Simplest method to make test cricket competitive

[TheJediBrah]

Well it would let both teams replace their McGrath's with Watto's . So it would be fairer and the toss would be less of a factor.

If you bat first, unless you went in already a batsman over, there is no way to get an advantage. Who is going to insert a batsman over team to bat?

Yeah but as I said several times already, that wouldn't be a sub. That would just be a 12 man team.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Yeah but as I said several times already, that wouldn't be a sub. That would just be a 12 man team.

Depends on your definition, both get the sub, they use it the same way, they just state two teams, one for batting first, one for batting second. Coin toss winner chooses what to do in the knowledge of this. That takes the coin toss out of super sub advantage derived from winning the toss. The coin toss and team list first is why in fact the super sub rule failed and captains agreed not to even play under it. It was logically flawed. Seriously.

 

[R!TTER]

Yeah but as I said several times already, that wouldn't be a sub. That would just be a 12 man team.

So hockey isnt an 11 per team game, or basketball 5 per team?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Depends on your definition, both get the sub, they use it the same way, they just state two teams, one for batting first, one for batting second. Coin toss winner chooses what to do in the knowledge of this. That takes the coin toss out of super sub advantage derived from winning the toss.

You understand that is effectively the exact same thing as just naming a 12 man team from the start right? Which defeats the whole point of the super sub idea?

So hockey isnt an 11 per team game, or basketball 5 per team?

huh?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You understand that is effectively the exact same thing as just naming a 12 man team from the start right? Which defeats the whole point of the super sub idea?


huh?

You're saying that you think that the supersub rule was intended to make the toss even more important to who gets 12 on 11? Doubtful. I'd need to read an ICC press release stating that to believe it.

Not saying that you're wrong, but I don't believe that that was their intention. And if so, I think it is damn stupid. Just like Ritter.

 

[R!TTER]

You understand that is effectively the exact same thing as just naming a 12 man team from the start right? Which defeats the whole point of the super sub idea?


huh?

You're arguing semantics, only 11 players take the field so it's still 11 per team game. Cricket isn't like other team sports where 22,10,12 players (total) from both teams take the field at once. Hence the sub rule should obviously cater to the needs of cricket.

See above.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You're arguing semantics, only 11 players take the field so it's still 11 a team game. Cricket isn't like other team sports where 22,10,12 players from both teams take the field at once. Hence the sub rule should obviously cater to the needs of cricket.

See above.

No, effectively he is saying that the ICC intended for it to be 12 vs 11 pending who won the toss. He may be right, the ICC has done strange things in its time, but I just don't believe it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You're saying that you think that the supersub rule was intended to make the toss even more important? Doubtful. I'd need to read an ICC press release stating that to believe it.

Not saying that you're wrong, but I don't believe that that was their intention. And if so, I think it is damn stupid. Just like Ritter.

None of this is relevant to anything I've been saying.

- The intention was to add intrigue with tactics (who the sub is, the type of player, when they choose to swap etc.)
- Choosing the sub after the toss nullifies all of that intrigue, hence defeating the purpose
- It's also completely pointless because it just changes it to a 12-a-side game, which is fine if that's what you want, but if it is then you might as well just name a 12 man team rather than pretend a player is a "sub"

 

[TheJediBrah]

You're arguing semantics, only 11 players take the field so it's still 11 per team game. Cricket isn't like other team sports where 22,10,12 players (total) from both teams take the field at once. Hence the sub rule should obviously cater to the needs of cricket.

See above.

Yeah I don't think you've understood me at all. I'm not arguing about the number of players, you can make it whatever you want, I'm literally just pointing out that naming the subs after the toss defeats the purpose and just adds a player to each team

 

[Mr Miyagi]

None of this is relevant to anything I've been saying.

- The intention was to add intrigue with tactics (who the sub is, the type of player, when they choose to swap etc.)
- Choosing the sub after the toss nullifies all of that intrigue, hence defeating the purpose
- It's also completely pointless because it just changes it to a 12-a-side game, which is fine if that's what you want, but if it is then you might as well just name a 12 man team rather than pretend a player is a "sub"

Yeah, give anyone with a basic understanding of game theory, be they an economist, or even a poker player, this rule and they also would tell you why this the super sub with team list before the toss is completely and utterly logically flawed any why captains agreed not to play under it.

This is the prisoner's dilemma backwards with total victory on the coin toss unless a captain has really stuffed up.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You're saying that you think that the supersub rule was intended to make the toss even more important to who gets 12 on 11? Doubtful. I'd need to read an ICC press release stating that to believe it.

No, effectively he is saying that the ICC intended for it to be 12 vs 11 pending who won the toss. He may be right, the ICC has done strange things in its time, but I just don't believe it.

y u do this man? You know this is rubbish and I'm not saying that all

Why try to be inflammatory?

Yeah, give anyone with a basic understanding of game theory, be they an economist, or even a poker player, this rule and they also would tell you why this the super sub with team list before the toss is completely and utterly logically flawed any why captains agreed not to play under it.

ok? That's all obvious, and again nothing to do with my point

 

[R!TTER]

None of this is relevant to anything I've been saying.

- The intention was to add intrigue with tactics (who the sub is, the type of player, when they choose to swap etc.)
- Choosing the sub after the toss nullifies all of that intrigue, hence defeating the purpose
- It's also completely pointless because it just changes it to a 12-a-side game, which is fine if that's what you want, but if it is then you might as well just name a 12 man team rather than pretend a player is a "sub"

I can't say what the official intentions were, but other than making the game fairer it would seem pointless, given the disposition of toss.

Yeah I don't think you've understood me at all. I'm not arguing about the number of players, you can make it whatever you want, I'm literally just pointing out that naming the subs after the toss defeats the purpose and just adds a player to each team

Well the purpose in this case is to make the contest more even, eveything else is background noise, including the term super sub.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

y u do this man? You know this is rubbish and I'm not saying that all

Why try to be inflammatory?



ok? That's all obvious, and again nothing to do with my point

I'm not being inflammatory. You agreed swapping McGrath after ten overs with Watson is an advantage. That is 12 on 11. You're defending a rule that is logically flawed.

I'm not trying to upset you. I'm telling you why the rule no longer exists. And how this rule could have overcome this logical flaw and still been a rule today.

Then you agree that it was originally logically flawed?!

 

[TheJediBrah]

I can't say what the official intentions were, but other than making the game fairer it would seem pointless, given the dispostion of toss.

Well the purpose in this case is to make the contest more even, eveything else is background noise, including the term super sub.

That wasn't the purpose for ODIs at the time. It's the purpose you put forward as a proposal for Tests, which remains to be seen. I was never disagreeing with anything you're saying.

I'm not being inflammatory. You agreed swapping McGrath after ten overs with Watson is an advantage. That is 12 on 11. You're defending a rule that is logically flawed.

I'm not trying to upset you. I'm telling you why the rule no longer exists.

Then you agree that it is logically flawed?!

jfc I've told you flat out several times that I am not defending it. I'm not saying it's a good rule, or that it should come back, or shouldn't have been cancelled

How many times do I have to directly spell out my point for you to start seeing it and stop arguing your strawman that no one disagrees with?

Of course it's flawed!

 

[R!TTER]

So we can all agree, we do need super subs

 

[TheJediBrah]

So we can all agree, we do need super subs

I'm not sure, but it would definitely be interesting

 

[cnerd123]

So we can all agree, we do need super subs

Still haven't really seen a compelling argument for how it makes games significantly more competitive. Sure the team touring gets some assistance to make their team stronger, but so does the home team. It doesn't hold for all circumstances that the benefit to the visiting team is greater than the benefit to the home team, thus providing a net overall benefit to the visiting team. Sure it does in some, but it could easily go the other way in some other circumstances, thus also making some games even more one sided. And in most circumstances I expect the benefits to cancel out and there to be no real effect on the outcomes.

 

[R!TTER]

Still haven't really seen a compelling argument for how it makes games significantly more competitive. Sure the team touring gets some assistance to make their team stronger, but so does the home team. It doesn't hold for all circumstances that the benefit to the visiting team is greater than the benefit to the home team, thus providing a net overall benefit to the visiting team. Sure it does in some, but it could easily go the other way in some other circumstances, thus also making some games even more one sided. And in most circumstances I expect the benefits to cancel out and there to be no real effect on the outcomes.

Extra bowler - 9 out of 10 teams that'll make the visiting team strong or competitive enough till the end, obviously depending on whether they have enough quality in the reserves.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah I really don't see how it could possibly help touring sides if the same rules are given to both teams.

 

[cnerd123]

Extra bowler - 9 out of 10 teams that'll make the visiting team strong or competitive enough till the end, obviously depending on whether they have enough quality in the reserves.

Touring sides have tried playing 4 bowlers and 5 bowlers, and they still lose. What we have found out is that if your frontline 5 batsmen + wicketkeeper aren't scoring you runs, then the 6th batsman in line probably isn't going to as well. Plus now the home team can definitely, for sure, stack their batting with their home-track bullies and also play 5 bowlers. You've taken that dilemma away from them too.

Most teams don't have quality in reserves anyways - you talk about playing 5 bowlers, but when England and Australia toured Asia their 5th bowlers were guys like Zafar Ansari and Steve O Keefe. And India are now going to England with Hardik Pandya.