Simplest method to make test cricket competitive

[Mr Miyagi]

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.

The only way to stack the team is to swap a bowler for a batsman each innings, and then you have Rahul and Nair swapping for Yadav when England has James Vince coming in for Anderson, or Australia has Joe Burns for Nathan Lyon. Or if one change, teams go in with 4 bowlers only, and a bowler on reserve who then replaces a tired bowler.

Most of the home/loss divide in Asian countries in seamer countries, and vice versa, with seamer countries losing in Asian spin conditions.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

aka the Maharaj of Pune

 

[R!TTER]

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.

Yeah, so you don't think a backup pacer/spinner or batter makes a differenece in testing consitions, away from home? We can stack the batting all the way till 8, including keeper, & play 4 specialist seamers on green tracks. Hence negating the massive advantage teams get on certain pitches.

As for England on their last tour here, they picked A/R for this very reason, they could have picked Leach or Bess & still not lost out on batting with a sub.

SoK is a one test wonder, in India, that I'll give him.

 

[cnerd123]

You're missing out on the point that the home team gets an advantage too...

 

[R!TTER]

You're missing out on the point that the home team gets an advantage too...

The home team always gets an advantage, that's the point.
If they win the toss they can get a bigger advantage, but with extra player(s) the away team can negate (somewhat) the huge disdvantage of losing toss+batting last on a deteriorating surface e.g. the last test against SA.

 

[cnerd123]

The home team always gets an advantage, that's the point.
If they win the toss they can get a huge advantage, but with extra player(s) the away team can negate (somewhat) the huge disdvantage of losing toss+batting last on a deteriorating surface e.g. the last test against SA.

We're talking 1 sub per innings right?

The Sri Lanka just sub in an extra batsman for their two innings when they bat. SA have an extra batsman, but SL have an extra batsman too. And when they bowl, SA have Shamsi and Maharaj, but SL call in Sandakan to back up Herath and Perera. It cancels out.

 

[R!TTER]

We're talking 1 sub per innings right?

The Sri Lanka just sub in an extra batsman for their two innings when they bat. SA have an extra batsman, but SL have an extra batsman too. And when they bowl, SA have Shamsi and Maharaj, but SL call in Sandakan to back up Herath and Perera. It cancels out.

We aren't subbing random players, do you not remember the super sub rule?

 

[cnerd123]

We aren't subbing random players, do you not remember the super sub rule?

Explain the rule you want to use, I don't get it. I'm assuming teams name a squad of 12, and can pick 11 of those to bat and 11 of those to take the field in each innings.

Super Sub doesn't really explain it, that was a 1 innings a side game.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The home team always gets an advantage, that's the point.
If they win the toss they can get a bigger advantage, but with extra player(s) the away team can negate (somewhat) the huge disdvantage of losing toss+batting last on a deteriorating surface e.g. the last test against SA.

They don't though. The home team gets the same extra players. It would only help the touring side if there are different rules for each side because, as ***** says, any benefit just cancels out.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

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!

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.

For anyone else, not you TJB, I appreciate you see the flaw now, that is still not quite understanding this:

1 For instance, both teams go in a batsman heavy with a bowling sub.
Toss winner bats. Has clear advantage as they get their bowler back in the second innings. Clear advantage.

2 Both teams go in with an allrounder or batsman sub. Toss winner bowls. Swaps #11 for an allrounder/batsman. Has clear advantage.

3 A: team goes in with regular team and a allrounder/batsman sub, B: goes in a batsman heavy with a bowling sub,

If A wins the toss and bats first; No advantage at worst as B is a bowler short, if B changes for bowler in first innings, it is regular team vs regular team. Draw at worst for A - or a 6th bowler A/R benefit at best if it bats first. A will presumably bat first. (But A could bat second if its batting sub was as good as B's heavy batsman is batting heavy and get a draw.) A could bowl first and both get extra batting, the AR vs bat heavy will determine whether this is a draw or a foolish disadvantage that is stupid to attempt.

If B wins toss, it will bat first. Draw at worst or batsman over A/R advantage. If A wins toss and bats second and changes a bowler for a bat or All-rounder. Draw. No advantage. Both get the extra batting, with B possibly getting slightly better batting (not logical to do so where it happens).

So if B wins toss; it has to bat first. No advantage, or avoids the 6th bowling A/R at worst and gains the batsman over A/R at best. Draw at worst pending how good A's AR is (could still be a win). Both get batting. If B bats second, presumably it gives up its batsman to bowl first (not logical to do)

2/3 scenarios the toss winner gets an advantage (excl 6th bowling AR or batsman over AR advantage discuss above) and 1/3 scenarios it is a draw (this is being very generous given the A/R advantage it includes). The toss winner cannot lose if logical, only win, most of the time, or draw at worst.

And that is the fallacy of the super sub rule pre-coin toss. The winner of the toss had far more chances to win an advantage than draw, and a draw was their worst case scenario if they were sensible regardless of subs. Given most went with a batsman or a/r, they bowled first on toss win for a clear advantage.

Noone was going in bowler heavy with 6 frontline bowlers when 5 at most are needed and you could have an A/R on the bench? What is the point? And given the teams saw the team sheets first before deciding, toss winner drew at worst, or won an advantage, unless foolish.

 

[R!TTER]

Explain the rule you want to use, I don't get it. I'm assuming teams name a squad of 12, and can pick 11 of those to bat and 11 of those to take the field in each innings.

Super Sub doesn't really explain it, that was a 1 innings a side game.

Modified super sub rule - declare the sub after the toss, basically as TJB said - 12 player sqad with 11 fielding.

Let's take a test on a green Lords track. India go on with 7 batters, including Pandya, & then have Pant at 8 & then Ashwin to follow with the tail. They lose the toss & get sent in, get bowled over for under 300. The track eases out considerably & England get to bat on a much better day 2 track, that's the problem with green(ish) tracks in ENG, NZ or even India, but India have Yadav (pick anyone you like) to aid their attack. He gets the opposition in a tizzy & helps England bundle out for a below par score of just over 300. What ensues is a fascinating contest of cricket, with India winning in the last hour

Most games are decided on the basis of first innings lead, if you stop the oppostion from scoring lots of runs in their first innings there's considrable chance that you'll not lose the game in a hurry, if at all.

For spinning tracks take the last game also as an example, Shamsi helps bundle SL out for well under 300. SA make a decent total of 250 odd, then the game ends in a draw. Teams often lack that decisive punch to knock the tail out, especially away teams. That one specialist bowler comes in handy more times than you can count.

 

[cnerd123]

You're playing hypothetical cricket where any outcome you want is possible, firstly

Secondly, in your own example - it's still not clear what you're proposing. Does Yadav have to bat now that he's been subbed in? Or does India go back to 7 batsmen when they bat again?
In you own example - England just draft in their extra batsman to stop a collapse and score 300. Right? Negate the advantage India got by playing Yadav

At the end you just have India with 7 batsmen 5 bowlers Vs England with 7 batsmen 5 bowlers or whatever. It's just 12 on 12 cricket. That doesn't suddenly make India good overseas.

Again, assuming Shamsi is effective and can take wickets, surely if SL have a sub as well they just draft in their extra batsman to get them back up above 300? That specialist bowler to knock the tail out is wasted when SL can just shorten their tail when they bat?

 

[R!TTER]

You're playing hypothetical cricket where any outcome you want is possible, firstly

Secondly, in your own example - it's still not clear what you're proposing. Does Yadav have to bat now that he's been subbed in? Or does India go back to 7 batsmen when they bat again?
In you own example - England just draft in their extra batsman to stop a collapse and score 300. Right? Negate the advantage India got by playing Yadav

At the end you just have India with 7 batsmen 5 bowlers Vs England with 7 batsmen 5 bowlers or whatever. It's just 12 on 12 cricket. That doesn't suddenly make India good overseas.

Again, assuming Shamsi is effective and can take wickets, surely if SL have a sub as well they just draft in their extra batsman to get them back up above 300? That specialist bowler to knock the tail out is wasted when SL can just shorten their tail when they bat?

Everyone's playing hypotheticals atm.

What's so hard to understand, the specialist bowlers fields/bowls & the specialist batter only bats? You have a hard time understanding this? You could of course choose to swap A/R in/out if you want but then there's no use of the A/R tag.

Yeah, you're not getting it clearly.

Why wouldn't he be able to nick out one batter, even if a tailender? Also him bowling at the other end would've given the pacers a rest as well as to Maharaj, you think an extra bowler is there just to make up numbers?

 

[cnerd123]

So your idea is 11 players bat, 11 players bowl, 12 man teams?

Yea it doesn't make the game more level. Both teams have 5 bowlers now, both teams have 7 batsmen, the home team is still better in their own conditions. The advantage the visiting gets by having a 5th bowler (that we assume is as good as the other 4) is offset by the home side having the same advantage. The advantage for the visiting side for having a 7th batsman (who we assume is as capable of scoring runs as the other 6) is offset by the home side having this too.

Really doesn't make games more competitive, and for every hypothetical you can draw where it helps a team, I can draw a hypothetical where it doesn't

 

[Borges]

All you guys would be employed by the ECB if you apply. They need brains of this magnitude to further refine their newfangled tournament idea.

 

[R!TTER]

So your idea is 11 players bat, 11 players bowl, 12 man teams?

Yea it doesn't make the game more level. Both teams have 5 bowlers now, both teams have 7 batsmen, the home team is still better in their own conditions. The advantage the visiting gets by having a 5th bowler (that we assume is as good as the other 4) is offset by the home side having the same advantage. The advantage for the visiting side for having a 7th batsman (who we assume is as capable of scoring runs as the other 6) is offset by the home side having this too.

Really doesn't make games more competitive, and for every hypothetical you can draw where it helps a team, I can draw a hypothetical where it doesn't

Yes because people really don't have an open mind & you can always cross a hypothetical with another hypothetical.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

All you guys would be employed by the ECB if you apply. They need brains of this magnitude to further refine their newfangled tournament idea.

Think they only hire former players and sons of Barons and Viscounts.

I don't think what the EWCB is trying is dumb either. But it is England specific. They want it as short as possible on the FTA Beeb that does not ad breaks for funding.

In fact, for the rest of us, while this is rather silly in our demographics, given the totally free advertising free BBC, I think some of this is rather smart.

 

[TheJediBrah]

For anyone else, not you TJB, I appreciate you see the flaw now, that is still not quite understanding this:

1 For instance, both teams go in a batsman heavy with a bowling sub.
Toss winner bats. Has clear advantage as they get their bowler back in the second innings. Clear advantage.

2 Both teams go in with an allrounder or batsman sub. Toss winner bowls. Swaps #11 for an allrounder/batsman. Has clear advantage.

3 A: team goes in with regular team and a allrounder/batsman sub, B: goes in a batsman heavy with a bowling sub,

If A wins the toss and bats first; No advantage at worst as B is a bowler short, if B changes for bowler in first innings, it is regular team vs regular team. Draw at worst for A - or a 6th bowler A/R benefit at best if it bats first. A will presumably bat first. (But A could bat second if its batting sub was as good as B's heavy batsman is batting heavy and get a draw.) A could bowl first and both get extra batting, the AR vs bat heavy will determine whether this is a draw or a foolish disadvantage that is stupid to attempt.

If B wins toss, it will bat first. Draw at worst or batsman over A/R advantage. If A wins toss and bats second and changes a bowler for a bat or All-rounder. Draw. No advantage. Both get the extra batting, with B possibly getting slightly better batting (not logical to do so where it happens).

So if B wins toss; it has to bat first. No advantage, or avoids the 6th bowling A/R at worst and gains the batsman over A/R at best. Draw at worst pending how good A's AR is (could still be a win). Both get batting. If B bats second, presumably it gives up its batsman to bowl first (not logical to do)

2/3 scenarios the toss winner gets an advantage (excl 6th bowling AR or batsman over AR advantage discuss above) and 1/3 scenarios it is a draw (this is being very generous given the A/R advantage it includes). The toss winner cannot lose if logical, only win, most of the time, or draw at worst.

And that is the fallacy of the super sub rule pre-coin toss. The winner of the toss had far more chances to win an advantage than draw, and a draw was their worst case scenario if they were sensible regardless of subs. Given most went with a batsman or a/r, they bowled first on toss win for a clear advantage.

Noone was going in bowler heavy with 6 frontline bowlers when 5 at most are needed and you could have an A/R on the bench? What is the point? And given the teams saw the team sheets first before deciding, toss winner drew at worst, or won an advantage, unless foolish.

You've just repeated, again, things that have already been said, and everyone understood, and are not relevant. Again. Despite it being pointed out to you numerous times.

Is there any point in me yet again stating what my actual point was or would you just ignore it and continue arguing your irrelevant strawman?

choosing the sub after the toss completely defeats the purpose and just makes it a 12 per side match --> That's my point.

Yes the sub rule could give a slight (or large) advantage to one side depending on who they picked as their sub. The scale and importance of this advantage varied and is debatable in it's effect. I have no interest in debating the varying effect of the toss's effect on the sub rule.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You've just repeated, again, things that have already been said, and everyone understood, and are not relevant. Again. Despite it being pointed out to you numerous times.

Is there any point in me yet again stating what my actual point was or would you just ignore it and continue arguing your irrelevant strawman?

For clarity, by "TJB", I meant you. Sorry if you didn't understand what I meant by TJB. I am lead to believe it is a short form of "TheJediBrah". I honestly thought you were aware of this.

After you posted this:

tbh you've lost me with all this.

Bat first --> at innings break replace batsman who's not going to bowl anyway with all-rounder --> get an extra bowler (AR) for 2nd innings
Bowl first --> at innings break replace bowler who can't really bat with an all-rounder --> get an extra bat (AR) for 2nd innings

Which one are you thinking has a big advantage?

and I replied with this:

Bowl first, any and every day of the week.

They just replaced McGrath who has bowled 10 overs with Watto's batting.

And you said this:

I can see that. Again depends heavily on team selection and who you choose as sub.

Main point was that naming the sub after toss would make no sense.

I knew that you were getting it. But you had me a bit worried tbh when you said "Again depends heavily on team selection and who you choose as sub", as to the total ramifications.

But I totally accept you see the problem with it now. This is for the benefit of everyone else, that is not "TheJediBrah" who may not understand the total ramifications of possibilities of winning the coin toss with the super-sub rule.

 

[TheJediBrah]

For clarity, by "TJB", I meant you. Sorry if you didn't understand what I meant by TJB. I am lead to believe it is a short form of "TheJediBrah". I honestly thought you were aware of this.

After you posted this:



and I replied with this:



And you said this:




I knew that you were getting it. But you had me a bit worried tbh when you said "Again depends heavily on team selection and who you choose as sub", as to the total ramifications.

But I totally accept you see the problem with it now. This is for the benefit of everyone else, that is not "TheJediBrah" who may not understand the total ramifications of possibilities of winning the coin toss with the super-sub rule.

You're still ignoring the actual point.