Quotehanger

  • "The fact is that once I was playing again I was automatically available for everything on the schedule and that meant Stanford. I make no apologies for that and, as for the suggestion that I should waive the fee or give it to charity, I don't see why I should be a special case."
    Steve Harmison feels strongly about suggestions that he came out of one-day retirement in order to play the Stanford Twenty20 for 20

    Sep 7, 2008

    • Recent Posts

    Try DVD rental for £3.99 per month!

    The headlines

    The news

    TWC



    Mickey-Mouse cricket gets substitutes

    By Will 3 years ago, mid-May Leave a comment on this post

    ODI cricket might soon have substitute players brought on, ala Football and Rugby, as early as June. Not impressed, at all - this just dums down cricket even further, more mickey-mouse bullshit. More here

    Also:

    It may not seem like it, but international umpires make the right decision almost 95 per cent of the time. But in an attempt to avoid the odd mistake it has been proposed that, during the three one-day games and a Test match in Australia, the umpires be allowed to refer decisions they are unsure about to the third umpire.

    How long before umpires are replaced completely?

    Tags: , , |

    3 Responses to “Mickey-Mouse cricket gets substitutes”

  • Manish wrote:
    May 18th, 2005 at 2.18 pm

    My biggest complaint with these set of changes is that its not trying to address the ODI format imbalance in favour of batsmen. For example, breaking up field restriction is good, but why then increase to 20 (10+5+5) ? Why not 10+5 or 5+5+5 ? And no reasons given !

    Also, substitution is good, but again, it could have been allowed only for bowling side. So get in a new bowler if one of the starting choice is getting thrashed. And he can come in place of a batsman, but then batsman cannot come back and bat in second inning. Why allow extra batsman also ?

    And I wish they did something about the pitch/condition advantage that toss winner gets. Many ODI tournaments become ridiculous because of this issue. Its a big factor in the growing monotonous nature of ODI cricket.

  • Nick Mallory wrote:
    May 19th, 2005 at 9.53 pm

    The idea of substitutes in cricket is entirely wrong headed.

    One of the beauties of the game is that you ideally need about 13 players, but can only play 11. Selection is always a compromise, and therefore requires skill and creates unpredictability. Do you play the second spinner or the extra batsman? Do you play your best keeper or the stopper who can bat? If subs are allowed in ODIs, and perhaps heaven help us in Tests after that, then such selectoral niceties will be things of the past.

    Never again will a team be punished on the last day for leaving out their spinner, there will be no more heroic innings by injured batsmen to create new legends to match those of the past. Substitutes ruin any game, but would destroy cricket as we know it. Bad, bad move. Making cricket more like other games is exactly the wrong thing to do, cricket fans like cricket because it is different. If people want to watch basketball then let them.

    The game is ludicrously biased in favour of batsmen anyway, and these changes (more fielding restrictions!) wouldn’t address that. Cricket has to be an even contest between bat and ball, when it becomes a predictable run feast then much of its drama is lost.

    Excellent blog by the way, required reading along with Cricinfo, keep up the good work!

  • Will wrote:
    May 19th, 2005 at 11.07 pm

    Both excellent points. Nick, you make an important point about the selectorial decisions and why they are so important to both “the” game and “a” game. I mean, I talk with my mates (and on here) several months in advance of a series, deciding who I/we think should play, or who we think should be ommitted. It’s just part of the game.

    And it’s also why I really find Rugby Union (and league too), and Football, annoying to watch. I like Rugby a lot, but the fact they can swap and change players whenever they choose just feels like it’s cheating (me being a cricket nut).

    If we’re in agreement that substitutes are a bad thing, and we also agree that cricket is heavily dominated by batting, what would you do to a) better balance the game and b) enliven it in the “dull” periods? (I’m talking ODIs, and the “dull” periods are, as I understand it, the vulnerable part of ODI cricket, some critics say, hence this substitute idea). Away for a few days, but shall catch up on this on Monday

    • Comments

    Receive email updates on new comments


    « Sussex trample all over Bangladesh | Main | Ponting’s bat gets the ok »