It's like talking to a wall
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that a terrible idea that got binned almost immediately would have you as its number 1 fan.
Mate I literally explained all this already a few posts back, in one that you quoted so I assumed you would have read, my mistake
I've decided this is the key line in our discussion.
Why do u keep repeating this overly simplified and wrong statement. I actually can't respond to it without just saying word for word what I've already been over 3 times
And this is just all blatantly wrong. First of all picking an extra bowler as the sub and batting first gives exactly the same advantage as picking the extra bat and batting second. There's effectively no difference. Being limited to 10 overs is irrelevant when you just switch subs at the change of innings.
I guess I was hoping that at some point a lucky strike might get through your thick skull.
But what if you've gone with that strategy, lose the toss and have to bowl first?
Here:
If you take the gamble and lose the toss that's not just bad luck, or the fault of the rule. It's the consequences of the choice you made.
See my post above. That's called the consequences of your actions. No one forced anyone to go with that strategy.
But there was no strategy that fully evaded the toss factor. Even if you go with an all rounder, you're still likely to lose 50% of that person's skill set. Teams realised they were better off going full in on the batter and hoping they won the toss. If not, they just played it as a conventional ODI with 11 players (1 less than the team which won the toss).
Yes! That's literally the point. If every team could just use an extra player then you might as well have just make it 12 v 12 and there's no tactics involved in that. The whole point is the player you pick and how you use them adds intrigue. Not just "each team gets an extra batsman".
Now I'll address this directly even though I don't think it's relevant, as no team is entitled to get an advantage when they chose a strategy that relies on winning the toss, and they lost the toss. BUT:
The toss always provides a slight advantage, that's cricket and we all accept that. But to then effectively allow an extra player for this was just daft.
In this example, England did benefit slightly in that they scored an extra 40 or so runs. But at what cost? They lost a strike bowler for the Aussie innings (I think this is the bit you're missing - they only had 4 bowlers for the 2nd innings). Meanwhile, Aus subbed out their number 11 for a bat at no cost at all. So even though you could argue Eng benefitted from their sub (it could be they may have had more chance trying to roll out Aus for 40 less with Jones available), Aus still benefitted more because they won the toss.
It only did that if you choose to make that decision. That wasn't the rule. Bro.
No they didn't. They won by 9 wickets and only 3 of them batted, Australia got absolutely nothing out of it. It's an objective fact that England benefited from the sub more than Australia did.
Whether he played or not doesn't make a difference. Aus still had an extra specialist bat available to them which cost them nothing. England had to swap their's for a bowler who hadn't yet bowled.
