Holysmoke Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Looks like gavaskar and me were thinking along the same lines Substitute fielders should'nt be allowed!
DomainK Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Quoting my post from the other thread: There are some strict rules when it comes to substitutes. For example, if a bowler stays out of the field for sometime, he can not bowl for a certain period of time. Same goes for the batsman. Substitution can not be substituted (excuse the PJ). It has to be allowed. It's also allowed in other field sports.
Indian Pride Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Denying a bowler water is just ridiculous..! Everybody needs water. Yes maybe stop the boundary drinks after each over, and let the bowlers wait for the drinks break like everyone else. If a batsman gets an injury that prevents him from running but doesn't prevent him from batting then let him stand at the crease and just hit boundaries, or retire injured. If your injury is so bad that you can't run then you need to retire hurt. And the substitute fielder thing is now abused far too much. If a fielder has to go off for an injury then he should be replaced by a fielder for the rest of the match, no coming back. Obviously the sub can only field. If he has to go off for any other reason, like toilet break etc, then the fielding side will have to continue with 1 less player until he returns. A test match is meant to test a players fitness to perform for upto 5 days in a row, not just his skill.
DomainK Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 we should probably have toilet on the ground as well, so there are no substitute allowed for whatever reason. :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: May be they should have a time limit. Run, finish your business and come back in 20 mins. Should be enough. If it's worse than that, take your time, but your team then plays with one player less. Or may be just let them go and leave the team one player less which will ensure that they come back in time.
SachDan Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 http://cricket.yahoo.com/cricket/news/article?id=item/2.0/-/story/cricket.indiaabroad.com/gavaskar-says-iccs-decision-abolish-runners-unfair-20110628/
DomainK Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 They should ban the leg byes as well. I can't understand why a batting team should get runs when a batsman fails to use the bat or when bowler bowls a fantastic bouncer that hits the helmet of the clueless batsman and runs away for four. Totally agree. That is just senseless.
akshayxyz Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Genius.. they don't change the ball with new ball. For the ball to be able to reverse swing, bowler, with other members of the team, has to 'prepare' the ball over the period of time. Whereas the changed ball at 34th over is random used ball.
Sidhoni Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 this change was recommended a month ago but the recommendation was accepted 1-2 days ago IIRC.
The Outsider Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 we should probably have toilet on the ground as well, so there are no substitute allowed for whatever reason. :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: According to the rules, substitutes are not allowed for toilet breaks - only for injuries. Of course, the rule is exploited to the hilt and no one follows it. The regulation is that the team would field with 10 players if a player leaves for any reason other than an injury. Gavaskar, is of course being deliberately facetious and trying to make the broader point about the abuse of substitutes.
The Outsider Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 For the ball to be able to reverse swing, bowler, with other members of the team, has to 'prepare' the ball over the period of time. Whereas the changed ball at 34th over is random used ball. It's easier to prepare an older ball because it is already scuffed up and does not have any lacquer. However, I have seen bowlers get some reverse swing even in T20 so that aspect will still be there. The biggest problem will be for spinners in the middle overs when the ball will keep coming nicely on to the bat even on slowish pitches.
kabira Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 ^thats the part I am worried about, ball will be harder and spinners will have tough time, even pacers will have tough time if they can't reverse it, Too much in batsman's favor in ODI, unless there is swing with new ball (does not happen that often in ODIs). Why can't they make better balls, that will last 50 overs..
Chandan Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 It's easier to prepare an older ball because it is already scuffed up and does not have any lacquer. However, I have seen bowlers get some reverse swing even in T20 so that aspect will still be there. The biggest problem will be for spinners in the middle overs when the ball will keep coming nicely on to the bat even on slowish pitches. Thats the first thought that came in mind after this rule. Looks like ICC is trying to eliminate spinners completely from ODI cricket. white ball was not very suitable for them since the beginning. Now they won't even get old to take spin. Bowlers like Ashwin who can bowl with new ball will be fine though!
akshayxyz Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Denying a bowler water is just ridiculous..! Everybody needs water. Yes maybe stop the boundary drinks after each over, and let the bowlers wait for the drinks break like everyone else. If a batsman gets an injury that prevents him from running but doesn't prevent him from batting then let him stand at the crease and just hit boundaries, or retire injured. If your injury is so bad that you can't run then you need to retire hurt. And the substitute fielder thing is now abused far too much. If a fielder has to go off for an injury then he should be replaced by a fielder for the rest of the match, no coming back. Obviously the sub can only field. If he has to go off for any other reason, like toilet break etc, then the fielding side will have to continue with 1 less player until he returns. A test match is meant to test a players fitness to perform for upto 5 days in a row, not just his skill. If retired-hurt batsman can comeback - theoretically, then why not retired hurt fielder/bowler? I support no-runner change. I have no issues with fielding substitutes, it is a bit unfair, but same for everyone. Ideal would have been super-sub - who can replace the injured batsman or fielder for rest of the match. But it has potential to be abused - esp by the team batting second.
Indian Pride Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 If retired-hurt batsman can comeback - theoretically, then why not retired hurt fielder/bowler? I support no-runner change. I have no issues with fielding substitutes, it is a bit unfair, but same for everyone. Ideal would have been super-sub - who can replace the injured batsman or fielder for rest of the match. But it has potential to be abused - esp by the team batting second. Retired hurt batsman shouldn't be allowed to bat again. You go off because you are unable to continue, not because you need a rest to get treatment. In most other team sports you can go off for treatment but your team will be down a player until you return. Substitutes should be permanent. Batting sides don't need subs, and fielding sides can substitute for a fielded only.
akshayxyz Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Retired hurt batsman shouldn't be allowed to bat again. You go off because you are unable to continue' date= not because you need a rest to get treatment. In most other team sports you can go off for treatment but your team will be down a player until you return. Substitutes should be permanent. Batting sides don't need subs, and fielding sides can substitute for a fielded only. The question is not whether they should be allowed or not. The point is, AFAIK as per current rules they are allowed to come back to the crease.
Indian Pride Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 The question is not whether they should be allowed or not. The point is' date=' AFAIK as per current rules they are allowed to come back to the crease.[/quote'] Yes they are allowed back, but if you stop runners and sub fielders then you should stop retired batsmen coming back as well..
akshayxyz Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Yes they are allowed back' date=' but if you stop runners and sub fielders then you should stop retired batsmen coming back as well..[/quote'] agreed, or the other way round - if retired batsmen are allowed to come back. Fielders/bowlers should be allowed to come back.
cowboysfan Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 bcci will try to revert back to teh old regulations in the next icc gm' date=' the 2 new balls rule dont suite india at all, so sunny seems so agitated[/quote'] it doesnt suit any sub continental teams.i am surprised they agreed to this.they are really thick imo.
akshayxyz Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 BCCI would use its muscle power to allow runners again - when SRT would need it.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now