ICC drop "Super"-Sub

They could have scrapped the power plays than the super sub.The super subs did actually make the games a little more interesting...but it would have made things a lot more fairer if the teams were allowed to name their super subs after the toss.

Langeveldt said:

Maybe they could get rid of all this Twenty20 waste while they are at it

Click to expand...

Sadly it looks like the opposite will happen.
Honestly - what a waste. Twenty20 has nothing to offer international cricket, indeed it could in the end do it great damage.
It does, however, have a huge amount to offer the domestic game in near enough every country, and making it an international event will utterly inevitably damage the potential at the domestic level.

parisa said:

They could have scrapped the power plays than the super sub.The super subs did actually make the games a little more interesting...but it would have made things a lot more fairer if the teams were allowed to name their super subs after the toss.

Click to expand...

As I've already mentioned - David Richardson did say that that was never their intention - evidently too much "not cricket".
I certainly was never in favour of the substitute being named after the toss, merely 12 named, followed by toss, followed by 11 named.

Jono said:

Thanks Richard, took the words out of my mouth.

Mind you I'd be willing to wager that Arche Mac agrees with us that an even battle between bat and ball in ODIs is much preferable than continous (note I stress the word continously odd 300+ chase. The odd 300+ is very exciting, its when it happens on a regular basis that ODI gets boring as bat-droppings.

There's no point just accepting the fact that ODI cricket is skewed towards the batsman, and then offering suggestions of rule changes to put the game even more in favour of them. Definitely not in the best interests of the game.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree 100% I was just looking for a way to make this power play more interesting. If we have to have it than in its present form it is very predictable.

They use to have two balls per innings in the ODI game in Aust. and the scores were around 210-230 but they have changed it to help the batsman. If it becomes much more batsman friendly maybe we could just have a bowling machine at each end, and be done with it

Richard said:

I generally think 220-plays-221-in-99.4-overs or similar is much preferable to a stupidly high-scoring thriller.
Just saying "ODI cricket was made for batsmen was it not?" is a poor excuse. Yes, it was - and hence steps need to be taken to make it less batsman-friendly.

Click to expand...

I don't think I was using it as an excuse, to me it is more a fact, and if you can provide me with one example of where a rule change as been to the bowlers advantage I would be a little shocked.

The only one I can think of is they started letting the bowlers bowl bumpers again, but this was more to bring back the hook and pull strokes.

And ironically it's one I was very much against - a Bouncer is almost always a dot-ball and it's a ball any fool can bowl, unlike a Yorker which takes great skill.
The simple fact of the matter is, eventually we are likely to get to a stage where everyone gets bored because there are too many runs scored in ODIs. I hope someone might take steps to pre-empt that happening.
The fact is, most rule-changes have been batsman-aided, but most (field-restrictions of both types to the fore) have been completely fair. I don't think it's right that you should be allowed all fielders on the boundary in ODIs, and the first-15-overs thing has added spice and might well have helped many bowlers become better.
The only one I'd object to is this stupidity about batsmen being allowed to back-up absurdly far.
And, of course, boundaries being moved in, but that's not something in the rules, it's been something done by individual boards.

Well tbh I will lose no sleep if they scrap OD cricket, we might see more Test cricket, with proper tours so teams can have some decent practice before the start of a Series.


The things ODI cricket has done for the game?
1-ODI = have made much better fieldsman
2-ODI=?

archie mac said:

Well tbh I will lose no sleep if they scrap OD cricket, we might see more Test cricket, with proper tours so teams can have some decent practice before the start of a Series.


The things ODI cricket has done for the game?
1-ODI = have made much better fieldsman
2-ODI=?

Click to expand...

Quicker scoring in ODIs has encouraged batsmans to score faster in tests. 10 years ago, ODIs were an interesting alternative to the tedium of drawn 2.5 RPO test matches.

danish said:

Quicker scoring in ODIs has encouraged batsmans to score faster in tests. 10 years ago, ODIs were an interesting alternative to the tedium of drawn 2.5 RPO test matches.

Click to expand...

I will give you that one, although with the better bats, would it have happened anyway?

archie mac said:

I will give you that one, although with the better bats, would it have happened anyway?

Click to expand...

I also think that the standard of pitches around the world has improved for batsman more than bowlers in the last 20 years...

Also part of the era we are in. People in general (including cricket players) do things much faster than in the past.

Unless you are an Indian bowler and Ganguly is the captain of course.

archie mac said:

I don't think I was using it as an excuse, to me it is more a fact, and if you can provide me with one example of where a rule change as been to the bowlers advantage I would be a little shocked.

The only one I can think of is they started letting the bowlers bowl bumpers again, but this was more to bring back the hook and pull strokes.

Click to expand...

Don't forget the 15 degree straightening rule. IMO, thats a big assistance to bowlers.
Apart from allowing bowlers to bowl faster and get more spin, if this law wasn't introduced, we'd be having the likes of Ramnaresh Sarwan as the strike bowler for every team.

danish said:

Don't forget the 15 degree straightening rule. IMO, thats a big assistance to bowlers.
Apart from allowing bowlers to bowl faster and get more spin, if this law wasn't introduced, we'd be having the likes of Ramnaresh Sarwan as the strike bowler for every team.

Click to expand...

Or just someone with a decent action (eg McGrath...)

I can see your point, but there are a lot of bowlers out there with great actions.

Feel like Martin Crowe when he said "I really like the look of his package" about Hamish Marshall. Just slightly.

archie mac said:

Well tbh I will lose no sleep if they scrap OD cricket, we might see more Test cricket, with proper tours so teams can have some decent practice before the start of a Series.

Click to expand...

That's perfectly possible if things are planned well anyway, you don't need to lose ODIs.

The things ODI cricket has done for the game?
1-ODI = have made much better fieldsman
2-ODI=?

Click to expand...

They have made the game more accessible to millions of people.
Simple as.
Without ODIs, Tests (and cricket in general) might be dead already.

sirjeremy11 said:

I also think that the standard of pitches around the world has improved for batsman more than bowlers in the last 20 years...

Click to expand...

Well, yes, but they did in 1900 and 1930 as well.

Also part of the era we are in. People in general (including cricket players) do things much faster than in the past.

Click to expand...

True, but I don't feel this is a perminant change (in cricket, not in life-in-general).

danish said:

Quicker scoring in ODIs has encouraged batsmans to score faster in tests. 10 years ago, ODIs were an interesting alternative to the tedium of drawn 2.5 RPO test matches.

Click to expand...

Yet Test-cricket has sharpened-up it's act recently, too.

danish said:

Don't forget the 15 degree straightening rule. IMO, thats a big assistance to bowlers.

Click to expand...

That's the game in general, though, we were referring to rule-changes applying to ODIs only.

Apart from allowing bowlers to bowl faster and get more spin, if this law wasn't introduced, we'd be having the likes of Ramnaresh Sarwan as the strike bowler for every team.

Click to expand...

Until it was found that Sarwan, like everyone else, actually straightened his arm too.

Richard said:

They have made the game more accessible to millions of people.
Simple as.
Without ODIs, Tests (and cricket in general) might be dead already.

Click to expand...

Having said that, Test Cricket brought about the revival of Cricket in England. After the Ashes this summer, even the most outspoken haters of Cricket in my class started playing playground Cricket, which is great for the development for the game in England.

Indeed, it's been unmissable, and really that will always be the way in England - Tests will always be considered superior to ODIs.
That's not the way in many other countries, though.

Richard said:

True, but I don't feel this is a perminant change (in cricket, not in life-in-general).

Click to expand...

Is this because the standard of bowling around the world at the moment is not that high? I feel that sometimes...

sirjeremy11 said:

Or just someone with a decent action (eg McGrath...)

I can see your point, but there are a lot of bowlers out there with great actions.

Click to expand...

Well... yes, there are, but nonetheless Sarwan is the only bowler who has been watched and never straightened his arm while bowling when under survey.
Someone like McGrath may have a decent action but it still breaches the old false ideals.