Time for cricket to embrace the 'Billy Birmingham'

This would actually wreck the bowlers more because we would pick bowlers when unfit and they would then break down. We should stay as 11 v 11 picking only fully fit players.

Sheek, I have no issue with the fact that 11 players will bat, 11 will field and probably 5 will bowl. My concern is that when we are batting there are seven batsmen and when we are bowling there are six bowlers (presuming an all-rounder is playing).

Sheek, Brett, While I don't like the idea of subs in cricket I do rather like the 12th Man in the commentary box. Richie and Bill could have their days off and nobody would know. Of course, it might mean some extended hours for Billy Birmingham but there's no such thing as a free lunch. Incidentally, I noted last weekend that South Australian skipper Johan Botha played his first match in the SACA grade competition with the Glenelg DCC. This, no doubt, should prove a great benefit to the club and to those players at the club with aspirations to a higher level. It doesn't hurt to impress the state captain in a game or even at training. What was interesting, however, is that Botha only played on the second day of a two day match (against Port Adelaide). He wasn't there on day one but he batted and bowled a week later on day two. The guy who began the match finished the round in 'B' grade. Previously, as far as I know, Botha had no connection whatsoever with any grade club. I trust this move will now see him involved more regularly at Glenelg. In any case, subbing is definitely alive and well in grade cricket.

I only support substitute to replace the player after both teams have batted Essentially the same XI vs the other team same XI for the 1st innings Both teams can then make their substitute for injuries as well as tactical substitute and that team is then locked for the rest of the match. I don't like the idea of making tactical substitution when both teams haven't played with the initial XI and there is a stronger risk of what langou stated of 7 batsman and 4 bowlers ?This ensures that teams still have to remain balance for the rest of the match (unless one team is trying to save the match) we can have spinners being subbed in for the 2nd innings and injured players can be replace but we don't get a situation where let say at the final innings the team subs in an extra batsman to chase down a target.

Hi Sheek You are basing the rational of having 12 players on the idea that teams would likely pick 6 batsman, 1 keeper and 5 bowlers. I would say that this would be highly unlikely and teams would be far more likely to pick 7 batsman, 1 keeper and 4 bowlers, which would of course result in more runs and more draws. Run through the scenarios in your head. Every test in the sub-continent or any team with a good spinner will always pick 7 batsman and four bowlers because spinners can bowl all day with little rest. South Africa would without doubt play 7 batsman and four bowlers because a good all-rounder negates the need for the fifth bowler and boy, South Africa are far too hard to get out at the moment without them having, what would be affectively eight frontline batsman and three tailenders. Maybe on a road pitch you may go the extra bowler, unless of course you were already up in the series in which case a draw wouldn’t be that bad.

The supersub was poorly thought out and is exactly why former cricketers shouldn't be on committees trying to come up with rules to make the game more attractive. I think sheek though is leaning more towards what we used to have in the domestic one dayers - it 12 players named. 11 can bat, 11 can bowl and only 11 on the field at once. If so, as I said, I could live with that for T20s and perhaps one dayers. But not for tests.

Sheek, I have to admit that I'm a little surprised the 'playing 12' allowance hasn't found it's way all the way through to the top level of cricket by now. It's commonplace in Grade cricket nowadays, I think they can even play 12 in 2nd XI games, and they certainly did in domestic one-dayers at one point in the recent past, if they're not still. Perhaps Test cricket can be left as 11 v 11, but I can't see any obvious reason why playing 12 couldn't occur at all other levels... (Oh, and I thought you were pumping for Billy Birmingham in the central missionary, sorry, 'commentary' position, too... :D )

Exactly, they are all over the place.

Sheek, I presume I'm correct in thinking the driver behind the extended list is the rotation policy - and your dislike of same. It must be said, however, that the football codes have an extended bench because they are a) collision sports, b) played over a specific time frame (ignoring time-on), c) it is highly likely injuries will occur and d) it is a very unsatisfactory experience for all concerned to win/lose a game just because one team had more players available than the other. I do accept that in days of old the scenario of one team having more players did occur and results were impacted. A sub in football, however, simply provides a more level contest in a game decided by whoever is in front at a particular point in time. I agree it can be tactical depending on who gets subbed in and out but basically it's about having 18 vs 18, 15 vs 15, 13 vs 13 and 11 vs 11. Subbing cricketers, however, is more about tactics than an even contest. Indeed, the notion implies an uneven contest as the best possible outcome. For example, India had a great batting lineup but were less strong in bowling. We sub out a batsman who doesn't bowl and bring in another quick bowler when India bat. When they are bowling we sub a Jackson Bird and bring in Usman Khawaja. Despite the potential for five days (Test match), cricket is not a game which is time limited. An AFL match lasts 100 minutes regardless of how dominant a team might be. A five day Test match can be done and dusted in three days. It stops when two innings are completed for both teams. Subs might well help in the removal of rotation but, for example, would the Australian batsmen of the 1980s thanked you for allowing the Windies to add yet another fast bowler to the game. Subbing in cricket would very soon become almost exclusively tactical rather than as a cover for injuries (though it might have helped in Adelaide this summer). For this reason I'm against the idea, especially for first class cricket. Like Jason above, I could (just) buy into it for T20 and/or one day cricket - largely because there is a physical limit on the games (20 or 50 overs). That said, I really would only find it even remotely acceptable if it was a like for like sub. A bowler comes in for another bowler, a batsman for a batsman etc. The idea of chasing a testing 280 to win in the last innings and subbing in another batsman for a tailender would not meet with any support from me. Not even for an ODI and certainly not for a Test. It's a nice idea, Sheek, but we both know that human nature being what it is it would soon be used as a weapon - not as a safety precaution to protect players. It may help protect players but that would be just a coincidental benefit. On balance, I'm agin it!!

They tried that in ODI's a while back didn't they? The only problem was that they made the teams name the sub before the toss so for example if you picked an extra bowler, lost the toss and bowled first you couldn't really use him. If they allowed the teams to name the sub after the toss then I think the concept might have worked

Yep, the issue should be with the people running the system rather than the system itself. It doesn't inspire any confidence at all when they come out one day and say that "we won't pick anyone who isn't 100% fit" but then come out the next day and say that Starc has spurs in his ankle, which will definitely require surgery, but we'll try and get him to play through the next 6-12 months with the injury before we book him in for the operation

OK. Designated hitter then. It is still an abomination.

I reckon subs should be used in T20 (possibly even more than 1) and wouldn't be unhappy with them in ODIs. But there is no way that subs should be allowed in Tests.

I think you've summed it up pretty well there James. The basic system isn't a bad idea. The problem seems to be more that the people in charge don't appear to know how to implement it properly

One downside would be that it will diminish the role of the all rounder. If you have a good all rounder, your team has a distinct advantage over the opposition, which would be negated with 1 or 2 extra players. It would be very handy for injuries, although it would be hard to police.