Replace Agarkar by the Supersub and have the supersub bowl 10 overs? That is not possible... ask the person who wrote this article to read the rule book first
But do not make the mistake of taking all this for granted for long as so called good wishers(Guess who) may turn their back any day sooner then later...The glory days may last few more matches for indian cricket but will haunt for some time for the scars left are too deep.
No surprise for the followers of our legendary Cricket crazy Nation as said the history repeats......what happened to M.A.K.PATAUDI,MOHINDER AMARNATH,RAVI SASTRI,DILIP VENGSARKAR,KAPIL DEV AZHARUDDIN AND our very own and loved one SACHIN TENDULKAR?Now is Saurav's turn.....
One thing common irrespective of all their contributions and legendary they have been shown doors by these creeps called selectors(bunch od Donkeys).....they are village politicians....
\"India could have well opted to use Agarkar for his spell of ten overs and then had him replaced by Super sub Sreesanth, who could have exploited the helpful conditions, but they chose not to.\"
Not possible. The super sub can bowl only the remaining overs of the bowler who he is replacing. So if Sreesanth substitutes for Agarkar after Agarkar bowls, say 7 overs, Sreesanth can bowl only 3 overs.
You are wrong--they could not replace Agarkar with Shreesant after agarkar had bowled 10 overs--Sree would then not be allowed to bowl any overs--a super sub can only do what the person he has repaced has not donw-so he could replace a batsman or murli kartick--if india did not want to bowl him. Also commentators have been saying why have sree as a super sub--they can't get the logic--the logic is somple--there is dew in mohali at night and spinners can't grip the bowl--so if India was defending--sree would have replace kartick--since it would have been easier for the seamer to grip the bowl...please gets your understanding of the rules correct before writing an article.
"India could have well opted to use Agarkar for his spell of ten overs and then had him replaced by Super sub Sreesanth, who could have exploited the helpful conditions, but they chose not to."
Super Sub doesn't work this way. If abybody finished his overs, then whoever replaces hime can't bowl anymore, as 10 over per person applies to the sub also.
If a bowler has completed his spell of 10 overs and then is replaced by the supersub , then the supersub will not be able to bowl anymore. He can bat if the replaced player has not batted before.
India could have well opted to use Agarkar for his spell of ten overs and then had him replaced by Super sub Sreesanth, who could have exploited the helpful conditions, but they chose not to.
This statement is false. Accdg to Super Sub role, the substitute player can only bowl the overs not bowled by the player being substituted. If Agarkar bowls ten, then Sreesanth couldnt have bowled a single ball.
