Simplest method to make test cricket competitive

[Mr Miyagi]

It could do a lot more in lopsided games for certain, if there was Shamsi in this last test SA could've been a lot more competitive. Of course supersub won't have the same effect everywhere, every time but what it probably does is bridge the gab between different sides, especially away from home in tests. It won't help you win every game, but even in tests, or LO, it should make for a more even contest.

I diagree that is bridges a gap. I think it potentially creates a further gap between sides.

Take teams with no quality batsmen missing out on the side at present. They gain stuff all.

Take India - they then have a superstar walking out to bat at 7 and squeeze a better bowler in instead of Hardik in say the form of BK or Yadav with Bumrah.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The rule was idiotic tbh, poorly implemented. If the super sub were to be named after the toss, LO games would be closer than they are today. Instead of tinkering with 2 new balls, field changes & PP they could've tweaked the super sub rule in 2006, before it was scrapped. I swear muppets would do a better job of managing the ODI game instead of whoever comes up with these rule changes every year!

That completely defeats the purpose of the super sub though. That would just make it 12 a side instead of 11 a side. There would be no interest or intrigue.

You'd might as well just name your 12 man team at the toss.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

That completely defeats the purpose of the super sub though. That would just make it 12 a side instead of 11 a side. There would be no interest or intrigue.

I don't really want that much placed on the toss of a coin myself. Nor did most countries, and they got rid of it.

It was sheer gambling. One team gets 12, one gets 11.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't really want that much placed on the toss of a coin myself. Nor did most countries, and they got rid of it.

It was sheer gambling.

I think you're missing the point. It needed to be named before the toss for the idea to have any value. No one's forcing teams to name a specialist batsman, that's a gamble that is part of the game. Most teams just named all-rounders.

choosing the type of player to make your sub was a big part of the fun

 

[R!TTER]

That completely defeats the purpose of the super sub though. That would just make it 12 a side instead of 11 a side. There would be no interest or intrigue.

You'd might as well just name your 12 man team at the toss.

So what's the problem, we'd still have 11 men on the field? Subs are a part of every major team game AFAIK, cricket would only benefit if it'd make the game more competitive.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

No my point is because there was no bat first and bat second team list, the super sub had too much "positive" impact for the toss winner.

Lets say both sides name allrounders.

Team that bats first, can either weaken their second innings bowling to increase their batting.

Team that bowls first, bowls their top bowlers, subs him off and gets more batting. Win toss and bowl. Easy decision.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

So what's the problem, we'd still have 11 men on the field? Subs are a part of every major team game AFAIK, cricket would only benefit if it'd make the game more competitive.

I think he's saying he liked the added gamble of it.

 

[R!TTER]

I think he's saying he liked the added gamble of it.

That's why it was scrapped in the first place, the purpose of the super sub rule was to allow you leeway in terms of team selection. When the toss made a mockery of the super sub rule, it was scrapped.
Ho hum, no one thought naming the super sub (or bat first/second team) was a good idea

 

[TheJediBrah]

So what's the problem, we'd still have 11 men on the field? Subs are a part of every major team game AFAIK, cricket would only benefit if it'd make the game more competitive.

It doesn't add anything. Australian domestic One-dayers did this for years, 12 per team but only 11 can bat. There's no "problem" but what's the point in doing it? Make each team slightly stronger? why?

No my point is because there was no bat first and bat second team list, the super sub had too much "positive" impact for the toss winner.

No, because the toss is only a factor if a team chooses to make the gamble. Most teams just named all-rounders and the toss is irrelevant.

also this "bat first and bat second team list" doesn't make any sense. That's just a bizarrely inefficient way of naming a 12 man team.

I think he's saying he liked the added gamble of it.

I'm not saying I liked anything. Just pointing out the obvious that naming the sub after the toss would completely defeat the purpose of the novelty.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

It doesn't add anything. Australian domestic One-dayers did this for years, 12 per team but only 11 can bat. There's no "problem" but what's the point in doing it? Make each team slightly stronger? why?



No, because the toss is only a factor if a team chooses to make the gamble. Most teams just named all-rounders and the toss is irrelevant.

also this "bat first and bat second team list" doesn't make any sense. That's just a bizarrely inefficient way of naming a 12 man team.



I'm not saying I liked anything. Just pointing out the obvious that naming the sub after the toss would completely defeat the purpose of the novelty.

It wouldn't have completely defeated the purpose. It just would have kept it fairer between the teams to both get the advantage of extending their batting and keeping regular bowling or vice versa.

 

[R!TTER]

It doesn't add anything. Australian domestic One-dayers did this for years, 12 per team but only 11 can bat. There's no "problem" but what's the point in doing it? Make each team slightly stronger? why?



No, because the toss is only a factor if a team chooses to make the gamble. Most teams just named all-rounders and the toss is irrelevant.

also this "bat first and bat second team list" doesn't make any sense. That's just a bizarrely inefficient way of naming a 12 man team.



I'm not saying I liked anything. Just pointing out the obvious that naming the sub after the toss would completely defeat the purpose of the novelty.

Alright before we continue, are you talking about tests or LO games? I'm advocating super sub for tests, as per the thread, even though LO would also be a good place to try it out.

As for A/R there's exactly zero top quality A/R in tests right now, besides why would anyone swap in/out A/R anyway, that's totally counterintuitive?

 

[TheJediBrah]

It wouldn't have completely defeated the purpose. It just would have kept it fairer between the teams to both get the advantage of extending their batting and keeping regular bowling or vice versa.

The point of the super sub was to add intrigue. eg. Who will be sub? What sort of player? When will they be subbed out. That was the point. Just making it 12 players per team was not the point.

The suggestion of naming the sub after the toss absolutely defeats the purpose because it adds no intrigue. As I said, it's just making it 12 per side instead of 11.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Alright before we continue, are you talking about tests or LO games? I'm advocating super sub for tests, as per the thread, even though LO would also be a good place to try it out.

As for A/R there's exactly zero top quality A/R in tests right now, besides why would anyone swap out A/R anyway, that's totally counterintuitive?

Oh, I thought he was talking limited overs. Not tests.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

The point of the super sub was to add intrigue. eg. Who will be sub? What sort of player? When will they be subbed out. That was the point. Just making it 12 players per team was not the point.

The suggestion of naming the sub after the toss absolutely defeats the purpose because it adds no intrigue. As I said, it's just making it 12 per side instead of 11.

Well if the fans need that much intrigue imo, they should goto the TAB instead.

I don't see the point to giving one team a massive leg up unnecessarily just because they win the toss of a coin. We already have pitch conditions that do that (much much much more so in tests of course, but there's dew at night at some grounds).

 

[TheJediBrah]

Alright before we continue, are you talking about tests or LO games? I'm advocating super sub for tests, as per the thread, even though LO would also be a good place to try it out.

As for A/R there's exactly zero top quality A/R in tests right now, besides why would anyone swap in/out A/R anyway, that's totally counterintuitive?

We were always talking about ODIs. It's never been done it Tests. My initial response was to your post about "the blunders in 2005" --> which was in ODIs. See where I bolded it.

As far as your initial suggestion of having it for Tests goes, not sure where I sit on that. Could be weird but definitely could be interesting since it's 2 innings, especially if you can only sub once per match. Once per innings would be less interesting and once again, just end up as a 12-per side Test.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Well if the fans need that much intrigue imo, they should goto the TAB instead.
I don't see the point to giving one team a massive leg up unnecessarily just because they win the toss of a coin. We already have pitch conditions that do that (much much much more so in tests of course, but there's dew at night at some grounds).

That's fine but that was always part of the intrigue. It didn't give anyone a toss-related advantage unless you knowingly took the risk. The "gambling" was just a small part of it, and wasn't even compulsory.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

That's fine but that was always part of the intrigue. It didn't give anyone a toss-related advantage unless you knowingly took the risk. The "gambling" was just a small part of it, and wasn't even compulsory.

Not true.

Say both teams conservatively name their regular teams and an A/R each like you suggested earlier.

Whoever bowls first, just extend their batting in the second innings (swap the number 11 for an allrounder), while keeping their A list bowling in the first.

The team batting first if they extend their batting, weaken their second innings bowling.

And that is the epitome of a toss-related advantage.

 

[cnerd123]

So what's the problem, we'd still have 11 men on the field? Subs are a part of every major team game AFAIK, cricket would only benefit if it'd make the game more competitive.

The Laws of Cricket will need to be rewritten to allow substitutes, since it is those and not the ICC Playing Conditions that prevent this from happening.

If you're going to convince the MCC to rewrite the laws, you better have a good reason.

 

[R!TTER]

We were always talking about ODIs. It's never been done it Tests. My initial response was to your post about "the blunders in 2005" --> which was in ODIs. See where I bolded it.

As far as your initial suggestion of having it for Tests goes, not sure where I sit on that. Could be weird but definitely could be interesting since it's 2 innings, especially if you can only sub once per match. Once per innings would be less interesting and once again, just end up as a 12-per side Test.

Yes I know that but tests are far too lop sided these days, especially given the toss & pitches. Super sub will negate some of that advantage, even on dicy surfaces.

Once again - why not? If it makes the game more even, it's something worth trying IMO.

The Laws of Cricket will need to be rewritten to allow substitutes, since it is those and not the ICC Playing Conditions that prevent this from happening.

If you're going to convince the MCC to rewrite the laws, you better have a good reason.

How do you think they got the first super sub in, 13 years back?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

The Laws of Cricket will need to be rewritten to allow substitutes, since it is those and not the ICC Playing Conditions that prevent this from happening.

If you're going to convince the MCC to rewrite the laws, you better have a good reason.

The ICC can play cricket under whatever rules it likes.