Thursday, 16 February 2006
ICC abandons supersub rule
Well thank goodness for that. Sadly the change in playing conditions won't come into effect until after the series between New Zealand and the West Indies. I wonder if those two teams will consider coming to an agreement not to make use of the law while it is still in effect?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Ah, good decision. I'd like to see powerplays biffed as well - oh well, only one set of fingers to cross.
I'd have liked to see supersub named after toss, as it effectivly just gives teams an extra batter. This means teams can afford to be more aggressive at the start, reduces the milking period in the middle of an innings, and generally leads to bigger scores etc..
Without the supersub, the WR chase by NZ to beat Aus recently would never have been possible.
The powerplays do work and should be kept. The old way of just always the first 15 overs is too predictable, and inflexible for the fielding captain if things aren't going well. By postponing the restrictions till when he feels the batters are less likely to go for it, in effect the batters are strongly encouraged to go for boundarys just when normally they'd be most likely to be happy with just singles.
Rubbish - New Zealand's supersub in that match was Stephen Fleming who scored 0. Unless you're suggesting the reason NZ got to 332 was because of Johnson being Australia's supersub, with figures of 9-0-64-0.
A key reason NZ got the WR chase was because Australia had a second-rate attack.
In matches one and two of the series NZ used James Marshall as the supersub, and he scored 1 and 6.
Post a Comment