Posts
Loading ...Articles tagged as: supersub
ICC innovations structure isn’t very appealing
By Scott 2 years ago, at the start of May, 6 Comments »
It has been reported in today’s paper that the ICC are considering a trial where players can appeal against the umpires decision. They are talking about using the Champions Trophy as a test bed for the idea. I noted the other day that the players don’t take the Champions Trophy very seriously, and it appears that the ICC does not either.
The ICC cricket committee, chaired by Indian great Sunil Gavaskar and including former Australian captain Allan Border, will debate whether players should be allowed to appeal against a certain number of decisions per innings if they feel they have been wronged by umpires.
An appeals system has been used in the National Football League for years, and the ICC denied such a process in cricket could undermine the authority of the standing umpires.
“What we are looking to do is increase the already high numbers of correct decisions made by our on-field umpires without diminishing their role and this approach has the potential to do just that,” said Dave Richardson, ICC’s general manager of cricket.
Presumably, a captain could appeal, say, two contentious decisions per innings and ask that they be referred to the third umpire. The standard of international umpiring has been a big issue recently.
The standard of international umpiring is in fact fine, if you ask me. Australia toured South Africa and Bangladesh and played 5 tests and 8 odi games and I don’t remember a single contentious decision.
While I am a crusty old curmudgeon, I do not in fact have a problem with new ideas in cricket. However, I do have notions about the proper place to test new ideas, and the ICC Champions Trophy, whatever its merits, or otherwise, is not in fact one of those places. If the ICC had asked a member country to test its ’supersub’ rule in a domestic competition, the flaws in the idea, which were manifest at the time anyway, could have been demonstrated in a slightly less public manner.
6 Comments »Andrew “Roy” Symonds starts repaying what he owes.
By Scott 2 years ago, at the end of April, 2 Comments »
Andrew Symonds’ big night out on the day before an ODI against Bangladesh in 2005 will go down in infamy in Australian cricket lore, and probably will be celebrated in Bangladesh for a while to come as well. But he did redeem himself somewhat with a match-winning century in Dhaka to win the 2nd ODI for Australia yesterday.
It must be said, in all honesty, that at the moment he looks like he’s been on an even bigger bender then his 2005 effort. The dreadlocks look scruffy and the beard makes him look like a vagabond. At the moment, if any Australian cricketer is crying out for a makeover by the folks from ‘queer eye for the straight guy’, it is Symonds.
He may look like a drunken derelict, but his 5th ODI century for Australia was a most sober and abstemious effort. He came in with a bit of a crisis happening and Australia struggling after losing 3 for 10 after Adam Gilchrist got interrupted just as he was really warming up. That brought to mind his innings in Sydney against Sri Lanka, where Chaminda Vaas roughed up the Australian top order. Starting this time at 3 for 65, he combined with Michael Clarke to compose a brilliant but ungainly knock.
It’s one thing to score a glittering century on an easy paced but reliable SCG wicket; this wicket at Dhaka was simply diabolical. It was slower then a Madagascar sloth and deader then WG Grace. He came out wearing a helmet but there was no way Mashrafe Mortaza was going to get a bouncer to get beyond rib high at best. Pitch preparation is a black art at the best of times, but whoever was in charge of this one should hang his head in shame. Bangladesh may be poor, but if they can afford to put on a gloriously manicured outfield, there’s no excuse for a pitch like this.
So once the fast men finished their spells with the new ball, we had the rather dreary sight of spinners bowling and the batsmen working them over for singles. It is this sort of cricket that drove the ICC in frustration to introduce monstrosities like power-plays and supersubs. It is hardly the batsmen at fault in situations like this; in Michael Clarke and Andrew Symonds, Australia had two of its most positive minded batsmen at the crease. But Clarke only scored 2 boundaries in his 54.
Credit must go to the bowlers, especially the redoubtable Mohammed Rafique. The veteran spinner has clearly been the pick of Bangladesh’s bowlers right through this Australian tour. Of course, it does help his cause that as a slow left arm spinner, he is a member of the spin caste that has troubled Australians the most over recent years. Daniel Vettori is another that springs to mind.
So Symonds played Rafique with respect, picking him off, working him over for the singles, and waiting for the loose ball from the other end. These were not in short supply once Bashar had to face the chore of juggling to find ten overs from his ‘fifth’ bowler, but again the conditions conspired, and the lack of bounce clearly frustrated Symonds. However, instead of losing his head and his innings, he managed to keep his composure, and his wicket, and in the end his century came off 122 balls; slow by his standards but fast in the conditions.
Bashar perhaps missed a trick; he seemed content to allow Australia to pick off singles, and I wonder when a captain is going to be bold enough to try keeping his inner fielders close enough to the batsmen to make singles hard work. It could have paid dividends.
But it was never tried, so they tied Australia down for a while but they could not get them out though, and a late burst saw Australia through to 250. And once the Australian fast men knocked off the top order of Bangladesh’s batting, that was it as a game. Habibul Bashar played a good captain’s knock to ensure Bangladesh had some respectability with their reply of 183, but Symonds was the man who made the difference. And a good thing too, because against this opponent, Symonds owed his country a match-winning innings or three.
2 Comments »Beware Pakistan!
By Scott 2 years ago, at the start of February, 5 Comments »
Mark Waugh is looking ahead to the 2007 World Cup, and he isn’t impressed with South Africa or Sri Lanka. He thinks that the big danger to Australia completing a hat-trick of titles is Pakistan.
True enough, but it’s 12 months to go and Pakistan are.. well.. changable. Which Pakistan will turn up? I agree that if Pakistan are playing to their full potential, they could win the title. And I’m surprised that Waugh doesn’t even mention England.
And I so hope that they get rid of the ‘power play’ and ’supersub’ nonsense at the end of this summer. I do not like these new rules. The ‘power play’ is almost always taken straight away, and the ’supersub’ gives far too much advantage to the side that wins the toss.
5 Comments »Only Fools and Broadcasters
By Scott 2 years ago, mid-January, 3 Comments »
When I impale myself with a sharp object, I resolve to first, remove the said object, and second, avoid impaling myself in the future.
Brendon Julian, the former Australian all-rounder, takes a different view:
FORMER Test all rounder Brendon Julian has called for a radical overhaul of the “super sub” rule in one-day cricket, suggesting teams use a 14-man squad, with bowling rotations similar to those used in baseball.
Julian said the number of one-day matches on the international schedule put too much strain on players, particularly pacemen, and called on the game’s law-makers to investigate ways of reducing player burnout, starting with an alteration to the 12th man rule in limited-overs games.
At present teams must nominate a super sub before the toss, who can then replace anyone in the starting XI during the match.
The new law has been roundly criticised by international skippers, with Pakistan’s Inzamam-ul-Haq, Australia’s Ricky Ponting and South Africa’s Graeme Smith all pointing out it unfairly advantages the winner of the toss.
However, rather than scrap the rule, Julian has called on the International Cricket Council to expand it to include three potential substitutes, allowing bowlers to be rested when required.
“It was a good idea but the rule isn’t working in its present format,” Julian said.
“I think the best way to go would be to increase one-day squads to 14 and allow teams to make three substitutes throughout matches as they see fit.
Three sharp objects, clearly better then one.
3 Comments »