I used to sit on the 21st floor. Now I am retired

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Cricinfo - Dravid chooses to chase again

Cricinfo - Dravid chooses to chase again: "India: 1 Gautam Gambhir, 2 Sachin Tendulkar, 3 Rahul Dravid (capt), 4 Yuvraj Singh, 5 Mohammad Kaif, 6 Mahendra Singh Dhoni (wk), 7 Irfan Pathan, 8 Suresh Raina, 9 Ajit Agarkar, 10 S Sreesanth, 11 Rudra Pratap Singh. Supersub: Zaheer Khan."

So, I can't understand this. If Dravid had decided that he will field first if he wins the toss, why keep Zaheer Khan as a Super-Sub? Don't tell me he was hedging his bets.

Btw, it's sad that ICC decided to scrap the supersub rule. All that was needed was a minor tinkering of the rule (choose Supersub after the toss), just like Ponting and others have been asking for.

Instead, ICC bowed to the traditionalists who have argued that cricket is a game to played by 11 players and wanted it scrapped because they couldn't understand it well. What was amazing was the position taken by Bob Woolmer, who last I checked wanted to use a hidden earpiece in a World Cup!! What is so sacrosant about 11 players? Football also introduced substitutions relatively late.

Why not try the modified supersub rule for a few months before giving up on it?


Blogger maverick said...

Powar would've been a better super-sub. Anyways looks like that won't make too much of a difference today!

And btw why does everyone listen to Ponting all the time? Have all the captains agreed to scrap it? I know its agreed by the ICC and is waiting to ratify for the same in the next meeting. I would love to have 3 super-subs. The game's getting too boring!

Thursday, February 16, 2006 3:51:00 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is quite a stupid rule. If the super sub was to be selected after the toss then is more a game of 12 people than 11. I dont see how that makes the game more interesting. And if you continue with the current rule in super subs, it is more of a lottery. Either way the super sub does not make much sense.

Friday, February 17, 2006 12:40:00 AM

Blogger dhoomketu said...

Hi Anon,
Don't think calling a rule stupid will make that so.
If your starting point is that complexity is interesting as it opens up more possibilities, then you'll appreciate why the possibility of a 12th player is interesting.

If you select the 12 after the toss, then yes, I agree, it is a game of 12 against 12. But it definitely creates chances of a few more interesting battles.

However, if you want things to be simple, then I guess you won't see this point. Anyway, even if you don't agree with me on what constitutes interesting, I am absolutely clear that the way the rule was implemented was not great.

Originally, the rule was brought in so that specialists can have a role in the one-day game. However, the rule actually didn't give captains the flexibility of keeping specialist super-subs since they would have to name this guy before the toss.

Don't think we have exlpored the possibilities fully yet.

Friday, February 17, 2006 2:08:00 AM

Blogger buddha said...

i agree with you when you say that just a minor tweak of the rule would have made sense and that the captains should be asked to name their super-sub after the toss... the rule can make for some interesting battles as you say. furthermore, it could really be in india's favour as india could then make use of a fifth bowler (i do not think tendulkar/sehwag/yuvraj singh are the answer to india's fifth bowler problems).

with regards to fielding first after winning the toss, i think dravid was just being risk-aversive... in that he had a team of 11 in mind and zaheer wasn't in it. in case he lost the toss and india was put in, then he could have used zaheer when india fielded later.

atleast in this series, i feel that india's strategy has been to choose the best playing XI and then preferably chasing. if that does not work out and india has to bat first, then the bowler can come in later as the supersub..

just they way i look at it.

Saturday, February 18, 2006 2:03:00 AM

Blogger dhoomketu said...

Buddha, agree with you.

Super-sub can really be of use to teams without genuine allrounders.

And yes, it also is a way of hedging your bets before the toss, like you pointed out. Was Dravid doing that consciously?

What is amazing in the whole ICC issue though, is how no captain has stood up and asked for Super Sub to remain. The only voices we have heard are of traditionalists like Stephen Fleming and Bob Woolmer.

Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:40:00 AM

Blogger Grandebelf said...

The other way to solve the problem would have been to allow more than one super sub, say 2 super subs and choose one of them to actually substitute. would have given more flexibility. And even the power play rules need to be changed. almost all bowling teams chose the first 20 overs, ideally after the first 10 overs, the batting team should decide when it wants the fielders inside the circle. would make it more interesting

Sunday, February 19, 2006 9:24:00 AM


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Site Meter Personal Blogs by Indian Bloggers