Loophole in the substitution rule
 

""The substitutions' rule also favoured England. They opted for a batsman in Vikram Solanki. If England had lost the toss he would probably not have got on the field but instead Vaughan was able to call on him to bolster the batting and fielding after Simon Jones had been bowled out after 31 overs of the Australian innings.""

The above is an extract from a report on the first game between England and Australia in Natwest Series.

http://www.expressindia.com/cricket/...ntent_id=50242

Clearly, the captains have to announce their playing XI besides a substitute going into the toss.

ICC can definitely improve upon this. Depending upon the toss outcome, captain should have the right to choose his initial playing XI and the substitute.

that would make it too easy though. If a team bowls first, they would always name a batsman as their substitute so he could come on for a bowler when the team bats. On the other hand, if the team bats first, the captain would always name a bowler as a substitute, so he could come on for a batsman later on.

The whole point of the substitute rule is that the management have to make a decision BEFORE the toss. I reckon, that in the future, all-rounders will be the substitutes, so the outcome of the toss wouldn't make a difference.

Yeah thats what I have been saying all along that subs wont make too much of a difference to the starting sides and the sub would or at least should in most cases be an allrounder.

What that also means is that the rule has not been designed keeping India in mind and quality allrounders would still have a great impact on the game, perhaps even more so because they have another exclusive position in the side to aim for.

wonder if the recommendations committee, in their infinite wisdom, actually thought this one through?

No GB, I think they did, this is the only thing that makes sense. Otherwise the substitute is just a means of enhancing your bowling/batting lineup and to marginalize the allrounders to a very big extent.

The team management should decide before the toss which 12 players will be playing but they should be allowed to wait until the outcome of the toss before naming their final XI as I thought the team was disclosed at/after the toss anyway.

If you have to name the team before the toss the new rule would be a bit pointless and I think in yesterdays game, the captains must have chosen their final XI after the toss otherwise England would have left Simon Jones out if they were batting first and the Aussies would have left Hayden out if they were bowling first.

All of us assumed when the new rule came into place that the substitutions were to take place at half-time when one batsman would be replaced by a bowler or vice versa. This approach is fundamentally wrong and could potentially kill the allrounders.

But if you have to announce the team before the toss, then it makes so much sense and the substitution would be based on the match situation where the captain/coach would have to think the pros and cons of doing the substitution.

E.G. if England were batting first yesterday and lost some early wickets, then the captain would have had to decide whether to substitute Solanki in for one of the bowlers but if he did that, then that bowler wouldnt have been able to bowl when it came to England's turn to bowl.

Thats the rationale behind these changes, to get greater thinking involved in the game and the more I think about it, the more I like these because of the greater uncertainties involved.

WHY NOT? i thought once the substitute was made he can play any part

No what I meant was if Simon Jones for example had been substituted in the first innings for Solanki bcoz England were losing too many wickets batting first, then Jones wouldnt have been able to bowl once it came to England's turn to bowl, so it would have been a tough call, lets see what happens in the next match.

considering giles didnt bowl at all, it wouldnt have been a problem.

However that is where the thinking part comes in? Do we risk losing a bowler or do we take the risk in hoping of getting a bigger total? That is all part of the game which teams must live with.

If you can just sub in a batsmen whenever you want and a bowler whenever you want, then you are just better off having one batting side and one bowling side. It is all about risks which makes it so intruguing.

Im still lost! are you saying if Jones was substituted for Solanki he wudnt have been able to bowl???
I know Solanki didnt bat BUT wud he have been allowed to???

Ok here's the scenario:

England is batting first and have Solanki as their supersub. They slip to 120/6 off 30-odd overs. Now they have a dilemma of whether to substitute Solanki in for one of the bowlers in the hope that he can get them to a competitive total. On the flip side, the substituted bowler wouldnt be able to bowl when England's turn comes to bowl because the person once substituted can take no further part in the game. Of course Solanki can bowl in his place but Solanki doesnt bowl. Hope its clearer now.

Its clear now :19::19:
I just read it wrong, i thought you meant if Solanki was taken off