lose the toss and end up a player short.
 

stephen

Hall of Fame Member
We've had this discussion before, and while what you say is technically correct, it's only because teams misused it and opted to take the punt with the toss. It was all part of the tactics. The idea was originally to choose an all-rounder type as your supersub to cover bases, but a lot of teams just said "nah" and chose a specialist which made it entirely dependent on the toss. As far as I'm concerned if they willingly and knowingly took that risk then they're not in a position to complain when they lose the toss and end up a player short.
Nah it's game theory.

Say your normally chances of victory is 50%.

Then if you pick the specialist and win the toss it goes up to 70%, but if you pick an all rounder it only goes up to 60% of you win the toss. But if you lose the toss your win percentage in scenario A is now 30%. In scenario B it's only 40% because the other side had their specialist.

Scenario A is a much better scenario for the team. Their wins are easier and more predictable. They're more likely to end up winning the games they think they should win and lose those they "should" lose. Their wins aren't as mentally fatiguing and their losses are over faster. They're fresher for the finals too.

And the maths on it works more in their favour of it isn't a 50-50 call each game. If you're a better side you'd rather cement your win if you win the toss, even if it costs you the occasional marginal game. If you're the worse team you want to increase your chances of a consolidation win when everything is in your favour.

It was simply terribly thought out, especially since any all rounder not good enough to make the starting side is not going to help as much as a specialist who can't make the starting side.
 

Shady Slim

International Regular
between what they did with the tv rights and the paywall and now this **** you'd think CA's actively trying to kill cricket in this country lmao
 

Shady Slim

International Regular
i suppose this is the place to talk WBBL; sthlaeker really is a mediocre commentator

"aley loves to pick up a wicket when her team needs it" oh wow does a bowler love making a breakthrough jeez
 

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
the main problem with these rules are that they're extremely boring and probably won't do much

like,

Power Surge - 4 over PP and then 2 over PP in the middle of the innings. who cares.
X-Factor - an incredibly bad introduction of a substitute concept.
Bash Boost - what team is going to risk losing a match to get one point. I guess you might see some pinch hitters used?

I have no problem with tinkering with rules. I don't see what any of these really offer. I'd have no problem being back the old ING Cup rule of, basically, 12-a-side, with a designated batsmen and bowler. That, to me, offers a clear benefit to the game. Subbing a player out after a quarter of the match as long as they haven't really done anything? who. cares. Similarly, it's incredible we still have bowling restrictions that are a carbon copy of OD's bowling restrictions. why not let bowlers bowl up to 6 instead of persisting with a rule that is literally designed to make the quality of the game worse
 

Shady Slim

International Regular
two things are the problem for me with the new rules

the first is that they reek of "revamped for the nineties" edgy tinkers when the whole point of the big bash is to watch it for simple, uncomplicated fun. i don't do fast food, i haven't for years, but people don't go to maccas for degustation, they go there for solid lard that goes down quick - i feel that making these changes makes the game needlessly complex.

the second is

while yeah the xfactor player i can see the rationale for, i despise the "bash boost". imagine missing the playoffs because team B was ahead of their oppo at the ten over mark more than you were. bonkers. not that it's some great career-ending blow to miss the bbl finals, more that it's just clowny as for that to even be a thing imho
 

Top