Sports : life magnified

Whether we like it or not, substitutes are going to exist in one day cricket, for a while at least. I spoke on the topic some time back and the cricketing world, including me (a fan is a small part of the cricketing world I would imagine ) are getting on with it, so to say, and finally thinking of the strategies which can be used.

Angus Fraser was one of the first few people who suggested an all rounder to be the best option as a substitute when every one was pondering over whether teams will chose batsmen or bowlers. An all rounder is definitely the safest option as he can be brought on at any point of time in the game, if the team is in trouble.

There is much more to it, however, as one ponders the thought. Faaip, a fellow cricket fan, has pointed out the possibility of a batsman who is a very good fielder being used:

Scenario: Australia picks all five specialist bowlers in their team, in Hogg, Kasprowicz, McGrath, Gillespie and Lee, and wins the toss and bowls. Glenn McGrath sends down his 10 overs straight up, leaves the field and is replaced with Hodge, who excels in the field, cutting off runs and so on. When Austrlaia bats, they have 7 specialist batsmen, plus a couple of bowlers who can bat a bit.

Alternative scenario: Australia picks the same team (or Watson instead of Kasprowicz would be fine too), but loses the toss, and is sent in to bat. If Australia is going along fine and bats out their 50 overs without losing more than 5 or 6 wickets, Hussey/Hodge stays in the pavilion and takes no part in the game until a bowler who is weak in the field is bowled out. If Australia get 5 or 6 down and need a batsmen, the switch is made for Australia’s weakest seamer… probably Michael Kasprowicz. Hodge/Hussey can then bat and field, and Australia will need to send down 10 overs from Symonds and Clarke.

The case for the bowler as a sub is also feasible according to me. The vital aspect of a sub is to boost a team and it depends vastly on how the first XI of the team is when you want to consider your sub.

A team like South Africa which batted deep down in the 90s till say Symcox would not require a batting sub in most situations. They would rather have had some one like Brett Schultz as their sub. A team which has a weak bowling line up but a decent batting line up, like India for example, would go for a bowler as well (also they do not have a decent all rounder but even if they had this would be a legitimate option).

A very weak team like Bangladesh for example who have nothing to lose in a match versus Australia can take a bit of a gamble with their subs. They can go easily for a specialist batsman or a bowler which may not pay off if the toss does not go favourably. However if the toss does go favourably, they can make the most of the sub in an attempt to scale the balance.

So the possibilities with the sub have opened up as Fletcher seems to think as well. We have all criticized the subs. But one good point of them is it gives the teams a second chance. If test cricket has a second inning, one day cricket now has subs.

It is here to stay I guess as the more we think of the possibilities, the more interesting it gets. It changes totally from the game we know as one day cricket I think to a new one day cricket we are looking at now though.