full subs

[Line and Length]

100% for. Would make for fun combination changes mid test and a super sub coming in and turning a match is something great which the sport is missing out on.

We've had players (eg Botham, Stokes) turning matches without the need for subs. Totally against it. A Test match is a test of a country's elite XI. Leave the nonsense to BBL and other hit and giggle competitions.

 

[cnerd123]

The format of cricket doesn't lend itself to subs as well though, eg subbing a batsman in the middle of their innings would not seem right. If you could have a few players on the bench though it'd make for some interesting tactical decisions. Spinners who aren't worldies benched for the first innings. Spare batsman on the bench to come for a bowler if you're batting for a draw. David Warner left on the bench in England unless Australia have managed a first innings lead. Etc

So my idea of implementing subs in ODIs is as follows:

> Each team names a starting XI and 4 subs.
> The fielding team has to name their 11 taking the field at the start of the innings, and can make 4 subs across the 50 overs. Once subbed, the player can not return to the field.
> All 15 players can bat, to a maximum of 10 wickets. So a player can be subbed out during the first innings, but can still bat in the run-chase.

This way all teams can have 50 good overs of bowling and batting depth right to 11. Makes games a higher quality and more exciting. Also makes room for specialist fielders/wicket keepers, which is a good thing too.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Allowing subs like this would destroy the utility of the all-rounder as we know it. No point trying to develop batting and bowling when everyone can just specialise and it makes no difference to the team.

 

[cnerd123]

Allowing subs like this would destroy the utility of the all-rounder as we know it. No point trying to develop batting and bowling when everyone can just specialise and it makes no difference to the team.

Allrounders would still exist. Nothing would really change in terms of the composition of a team. It would be the same ratio, just extended to 15 players instead of 11. So like, instead of 5 bat- allrounder - keeper - 4 bowlers you would have 6 bat -2 allrounder - 2 keeper - 5 bowlers.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Allrounders would still exist. Nothing would really change in terms of the composition of a team. It would be the same ratio, just extended to 15 players instead of 11. So like, instead of 5 bat- allrounder - keeper - 4 bowlers you would have 6 bat -2 allrounder - 2 keeper - 5 bowlers.

If you can have 15 players you have much less need of an all-rounder. It's a huge change

 

[Starfighter]

If you can have 15 players you have much less need of an all-rounder. It's a huge change

It's pretty much a certainty by the way he describes it.

 

[cnerd123]

If you can have 15 players you have much less need of an all-rounder. It's a huge change

Much less need is not the same as "destroy the utility of the all-rounder"

They'll have a smaller role to play, but they will still have careers.

It's pretty much a certainty by the way he describes it.

In an ideal 15-man team world the 5 bowlers bowl 50 overs to the 8 batters and we have a great game of cricket. Right now we have 4 bowlers vs 6 batters and allrounders filling in the rest of the game. The quality goes up with subs.

But RL is not ideal and teams will still want allrounders to give themselves more batting depth and bowling options. The utility of ARs won't go down, but the reliance on them will.

 

[Pratters]

No subs for batsmen and bowlers. Fielding subs are ok.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Much less need is not the same as "destroy the utility of the all-rounder"

They'll have a smaller role to play, but they will still have careers.

Maybe I phrased it poorly, but you selectively quoted part of my sentence. Important to add the "as we know it". That they will have a smaller role to play was essentially my point, my extreme wording notwithstanding.

 

[trundler]

It would have too much effect on the nature of the game. It's a no from me.

 

[GotSpin]

Much less need is not the same as "destroy the utility of the all-rounder"

They'll have a smaller role to play, but they will still have careers.


In an ideal 15-man team world the 5 bowlers bowl 50 overs to the 8 batters and we have a great game of cricket. Right now we have 4 bowlers vs 6 batters and allrounders filling in the rest of the game. The quality goes up with subs.

But RL is not ideal and teams will still want allrounders to give themselves more batting depth and bowling options. The utility of ARs won't go down, but the reliance on them will.

You could just increase the allocation of overs per bowler and remove the need for this rubbish

 

[Shady Slim]

ok but just think how ass that pakistan vs nz game would be if pakistan could've subbed out all their bowlers for batsmen in the fourth innings

it'd be a mockery of the game either way, pakistan draws it with less tension because they rung in quality bats to salvage it, or pakistan are grossly embarrassed as is cricket as a whole when their cadre of fly-by-night bats fall in a wet heap.

 

[OverratedSanity]

ok but just think how ass that pakistan vs nz game would be if pakistan could've subbed out all their bowlers for batsmen in the fourth innings

it'd be a mockery of the game either way, pakistan draws it with less tension because they rung in quality bats to salvage it, or pakistan are grossly embarrassed as is cricket as a whole when their cadre of fly-by-night bats fall in a wet heap.

They probably wouldnt save all their subs for the final innings. And the only issue even in your rather extreme case seems to be the number of subs. Can be easily implemented without going overboard.

 

[TheJediBrah]

whoops wrong thread

full subs sucks

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I wanna see things like relievers in baseball, like guys who bowl only the last three balls of the innings if there's a left-hander on strike.

 

[Line and Length]

I wanna see things like relievers in baseball, like guys who bowl only the last three balls of the innings if there's a left-hander on strike.

Shame on you RTB for mentioning that sport in the same breath as cricket.