Posts
Loading ...i think a huge separation must be made from odi and tests. in tests i think yeah, fair enough, but i wouldn’t mind seeing subs in the case of injury to certain players e.g. simon jones in the first test at brisbane in 2002/3. basically england played one short for 14 sessions. in odi’s i’d say go for it and more.
Substitutes in Cricket
By Will 3 years ago, at the end of June Leave a comment on this post
This was mentioned a month ago, but I never thought it would be agreed so quickly. It’s ridiculous, dumbs down Cricket and is merely pandering to the TV companies to make cricket “appear” more entertaining.
From the ICC:
The CEC also approved the introduction of soccer-style replacements which will permit sides to replace a player at any stage of a match. The replaced player will be ruled out of the rest of the match while the replacement will be entitled to assume any remaining batting or bowling duties. Both players will receive a cap.
So, let’s see. England win the toss and bat. It’s likely to swing a bit under lights, with dew in the air, so they reckon on getting a big total first up - so they bear that in mind. They initially choose 4 bowlers, plus their all-rounder - but stumble to 180 all out. They then realise they could do with some extra pace so, when they field, they drop their weakest fielder with Darren Gough who, whilst not a “strong” fielder, can bowl some pace. Is this roughly the idea? If so, then it’s crazy.
As Jonathan Agnew remarks “I really do not believe that we want to see a situation in which you have an Americanisation of international cricket with a ‘bowling team’ and a ‘batting team’.” And this is exactly what could happen. Part of Cricket’s appeal, or rather skill for the captains, is selection issues before a game. Do we go with the extra bowler this time? Do we stick with 5 batsmen? Our all-rounder has emptied the local Thresher’s and is singing “Is this the way to Amarillo?” from the balcony - who should we call in instead? All of this is, and should be, decided before the game starts.
I also disagree that any player who is substituted, or acts as a sub, should receive a cap. This happens in Rugby and, I’m sure, Football - players come on for 10 minutes and are awarded a cap for only performing for a much smaller percentage of the game than their team-mates.
No, sorry - don’t like it. It might - might - make it slightly more interesting as to who or when a player should be substituted for/with - but the public are being treated like cretins here. We’re quite happy with it as it is, thanks very much. We pay to watch 22 players play cricket (22, not 24) - to bat, bowl, field and sledge. We like yorkers, stumps flying, boundaries and beamers. We like Cricket because it’s not Football - the game doesn’t need any more fancy frills than it already has. 20/20 has proved a great success because, I think, the format (and change) is simple: shorten it. But adding this new dimension is change for change’s sake, and is pandering to TV giants’ thirsty wallets and short attention spans.
They’ll be playing in pajamas next, you know…
Tags: ICC, regulations, rules |
31 Responses to “Substitutes in Cricket”
June 27th, 2005 at 1.18 am
June 27th, 2005 at 4.53 am
soon cricket will be down to playing stickcricket online … balls remaining: 6 runs needed: 36 …. big deal …press the left and right arrow keys at the right time and you will get it ! Oh my! cricket is so much fun!!!
June 27th, 2005 at 4.54 am
i meant 6 balls remaining….36 runs needed …
typo 
June 27th, 2005 at 5.35 am
We will have to wait and see how this pans out.
June 27th, 2005 at 8.41 am
One Step Forward, One Step Backwards.
Short entry today- long day in the salt mines. I was pleased with Bangladesh’s performance in last night’s game (scorecard), in that Bangladesh got past 200, and managed to take…
June 27th, 2005 at 10.18 am
I’m sorry, but precisely which skills** are being devalued here? Show me the international captain or manager who thinks this (and remember, it’s part of a package which also includes changes to the fielding restrictions) will make his life easier and I will begin to have some sympathy. Although I agree with you on “caps” for subs - hopefully the Bill Frindalls of this world will record them separately.
**Second thought in the middle of posting - it may be that this will accelerate the decline of the “true” all-rounder of the Miller/Botham/Flintoff type (as opposed to the batsman who can bowl a bit, like Viv Richards, or the bowler who is a “useful” - i.e. No. 8 - bat). But even here the word is accelerate - the most successful teams in living memory have managed without one, using the 7+4 formula - the physical demands of the game to-day lead that way anyhow.
June 27th, 2005 at 10.53 am
I’m not convinced that there is a problem with the substitute player change. It could make it more interesting at times, and I don’t think it takes away too much … at least from the one-day game.
I’ll at least give it a go and see how it goes.
June 27th, 2005 at 11.43 am
hell no! I think it is a stupid idea. Ram, if anything I’d agree to have it in O.D.I matches, but diffently not in test matches. Keep traditional test match cricket as it is. If you are looking for the entertainment factor with these subs then keep it to the already modified versions of the game!
June 27th, 2005 at 11.46 am
Harry, I don’t think there’s any suggestion of changing the rules of two-innings matches.
June 27th, 2005 at 12.06 pm
Innocent Abroad: the skill (or lottery?) of selectorial decisions becomes less crucial.
My concerns with it, which I should have made clear in my post, are that it sets a precedent to the game-makers and law-shakers for the future. The game is changing too fast. Yes the subs-idea isn’t too radical, but if approved who knows what else might sneak its way into the game? (and, as Harry implies, into the Test format too). Dermot Reeve always said he wanted Test Cricketers to wear coloured clothing to “add” something to that format. I couldn’t be more against that particular proposal, but as things stand at the moment, I can’t see it not happening in the next 20 years. Just look how different the game is to 20 years ago…
June 27th, 2005 at 12.40 pm
Well, I would be interested to know if David Graveney thinks it’s made his life easier… maybe it has (and Fletcher’s harder).
Whenever I hear anyone saying that X is changing too fast my first thought is that they think X is perfect just the way it is! Hell, no one likes change… but as far as ODIs are concerned there haven’t been any changes of substance for yonx - since the cutback from 55 to 50 overs IIRC.
FWIW, I’d suggest that the “free hit” after a no ball in the 20/20 format could usefully be extended to all cricket, and applied to wides also.
June 27th, 2005 at 12.52 pm
Guys, seriously tell me….what really does this substitution thing add to the game?? Is it going to become popular because you can see more than 11 players in a team in one day?? I really dont see any major thrill/excitement in this subs rule…in my opinion, this is just change for the sake of change….it wont change anything but the guys at the top can go home to sleep claiming to have promoted changes in the game….
June 27th, 2005 at 1.13 pm
yeah, if it aint broken, don’t fix it.
June 28th, 2005 at 12.08 am
They have to keep playing with the rules, because ODIs are modified rules in the first place. Once limitations are in place, sides will find loop holes, or ways to exploit them, which are then perceived as boring (I refer to the middle 30 overs in a one day match) - so they tweek the rules, and on it goes. Leg side wides are now much more strict, short pitched bowling was outlawed for awhile, now more field restrictions.
Seeing as they now allow bowlers to bend their arms upto 15% and you basically have to bowl in the zone, who knows, maybe soon you’ll be given out if you miss the ball three times in a row. Maybe three out all out. We could start running around bases instead of up and down the wicket, maybe America could join in because when you play in the States you can have a real world championship you know…
I agree with Will 
June 28th, 2005 at 1.38 am
Stu,
You couldnt have put it better or been closer to the truth!
June 28th, 2005 at 10.39 am
Oh, so this is all about anti-Americanism!(sorry not to have replied before, but I had to go cash my cheque from the CIA…)
Rules are made for the game, not the game for the rules. The only justification for, say, the offside rules of the various football codes is that the game works better with than without them.
Mind you, Stu, I hope Angus Fraser doesn’t read this - there must be a considerable temptation to cut 20/20 down to nine-a-side…
June 28th, 2005 at 12.07 pm
The 20 overs of fielding restrictions split up to any point in the 50 overs is fine….maybe…just maybe it will make the 15-40 over stage of the ODIs interesting. It is a move with good intentions. But what really does substitutions achieve?? Is there any thing that it does to the game? there is not much interesting “strategy” ( something people claim will happen with this new rule ) that you will see…. It is a fact that this has been introduced for no reason at all.
Rules are indeed made for the game… true … if it helps the game get better…but sadly i dont think these substitutions do any thing for the game except get a few fans excited that they can see some batsman score a century and get substituted by a great bowler whho can take 5 wickets when it is time to field.
Soon there will be a clamour to have more subs….and then there will be a batting team, a bowling team and a fielding team representing each country.
And 10 years later, 20-20 will also come under the hammer….changes will be made then….some for the benefit and some for the sake of just introducing any damn change!
I just hope none of this happens to test cricket…now THAT is cricket!
P.S: Again remember that this is only about the substitute rule …. not all the changes that have been suggested.
June 28th, 2005 at 1.04 pm
Karthik, what substitution achieves is more ‘unpredictability’ in the ODIs…atleast for a while. Before all teams start exploiting the loopholes. And then we tweak more. Well, this is what ODI cricket is today. Either watch progressively boring/predictable cricket till its death, or keep changing. Who knows, we may come up with a lasting formula some day. But so what even if we don’t ? There’s still test cricket for purists.
I dont see any problems with substitutions, because frankly I was beginning to avoid ODIs…except for the more crucial ones (couldn’t even watch the Ind-Pak matches fully!). If this brings me back for a while, go for it. Any other suggestions ? (besides giving up on cricket
June 28th, 2005 at 3.04 pm
I was just thinking about how teams that have very good wicket keepers but are poor with the bat would be quite eager to sub their wicket keeper for a specialist batsman if they have bowled first. This is the sort of stuff I’m sure not many of us want. I mean, isn’t one of the interesting and great things about cricket choosing your bowlers, your batsman and your wicketkeeper then making the best with what you’ve got, like tail enders having a crack at the end of an innings?
June 28th, 2005 at 3.53 pm
All said and done…the rule is in place and there’s nothing we fans can do about it….so lets wait watch and desperately hope our game does not deteriorate from a sport into a TV show….
June 28th, 2005 at 4.35 pm
How long has cricket managed to stay in one piece? Two hundred + years? Why alter it now? If the Americans don’t like it as it is, tough, they don’t have to play it.
June 28th, 2005 at 4.43 pm
trust me…americans are not going to take to this game even if we make it entirely like baseball….the only ones playing there will be the immigrants from cricket playing nations…. so lets get on with the game…and yeah…substitutions dont add anything to the game…its a change (like someone above mentioned) for the sake of change….
June 28th, 2005 at 4.47 pm
i think that this is the beginning of the end of ODI!
whereas tests have a tradition that is the games highest form, the ODI lack this!
the other nail in the coffin is the new format of 20-20. this is more popular and far more marketable for the game!
thus fiscal rules and lack of tradition will spell the end of the ODI in a few years, the only way for cricket to go forward!
well it would be if i was the CEO of the ICC!
June 28th, 2005 at 6.16 pm
Hey “Hmmm”, that’s the problem right there. You hit the nail on the head, “if I was the CEO of the ICC”. CEO?
This is cricket we’re talking about here, and I know that clubs are “professional” but the GAME is suffering because of this capitalistic attempt to turn it into a business. In 1900, one hundred years ago, this wasn’t a business, it was something you played because you enjoyed it - it was a national sport.
Until about 20 years ago it was still that but this business model, “compete-against-football-and-baseball” mentality just isn’t doing much for the spirit of the game. Maybe I’m just old fashioned (and I’m only 32) but I just think that it will never be what they want it to be or perhaps, as I’ve always longed to say, “it just wouldn’t be cricket, old chap”.
June 28th, 2005 at 10.03 pm
This introduction of substitutes is just one minor change in a string of changes that our beloved game has gone through in the past 200 years. Keep it in perspective - all they are talking about is a substitute. It is still a cricket match, with batsmen, bowlers, stumps, and silly mid-offs. I’m sure similar feelings of disappointment have been felt when previous changes have been introduced, like declarations (in the early days they were not allowed), helmets, runners, wides down leg side (in ODI), the front-foot rule for no-balls, 6 ball overs instead of 8 or 4 or 5, five day Test matches …
The introduction of a substitute player is just another one of these minor changes. If they start talking about more significant changes to the game, then we’ll start complaining, but there’s no need for that just yet.
June 28th, 2005 at 11.19 pm
Substitutes in cricket
The ICC wants to introduce a few changes to one-day internationals, with one change being the introduction of a substitute player:
June 28th, 2005 at 11.26 pm
Great debate, thanks all - keep it coming. Seems to be a real mixed-bag of opinions, but although I agree with Darryl’s tempered reaction, it is the precedent such a decision sets that concerns me. The actual decision isn’t too radical and, in the short-term, could be quite fun. It smacks of an ICC not really in touch with what the public and players want.
June 29th, 2005 at 9.02 am
Will, I suspect on the basis of the debate here and the e-mails TMS say they’ve had that you’d never get any changes to the playing conditions, let alone the Laws, if they had to be approved the cricket-watching public!
And I think that if the players were unhappy we’d've heard about it - I’m sure you’d've pointed us to a link if you had one
June 30th, 2005 at 9.42 pm
July 11th, 2005 at 11.22 am
It’s not a good rules.
It isn’t part of a circket.
many people didn’t like it
so ICC should ignore this rules..
January 18th, 2006 at 10.45 am
I dont think it is a good idea at all… cric should not follow the footsteps of other sports.
Comments
« Cricket Photo Competition | Main | Bangladesh - Australia DVDs »
