-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Why Super Subs Failed?
- Thread starter DriveClub
- Start date
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
not necessarily, only if both teams picked a specialist of the same variety as super sub
if you pick a specialist as your super sub and you lose the toss and hence wasting it then it's your fault for picking a specialist IMO. That was part of the fun of it, do you take a risk and pick a batsman/bowler or play it safe and go with an all-rounder.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Dravid was our captian during the super-sub era and he always said he picked a fail safe for losing the toss as the super sub. For instance, on a green wicket, you wanna bowl first but he always had a batsman as his supersub, in case he lost the toss and had to bat in tough conditions.
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Did I forget this or did it pass me by in the first place? 
cnerd123
likes this
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/23018938/Did I forget this or did it pass me by in the first place?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.es...23019628/why-supersub-super-idea?platform=amp
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
no. That would have completely defeated the purpose, and effectively just meant that both teams had 12 players.
The whole "sub" part of it would have been irrelevant, which was what created all the intrigue.
SillyCowCorner1
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think it went the same way as the runners.
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
There was no intrigue.
If you pick a batsman and bowl first you get an extra batsman. If you bat first you're playing with your XI.
If you pick a bowler and bat first you get an extra bowler. If you bowl first you're playing with your XI.
If you pick an all rounder and bowl first you sub away a specialist bowler after they have bowled their ten and get half an extra batter.
If you bat first with an all rounder you could sub out a batter and get half a bowler in the second innings.
It was a silly system that heavily favoured winning the toss. Because often one side would be playing with 11 and the other side 12.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
There was plenty of intrigue, you clearly just didn't see it (or appreciate it). One of my favourites was an ODI when England batted first and their super sub was Vikram Solanki. They collapsed early and subbed him in for Simon Jones who then obviously took no part in the game. Solanki top scored and got them to a competitive total. It was great theatre.
Your last sentence definitely happened a lot too, but as I said that was purely the fault of the team selection and they knew they were gambling if they named a specialist as super sub. Plenty of sides picked all-rounders too and it was interesting to see when they were subbed, and who for.
I'll also reiterate that naming the sub after the toss would be completely pointless and just really, really dumb. It's the exact same as just saying "each team can pick 12 players with 1 non-batter" and ignoring the sub part of it
Last edited:
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
The idea itself had a lot of flaws but I still like how Dravid (and Greg Chappell, who was the coach) approached it.
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
That was my point though...
If the point if it wasn't too give each side 12 players, then what was the point if it? How often is a countries 2nd or third best all rounder going to have a huge impact on a game?
Better off basically using it to strengthen batting and bowling for both sides. Sure, it would have meant that McGrath would never have batted but maybe that's not a terrible thing.
If the point if it wasn't too give each side 12 players, then what was the point if it? How often is a countries 2nd or third best all rounder going to have a huge impact on a game?
Better off basically using it to strengthen batting and bowling for both sides. Sure, it would have meant that McGrath would never have batted but maybe that's not a terrible thing.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I would rather they bring in injury subs, now that we already have concussion subs. If you anyways have a neutral doctor and you have a match referee who can call what is like for like and what is not, why not allow actual injury subs too?
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
To add another dimension of tactics to the game, which it definitely did. Teams taking a risk and getting screwed over by the toss was part of those tactics.
What's the point of that though? Just adding an extra player? dumb
Spikey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
yeah I believe the SA/AUS ODI series with the 438 chase was an example
as I recall, in the early 2000's the Australian ODD competition basically had something like baseball's designated hitter. glenn mcgrath, for example, would just not bat and michael bevan or whoever would just not field.
as I recall, in the early 2000's the Australian ODD competition basically had something like baseball's designated hitter. glenn mcgrath, for example, would just not bat and michael bevan or whoever would just not field.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yes except I'm pretty sure everyone would generally field at some stage with the 12th being someone rested on the sidelines (often a bowler who had completed their spell, or just taking a break). Each side was a team of 12 with a designated non-batter and a designated non-bowler