Cricket stuff that doesn't deserve its own thread

[TheJediBrah]

South Africa's series win in Aus in 2012 wouldn't have happened if injury subs were allowed. Pattinson and Watson breaking down in Adelaide led to SA drawing the Test and the rest of the attack ****ing themselves bowling 150 overs in vain helped the win the decider despite being outplayed for 2/3 of the series


Yes salty, but it made for a better and more dramatic series. Also shows again how important fitness is in Test cricket

 

[Shady Slim]

I'd rather have a more even competition till the end rather than one team be ****ed over because of things beyond their control. I think this toughing it out stuff has grown old for a more modern era.

I think if that's your best case against it then it's a very weak argument in the end. I'm not sure why we have to worry about fringe cases more than having a more even competition between two teams, given how results orientated the game is now.

but that's why it's *test* cricket and not *mild* cricket! and if you like to watch mild cricket with its' substitutes and gimmicks then feel free to watch that season of the big bash where they had the X-Factor player and that's fine; but that's not what test cricket is for right?

 

[Xix2565]

South Africa's series win in Aus in 2012 wouldn't have happened if injury subs were allowed. Pattinson and Watson breaking down in Adelaide led to SA drawing the Test and the rest of the attack ****ing themselves bowling 150 overs in vain helped the win the decider despite being outplayed for 2/3 of the series


Yes salty, but it made for a better and more dramatic series. Also shows again how important fitness is in Test cricket

I've seen nothing about the reporting on that series that suggests Australia would've won with subs, tbh.

Yeah, fitness is important enough without needing to worry about substitutes ruining it somehow. This just doesn't make sense.

 

[Xix2565]

but that's why it's *test* cricket and not *mild* cricket! and if you like to watch mild cricket with its' substitutes and gimmicks then feel free to watch that season of the big bash where they had the X-Factor player and that's fine; but that's not what test cricket is for right?

It's a format that's kept evolving over the years, but apparently substitutes is one step too far? Come on, this isn't a good argument for having no substitutes, all it says is you don't mind no contests when this happens.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Some things people just can't get their heads around without actually experiencing them. I know blokes who have watched cricket for decades but still can't properly comprehend the difference it is going out to open the batting at the start of the game, to doing after spending 150 overs in the field. They just think it's the same thing

 

[TheJediBrah]

I've seen nothing about the reporting on that series that suggests Australia would've won with subs, tbh.

You wouldn't be able to tell me a thing about it without looking it up lol, why pretend

 

[Xix2565]

You wouldn't be able to tell me a thing about it without looking it up lol, why pretend

If you can't take it, don't dish it lol. It's still not a great argument for no subs.

 

[honestbharani]

haha I see TJB has gone to the "I have played cricket far more than you so I know better lolol". Its funny coz with the mental gymnastics that must have been needed in his head to assume Aus were beating RSA in any way in 2012, its just


Anyways, I do think the external injury subs is a great rule and if its not there in internationals yet, it cant get there soon enough.

 

[GotSpin]

It’s going to be the most abused rule possible if they do it.

 

[Daemon]

Not taking sides here but you could apply the “feeds the drama” logic the other way round.

Starc breaks his toe mid test while leaking runs at 4.5rpo, Boland comes in and immediately cleans up. What great drama.

 

[Xix2565]

Not taking sides here but you could apply the “feeds the drama” logic the other way round.

Starc breaks his toe mid test while leaking runs at 4.5rpo, Boland comes in and immediately cleans up. What great drama.

It's one thing to have a bad bowling performance, but that doesn't mean getting it compounded by an injury doesn't suck either when it comes to great drama nonsense that people love blathering about. At least with a healthy and fit player there's always the chance of a reversal in fortunes. Broken bones/tendons/muscles don't magically undo themselves.

It’s going to be the most abused rule possible if they do it.

If it was implemented by all of our collective intelligence, then yeah, given the number of people who don't mind a little bit of cheating on here.

 

[honestbharani]

I think there will be an ICC appointed doctor in the staff and they are going to name player roles and the allocated subs for each role. All of this is gonna happen pre-match and agreed by both sides. I honestly dont see the issue here. Every rule ever made gets abused, doesn't mean you play without rules.

 

[GotSpin]

Picking players who are fit and able to play the entire test is just such an essential part of cricket. Allows substitutions will just remove such an amazing part of test cricket

 

[TheJediBrah]

If you can't take it, don't dish it lol. It's still not a great argument for no subs.

I think you misunderstand. Whether or not it's a good argument depends on your interpretation. It's just an example of something that happened that demonstrates the importance of fitness and withstanding the attrition of Test cricket. If you think that's an especially important part of the game then it would be an argument against injury subs, if it's not that important to you then it's not.

It's one thing to have a bad bowling performance, but that doesn't mean getting it compounded by an injury doesn't suck either when it comes to great drama nonsense that people love blathering about. At least with a healthy and fit player there's always the chance of a reversal in fortunes. Broken bones/tendons/muscles don't magically undo themselves.

You're still missing the difference between a bowler who's played 4 days of cricket in a row v one that could be subbed in fresh. Big difference. It's not just "our bowler is having a bad day and not taking wickets, let's try sub in another one", it's "our bowler is ****ed, not getting through the crease and bowling 15ks below his best, let's sub in a fresh Shaun Tait to come in and bowl 160 for a session and win us the game"

 

[Shady Slim]

yeah attrition is al element of the format ffs
that is what subs removes

 

[Johan]

like, imagine if it's a Lord's wicket, historically seamy but let's see it's a weird one where it happens to be very spinny on day 3 and day 4, can't a pacer just fake an injury and substitute himself for an extra spinner with substitutions allowed?

 

[TheJediBrah]

like, imagine if it's a Lord's wicket, historically seamy but let's see it's a weird one where it happens to be very spinny on day 3 and day 4, can't a pacer just fake an injury and substitute himself for an extra spinner with substitutions allowed?

presumably there would be at least somewhat tighter restrictions, as in you would have to replace like for like. So you wouldn't be able to blatantly replace a quick with a spinner, or a bowler with a batsman for a 4th innings chase lol. But there would be subtler ways to game it, like maybe your back up quick is a much better batsman so he gets subbed in late in the 3rd innings so you have him to bat in the 4th, just as an example

This is all still hypothetical, limiting it to "external injuries" is much more reasonable

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

After x amount of years a player who was born in a test nation but eventually played for another test nation should come back home and serve the nation of his birth until he retires.

#bajanbethell

 

[Xix2565]

I think you misunderstand. Whether or not it's a good argument depends on your interpretation. It's just an example of something that happened that demonstrates the importance of fitness and withstanding the attrition of Test cricket. If you think that's an especially important part of the game then it would be an argument against injury subs, if it's not that important to you then it's not.

You're still missing the difference between a bowler who's played 4 days of cricket in a row v one that could be subbed in fresh. Big difference. It's not just "our bowler is having a bad day and not taking wickets, let's try sub in another one", it's "our bowler is ****ed, not getting through the crease and bowling 15ks below his best, let's sub in a fresh Shaun Tait to come in and bowl 160 for a session and win us the game"

Attrition just isn't as much of a factor atm when 20 wickets keep falling quickly though.

And? You seem to think that every team is magically going to have supersubs that work like this when it's quite conditions based and not every team is going to have good depth. And wouldn't it be better for teams to not have more poor performances and thus provide more quality cricket?

like, imagine if it's a Lord's wicket, historically seamy but let's see it's a weird one where it happens to be very spinny on day 3 and day 4, can't a pacer just fake an injury and substitute himself for an extra spinner with substitutions allowed?

Why should injuries have to be faked at all? Why do people keep coming up with some weird hypotheticals? I don't know why you're jumping through hoops to justify having no subs, be it purely injury based or full subs. Unless you think all this is going to be done by a 5 year old with no oversight, there would be a lot more debate to determine the direction if this were to become a thing. They'd probably steal your points to see what kind of new rules they want.

 

[Johan]

Why should injuries have to be faked at all? Why do people keep coming up with some weird hypotheticals? I don't know why you're jumping through hoops to justify having no subs, be it purely injury based or full subs. Unless you think all this is going to be done by a 5 year old with no oversight, there would be a lot more debate to determine the direction if this were to become a thing. They'd probably steal your points to see what kind of new rules they want.

Just a thought tbh