Simplest method to make test cricket competitive

[Mr Miyagi]

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

Don't mind him Ritter, he's just made a simple mistake. ICC can change any rule of cricket they like and play under accordingly despite the MCC copyright on the original laws of cricket.

The MCC would oblige anyway.

 

[cnerd123]

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

Bit different with Tests tho. The ICC historically defers to the MCC Laws for Tests with very little intervention. The Laws weren't written for Limited Overs cricket, and as such the ICC have had a lot more freedom to experiment with that format.

I don't see them pushing through substitutes for Tests without having a Law put in place for it first.

I'd disagree it makes the game more even - I don't see how it makes any difference to what we have right now tbh. It then just becomes 12 a side cricket, with only 11 players batting and 11 players fielding.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

Nah not really. If there's an advantage there it's minor and still largely down to luck and tactics anyway.

As I said, I'm not arguing for or against the super sub rule. I'm literally just pointing out that naming the teams after the toss would completely defeat the purpose, and effectively just make it a 12-per side match. Which is fine, but that's not a sub-rule.

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

I'm not disagreeing with you. Could definitely be interesting but I can't imagine purists being too happy with it.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Bit different with Tests tho. The ICC historically defers to the MCC Laws for Tests with very little intervention. The Laws weren't written for Limited Overs cricket, and as such the ICC have had a lot more freedom to experiment with that format.

I don't see them pushing through substitutes for Tests without having a Law put in place for it first.

I'd disagree it makes the game more even - I don't see how it makes any difference to what we have right now tbh. It then just becomes 12 a side cricket, with only 11 players batting and 11 players fielding.

With all due respect, and I don't want to get into a fight over this; Third umpire, DRS, (Aus used to have 8 ball overs in tests), the bouncer limits per over. ICC can do as it pleases, and if the MCC refuse to oblige, just tell its members "we're playing under MCC rules but you may have a super-sub".

But I don't want a super-sub.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Nah not really. If there's an advantage there it's minor and still largely down to luck and tactics anyway.

I don't think being able to swap a number 11 with an allrounder when batting after bowling is only a minor advantage myself, when the opposing team will not be able to because they bat first.

The rule was logically flawed. That is why captains agreed to not play under it.

 

[R!TTER]

Bit different with Tests tho. The ICC historically defers to the MCC Laws for Tests with very little intervention. The Laws weren't written for Limited Overs cricket, and as such the ICC have had a lot more freedom to experiment with that format.

I don't see them pushing through substitutes for Tests without having a Law put in place for it first.

I'd disagree it makes the game more even - I don't see how it makes any difference to what we have right now tbh. It then just becomes 12 a side cricket, with only 11 players batting and 11 players fielding.

Because most teams have to sacrifice a specialist batter for an extra spinner/pacer outside their comfort zone i.e. at home. The example I gave wrt Shamsi, you could apply the same for India in England. We could play an extra pacer or spinner & sub him out for a specialist batter. Would that prevent lopsided contests - we'll never know till we try it out. Would it make for more even contest - absolutely, I see why not?

 

[cnerd123]

Because most teams have to sacrifice a specialist batter for an extra spinner/pacer outside their comformt zone i.e. home. The example I gave wrt Shamsi, you could apply the same for India in England. We could play an extra pacer or spinner & sub him out for a specialist batter. Would that prevent lopsided contests - we'll never know till we try it out. Would it make for more even contest - absolutely, I see why not?

But the home side gets a substitute too right? Take SA touring SL, this most recent Test match. Say the substitute rule allowed SA to play Shamsi in their XI, and have a batsman as a substitute incase they need him. Sri Lanka can play an extra batsman as a substitute too. So when they realise how much spin there is in the pitch, SA sub in a batsman for Shamsi/one of their quicks, but SL sub in a batsman for Lakmal too. Both teams have just gained an extra batsman, any advantage that SA have gained has now been neutralized by SL gaining that same advantage.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

But the home side gets a substitute too right? Take SA touring SL, this most recent Test match. Say the substitute rule allowed SA to play Shamsi in their XI, and have a batsman as a substitute incase they need him. Sri Lanka can play an extra batsman as a substitute too. So when they realise how much spin there is in the pitch, SA sub in a batsman for Shamsi/one of their quicks, but SL sub in a batsman for Lakmal too. Both teams have just gained an extra batsman, any advantage that SA have gained has now been neutralized by SL gaining that same advantage.

...

But this begs the question of Shamsi not making the original XI. de Bruyn replaced Philander didn't he? Shamsi lost to Ngidi as I see it.

 

[R!TTER]

But the home side gets a substitute too right? Take SA touring SL, this most recent Test match. Say the substitute rule allowed SA to play Shamsi in their XI, and have a batsman as a substitute incase they need him. Sri Lanka can play an extra batsman as a substitute too. So when they realise how much spin there is in the pitch, SA sub in a batsman for Shamsi/one of their quicks, but SL sub in a batsman for Lakmal too. Both teams have just gained an extra batsman, any advantage that SA have gained has now been neutralized by SL gaining that same advantage.

Yeah of course.

No, SA sub a batter in for Shamsi for their batting innings, assuming one sub per innings. So SA gain an extra bowler, wrt their lineup for the last test, but we all know bowlers make the most diference in tests. SL would gain the extra batter, but his value would be less than that of Shamsi for SA.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Yeah of course.

No, SA sub a batter in for Shamsi for their batting innings, assuming one sub per innings. So SA gain an extra bowler, but we all know bowlers make the most diference in tests. SL would gain the extra batter, but his value would be less than that of Shamsi for SA.

The big advantage of a super sub would be to strengthen a batting line up in the last innings. But a team may not bat last innings. And the last innings may not be required or quite an easy win.

So many teams would proliferate 4 prong attacks, with a spare bowler to replace a tired and/or injured bowler. That is what I would do if the team sheet was required before the toss of the coin.

 

[cnerd123]

Yeah of course.

No, SA sub a batter in for Shamsi for their batting innings, assuming one sub per innings. So SA gain an extra bowler, but we all know bowlers make the most diference in tests. SL would gain the extra batter but his value could be less than that of Shamsi for SA.

One sub per innings?

It's not that significant a leveler. I see your point w/regards to SA/SL, but there are cases where it could make things even more uneven. Take touring India for example - how much would India love to have one of their fringe batsmen take Shami/Umesh's place while they bat, and bring them back on when they bowl? Eradicate the issue of a weak tail and play 5 bowlers to boot.

It just changes cricket from a 11 man game to a 12 man game where only 11 will bat and 11 will field. If anything, it devalues the role of allrounders - every team is now going to want 5 full time bowlers and 6 full time batsmen in their squad of 12.

Historically changes only come about in Test Cricket when there is a significant, provable benefit to be gained from doing so. I don't see them adopting Subs anytime soon, as fun of an idea as it is to play about with.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

One sub per innings?

It's not that significant a leveler. I see your point w/regards to SA/SL, but there are cases where it could make things even more uneven. Take touring India for example - how much would India love to have one of their fringe batsmen take Shami/Umesh's place while they bat, and bring them back on when they bowl? Eradicate the issue of a weak tail and play 5 bowlers to boot.

It just changes cricket from a 11 man game to a 12 man game where only 11 will bat and 11 will field. If anything, it devalues the role of allrounders - every team is now going to want 5 full time bowlers and 6 full time batsmen in their squad of 12.

Historically changes only come about in Test Cricket when there is a significant, provable benefit to be gained from doing so. I don't see them adopting Subs anytime soon, as fun of an idea as it is to play about with.

Yeah - I think this is what most teams will do too if limited to one change only. The bat last batting advantage is too random if the team sheets are before the toss and limited to one innings only (although you are talking all innings now so there is definitely room in a 5 prong attack to increase the batting with an AR in the attack already), the 4 + 1 bowler is guaranteed no matter when batting if limited to one innings.

 

[harsh.ag]

I don't think subs will be a leveler between away and home sides in any consistent sense, but it would be great to have purely from a fun pov.

 

[R!TTER]

One sub per innings?

It's not that significant a leveler. I see your point w/regards to SA/SL, but there are cases where it could make things even more uneven. Take touring India for example - how much would India love to have one of their fringe batsmen take Shami/Umesh's place while they bat, and bring them back on when they bowl? Eradicate the issue of a weak tail and play 5 bowlers to boot.

It just changes cricket from a 11 man game to a 12 man game where only 11 will bat and 11 will field. If anything, it devalues the role of allrounders - every team is now going to want 5 full time bowlers and 6 full time batsmen in their squad of 12.

Historically changes only come about in Test Cricket when there is a significant, provable benefit to be gained from doing so. I don't see them adopting Subs anytime soon, as fun of an idea as it is to play about with.

Per two innings, after the toss is called, but one per innings would certainly be more intriguing.

India & Aus are historically the strongest teams at home, India especially in the last decade or so. Even then, if we produce result oriented pitces (you know the other word which is being used the days) the extra bat would hardly come into play, because in middle order the batting, on a deteriorating pitch, gets progessively harder in India. In Aus, the extra bowler would come in handy, but only just.

Provable benefit could be more competitive tests.

I don't either, but then this is the most lopsided era in tests since the WWII ended, back then it was because the new teams were relative minnows.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

India & Aus are historically the stringest teams at home, India especially in the last decade or so. Even then, if we produce result oriented pitces (you know the other word which is being used the days) the extra bat would hardly come into play, because come middle order the batting, on a deteriorating pitch, gets progessively harder in India. In Aus, the extra bowler would come in handy, but only just.

Provable benefit could be more competitive tests.

I don't either, but then this is the most lopsided era in tests since the WWII ended, back then it was because the new teams were relative minnows.

Is it really lopsided?

Just because teams are not winning away as much anymore? Which is because more nations are not folding easily at home now?

I don't see it as lopsided myself. I think it is good for the global game that more countries are not losing at home regularly.

Faf and Amla are close to retirement, and take KW out of NZ with injury and Taylor to retirement, there will be more away series victories instantly again.

England is being held together by Root and Cook in recent years.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't think being able to swap a number 11 with an allrounder when batting after bowling is only a minor advantage myself, when the opposing team will not be able to because they bat first.

The rule was logically flawed. That is why captains agreed to not play under it.

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?

 

[R!TTER]

Is it really lopsided?

Just because teams are not winning away as much anymore? Which is because more nations are not folding easily at home now?

I don't see it as lopsided myself. I think it is good for the global game that more countries are not losing at home regularly.

It's lopsided because the home teams play to their strength & the away teams hardly get time to acclimatize. Blink & you lose, in the olden days we had many flat decks that would allow the oppostion batters to draw some games. Do we see too many flat tracks nowadays?

The league would only accentuate the need to win every tests & series, depending on how the points are spread.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

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?

Bowl first, any and every day of the week.

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

 

[TheJediBrah]

Bowl first, any and every day of the week.

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

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.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

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.

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?

If their team was regular, and they had a spare bat, you're not going to ask them to bowl first neither.