Your current take so far on the new rules

[sid_19840]

We have seen a few ODI matches played with the two major new rules in cricket.How do you see these changes?

Also what do you think about the use of technology for the LBW decisions as used in the Super Series ODI games?

Here are my thoughts:Although the new rules have changed the game a lot,it needs a few changes,first the powerplays,most captians use power play 2 and 3 in the first 20 overs itself,and very rarely has powerplay 2 not been enforced after over 10.Perhaps the control of powerplays should go to the batting team instead of the fielding team,that would make things interesting,maybe teams may save them for the end overs or use them with wickets in hand.The substitution rule so far seems like a game in a casino,where if you bet correctly you win.So if you win the toss you usually end with 12 players against the opponents 11.But with proper stragies maybe this rule could be put to good use in the future.

As for the technolgy aspect,seems like a good move but it should not be used for every appeal,only when the umpire himself has a major doubt in his mind and in those occassions where an umpire thinks that the match depends on the decision.

Looking forward to hearing your views on these matters.Cheers.

Siddharth(sid_19840)

 

[satishmania]

if the powerplay option goes to the batting side, the ODI games would become even more batsman oriented, as if its not already so.
the decision to use replays for LBW decisions should have been taken long ago i feel.

 

[aussie1st]

Only rule I like is the use of technology. As long as the umpires don't send up calls 24/7 then the introduction of technology would be a welcome addition to cricket.

 

[angryangy]

In regards to the substitution rule, I feel it's being employed poorly. In the Natwest Challenge series, it was shown quite clearly that the toss is far more important than the substitution.

In all three situations, it was ideal to bat second. In all three situations, no more than five batsmen were used in chasing the target. Hence, one can assume that having a substitute that was a capable batsman was worthless in exploiting the toss. If a batsmen is substituted to assist in setting a target, it comes at the expense of a bowler.

Game 1 at Headingley: England win the toss, send Australia in to bat in conditions that really favour the bowlers early on. The total of 219 was rather easily chased.

Brad Hogg was substituted on and took one wicket. Sure, it was the only wicket, but this was hardly game changing. The idea was right, but the substitute was not the best available in the armoury.

Game 2 at Lord's: Australia win the toss, send England in to bat in what are again unfavourable batting conditions. Again, the total of 223 was easily chased.

England lost the toss and didn't use their sub, prefering not to lose a bowling option. Australia won the toss and their sub proved worthless.

Game 3 at The Brit Oval: Australia win the toss again, sending England in to bat and the total of 228 was hunted rather than chased in 35 overs.

Now, you might say, AHAH! Solanki being a sub came in really handy! No, it didn't. He would have to have scored another 90 runs to make that game close. He kept the game on life support after a fairly botched start. Plus, they lost the valuable bowling option of Simon Jones.

My take on all this is quite simple. They should assess the conditions and the pitch. Make a judgement as to whether it would be better to bat first or last. Now, with that in mind, they should pick the SuperSub according to what would be most helpful, should they lose the toss.

In the Natwest Challenge, it proved a virtual guarantee of a win to bowl first. In a day-nighter, it might prove the complete opposite.

At Headingley, for example I feel Australia needed their best available strike weapon as the sub. I would think this is Stuart MacGill, a veteran leggie and the champion of NSW's List A season. They don't play Stewie largely because he is a number 11 batsman, but in this situation, he will never have to bat, so it's perfect!

 

[sid_19840]

Thats true,as I said before,the supersub option may be used more wisely in future as the captains and coaches get more games under their belt with these new rules.

Another thing though,what happens if these rules get taken off after the testing period which is 10 months i think,will this affect the world cup in any way?

 

[andrew_nixon]

Another thing though,what happens if these rules get taken off after the testing period which is 10 months i think,will this affect the world cup in any way?

Why would it?

 

[angryangy]

It would demoralise 12th men the world over.

 

[sid_19840]

well what if most teams get used to playing and depeding on the new rules with the supersubs that it takes them some time to get back on terms with the old ones(just the way its taking time to get used to the new one's).Will this affect their performance anyway in the world cup.Anyway my opinion is that these rules should apply for the world cup as well.

 

[barmyarmy]

Brett Lee would have to go back to carrying drinks again...

 

[satishmania]

the supersub rule should be modified such that the captain can choose the supersub only after the toss.this way if a team bats first, a batsman could be the supersub and vice-versa.hence the supersub can be exploited more effectively this way.

 

[Sureshot]

They should have 12 players then pick their 11 after the toss with the remainding bloke Super-Sub.

 

[squiz]

Brett Lee would have to go back to carrying drinks again...

Brett Lee's arguably the best One Day International bowler in the world ATM...

Each team's XI and supersub should be named after the toss like Sureshot said. Also with the powerplays, I think it should be the first 10 overs should be one, the 2nd should be between overs 11-30 and another between overs 31-50, because afterall the only reason they introduced the powerplays was to make the WHOLE innings more "entertaining"

 

[icyman]

i agree with most of you the supersub ought to be named after the toss.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

The rules suck.

 

[SaiSrini]

Same here! The captains to bring in their final XI on the team sheet with a space left for the Super Sub! After the toss, they should be able to select their Super Sub! This way, either team would not be unfairly benefitted! I like the Supersub rule (more because it gives India a fifth bowling option!).

I think the Powerplay rule should be modified that all 20 overs should not be used in one go! There should be at least a 5 over gap before Powerplay 2 or 3 is introduced!