Supersub and Risk Minimization

Entertainment Cricket and Other Sports
1

I was reading Inzi’s comment on supersub where he said this rules favors team winning toss and he is right. This issue of supersub has been discussed in one other thread as well.

But I think, under certain circumstances risk can be minimized. For example, in Lahore, something can be done. Lahore’s wicket is a belter and most probably team winning toss will bat first and try to put 300 runs on board. In this scenario I will chose a specialist batsman as a supersub and have 5 bowlers in team. Idea is that, if you lose one advantage (in terms of losing toss) then you can compensate for it by having an extra batsman while chasing.

Point is that, if you win toss. You count on your regular batters to be able to put decent total. In that case, you probably will not use your supersub at all unless there is an unexpected collapse.
If you lose toss then you can bring in your extra batsmen who will probably help you get your target.

No, I don’t favor having an all rounder as supersub. If he is good all-rounder he should be in playing 11 in the first place. Supersub should be used to replace a specialist by a specialist.

2

Re: Supersub and Risk Minimization

Not necessarily, Inzi could have used Arshad Khan when Danish Kaneria was being smacked all over the place.
The purpose of super sub is to bring the player anytime in the game and utilize his abilities, but he was not even considered.

disturbing
3

Re: Supersub and Risk Minimization

Other approach could be - always be consistant in picking your supersub. Pick based on what will you do when you win toss. As per theory of probability you will be right 50% of time. :D

But in situation where toss gives undue advantage of team winning the toss ( a belter wicket, D/N match with due factor),I think one should plan based on loss of toss.

4

Re: Supersub and Risk Minimization

Yep..he could have done it but advantage will not be that big.
but I failed to get what is your point in terms of selecting supersub?

Welcome New Mods
5

Re: Supersub and Risk Minimization

My point is that the losing captain should not blame his mishandling of supersub if he loses the toss. I think supersub benefits both the winner of the toss and the loser. Inzimam did not bring the super sub into the game when necessary.

6

Re: Supersub and Risk Minimization

So you dont agree that supersub rule is unfair??

Regarding this situation..I think he should have used it to bowl left over 4-5 overs.Keep in mind supersub can only bowl 10 overs minus number of over already bowled by the guy who he is substituting.

But in my thread here I am questioning ,if having Arshad is a good Idea or other batsman ( may be Yasir) could have been better choice for supersub.

Is there any medical test for GAYS....?
7

Re: Supersub and Risk Minimization

If he had brought in Arshad Khan as a super-sub replacement while England was batting, he'd have to boot off one player (either a bowler or a batsman). Who'd he have kicked out?

8

Re: Supersub and Risk Minimization

I think Umair was suggesting kicking out Kaneria

9

Re: Supersub and Risk Minimization

Playing Kaneria in an ODI is always a debatable decision. The dude played a grand total of 3 ODI's in the last two years. Obviously, for a reason. In any case, Arshad Khan is also a fairly mediocre bowler, relatively speaking. When Kaneria and Malik can't do much, its highly doubtful if Arshad Khan could do much.

10

Re: Supersub and Risk Minimization

inzi likes to always have 6 bowlers n the playing 11

11

Re: Supersub and Risk Minimization

A lot of people are criticizing Inzi for again picking up Arshad Khan as the super-sub. You have to clearly understand the super-sub rule. Under the rules, super-sub replaces a player in the team. Who would that be? The biggest problem is that when announcing the super-sub you don't know who is bowling first. Toss can go either way, so teams are placing a wild guess. And then we (the arm-chair critics) start criticizing the decision in hind-sight.

A better way to implement the super-sub rule (and neutralize the toss advantage) is to let teams announce the super-sub AFTER the toss.

England introduced their super-sub Solanki at 130-8 and not 180-8. Their batting was crumbling at that time, so it was a wise move. Not to mention that in hindsight it worked pretty well as Solanki was able to take them to 230 alongwith Plunkett. However, that did leave England one bowler short (Solanki came in place of Andersen), when it was their turn to bowl.

So this super-sub is a dicey preposition, and perhaps England selected Solanki on the assumption that they will lose the toss, and will bowl first and can use an extra batsman when they are chasing. Turns out they again won the toss, and due to light and weather conditions ended up opting to bat first and thus lost the super-sub advantage, practically speaking.

So did Pakistan by selecting a spinner. As they had to boot off Kaneria in the middle of England innings (in 39th over) to use Arshad Khan. Arshad Khan bowled 3 overs for 16 runs. Nothing spectacular, again.

The best way to use super-sub is the way England did in first ODI. Had an extra batsman when they were batting, and replaced him with a specialist bowler when they were bowling (Plunkett replaced Pietersen). But that was because they won the toss, and perhaps more importantly, knew what they were doing.

Our Inzi didn't even knew that the fielding captain has to clearly inform the umpire when the Power Play is to start. Here, at the beginning of Over #11, umpire Hair had a look at the field placing, assume that the 2nd power play is starting, and actually asked Inzi, "hey, is it Power Play?" to which Inzi said "oh yeah!!".

These are teething problems, and since this is the first time Pakistan is playing under these new rules, so should be expected. However, it will be nice if Woolmer takes control of these issues and provides clear guidance and reminders to Inzi. Make good use of the three-laptops that he keeps staring at.

12

Re: Supersub and Risk Minimization

i still think having yasir arafat as the super-sub wud be a much better option than arshad....

and when do we learn to kick kaneria out of our ODI team????

13

Re: Supersub and Risk Minimization

Kaneria is only playing since Afridi is suspended. Pak thought a leg spinner will cause problems for English batting. Hindsight proved otherwise, but on paper it was a fine decision. With Afridi back, Pakistan's options are considerably better.

Whether you play Arshad Khan or another fast bowler is again a personal choice. You could've picked any one, who gets thrashed in one innings, and then hundred people will second-guess your choice and call for your head. Its the reality of this super-sub rule.

14

Re: Supersub and Risk Minimization

I'd say unless the effect of toss is removed from super-sub (announce of playing 11 after the toss), I'll go for an allrounder as a supersub.

New Format
15

Re: Supersub and Risk Minimization

Supersub is an unnecessary rule... i don't like it a bit ...

first, its unfair to one of the teams... secondly, it makes some players feel uncomfortable fearing the cut from the team at any point of the match; thirdly, it brings unnecessary critism to the captain.

i would always pick an allrounder as my supersub to avoid a lose-lose situation... i think pakistan should have picked arafat in the two matches... arshad khan was a total waste.

16

Re: Supersub and Risk Minimization

Ok so who's betting on Pakistan having a batsman as a supersub in the 3rd ODI, but this time Inzi wins the toss and bats first? :D

Or, more likely, we'll stick to Arshad, that 35 year old reincarnation of Murali.

...I Am Funny...
17

Re: Supersub and Risk Minimization

Agree.