Sir, The substitution rule raises way more questions than it can possibly answer. For instance, I don't think there is any clarity about how many times and when a substitution can be made. It reduces the contest between bat and ball pointless. What stops a captain from pulling out a bowler who is struggling at the hands of a batsman in murderous form, what stops a captain from pulling out a batsman who is finding it difficult to read a good spinner's googlies. Can a batsman be brought back after being pulled out when a bolwer who is widely considered his pinata is introduced into the attack? At this point can the bowling captain pull out this bowler and introduce another? There is just no end to unwanted situations this rule can give rise to. It just reduces one-day cricket into a tamasha fair. Using all these innovations in 20-20 will make more sense. Shuffling the overs where field restrictions can be applied, on the other hand, can lead to a more thinking game. The better thinking team will stand a better chance and it make the contest that much more interesting. I truly feel... out with substitutions and in with field restriction changes!!!
This would difinitely help teams like India, where you can replace a batsman with a bowler. This will strengthen the team\'s bowling, you can have 5 regular bowlers instead of playing with just 4 regular bowlers and part timers. But for teams which do not have good players on the bench, it might not be of much use. Change of rules would definitely make the game more interesting, although we have to wait and see how these affect. Introducing the powerpack overs(2x5) also gives opportunities to take wickets for the fielding side, as the batting side would take risks to score more. But the fielding side should guard against not implementing these overs until the end, in which case it becomes a massacre if the batting side has wickets in hand. Overall, the decission by ICC to introduce these rules on a 10 month trial basis is a good one.
I feel the substitution rule will only help stronger teams with good bench strength become even more stronger and as a result, they will win more often than not, making cricket very boring. Teams like Australia, South Africa, and to some extent Pakistan will benefit from these rules. However, I feel that the fielding restriction rules wherein field restrictions apply for the first 10 overs and then two additional blocks of 5 overs each is a good idea. In this way we can ensure that the game will be interesting all the way through. I for one feel that the substitution rule needs to be looked into and I have a feeling it will have to go after the trial period. Cricket as it is now is a very interesting and intriguing game provided one is a lover of the sport and can appreciate good cricket played by any nation. I for one would moot for the fielding restriction rules, but the substitution rule has to go.
so here comes another revolution in cricketing world. so hareafter no need 4 searching a specialist wicketkeeper, a good allrounder. so now a team can play 5 bowlers 0r 8 batsman.but a captain has 2 think hard b4 every decision.
I remember the days when Ganguly toyed with 4 medium pacers, resulting in one among Bajji or Kumble rouding up the bowling squad.
This new rule will allow the captains to make best use of the team depending on the conditions. People suggested that this rule is to Australia's advantage. However Australian bowling does not have a dependency on the pitch as mush as their batting does. So on the bowling front I guess other teams would have an advantage.
This Rule definatly useful for strong 14 member contents like austrlia if any of bowler to perform bad. Eg: The 12 th bowler Bret Lee it is effect for them.
