The principal argument against the present rule is serious. It makes the toss more vital to the match result than ever before. A cricinfo study on win-loss ratio stats from recent ODI's confirmed that as a fact. We saw an interesting case study of this increased impact of the toss during the 1st and 2nd ODI's between India and South Africa in November last year.

In the 1st match India apointed a specialist batting supersub Gambhir. However they had to bat 1st in the match and lost a few quick wickets. A bowler from the first 11, Murali Kartik was subbed out without even stepping out of the pavilion. Gambhir the supersub came out to bat and departed soon after scoring a single. In effect India were 10 players and a fielder thereafter.

The 2nd ODI saw India play with a similar plan. The key difference: they won the toss. RP Singh bowled a reasonable 5 overs in the field and was then subbed by Gambhir who scored a handy 38 to kick-start the Indian chase of a small South African total.

India may have lost the 1st one and won the 2nd even in the pre (or post) 'supersub' era. Yet the toss had a higher say on the difference of result in those matches than it should have. And this demanded re-appraisal of the logic behind asking teams to select supersubs BEFORE the toss. By scrapping the rule altogether though, ICC are taking a step too far too soon.

It is quite unlikely that the rule was implemented just for the heck of it. Surely there was an angle to it that was thought to be beneficial to the game. The proposers of this innovation are yet to come out in defence of the supersub by articulating about their dream of 'cricket after supersub'.

Can cricket afford to be so regressive in this day and age? Who knows, a proper implementation of that rule may have ensured that the traditionally skilled cricketers - those who are not in the bits-and-pieces mould - add more to the game than they are normally allowed to. In other words, vitalising droplets of quality could be added to the sometimes monotonous brew that modern one-day cricket can be.

If the rule were to be retained with the necessary modification(s), McGrath and Warne could think of playing on for a few more years than they will now. So could Shoaib Akhtar, Tendulkar and Harmison in the future when age catches up with them. On a lesser scale, India could consider Ashish Nehra as a potential new-ball partner for Irfan Pathan.

Maybe a facelift to the 'supersub' rule was all that was really required.

Maybe I'm a puritan, but there's something inherently wrong about the super-sub. It's like soccer- if a player is playing badly, then take him off. It increases efficiency, but it kills a little more of the charm that cricket is slowly losing....

Hi Angs,

I could not agree with you more. I feel that this decision to take out the supersub is a little harsh and more thinking needs to be done.

I strongly believe their needs to be some twist in the ODI format and supersub to some extent was that.

Though a lot depended on the toss in the current format, I think the best decision would have been to allow the captains to name their supersubs after the toss has been done.

This would allow more specialist players who might not have multiple skills to play a significant role in the ODI format too as well as make the game more interesting.

However given this, I feel the supersub used by the teams has also left a lot to be desired.

India generally has had a batsman either Gautam Gambhir or Suresh Raina, and Australia has had Brad Hogg or James Hopes.

England has also had Vikram Solanki in their ranks and there is no particular role for him because unlike India, England did not chase every time they won the toss.

The likes of Saurav Ganguly, Dwanye Smith or even Ian Blackwell would be best suited since they can contribute both with the bat and ball.

I partially agree with Parameshwaran. However having SuperSub after the toss would essentially turn cricket into a 12 a side game.

The intent of the Supersub was that teams would pick bits and pieces all rounders who could help whatever happens in the toss.

E.g Azhar Mahmood bowling some overs or making a useful contribution in the lower order; Ian Blackwell a useful second spinner in the second innings or hitter in the last 10 overs.

Unfortunately teams went with specialists placing greater emphasis on the toss. This wasn't even the smart thing to do. E.g Gautam Gambhir's value as an 8th batsman was less than Ramesh Powar a useful 8th batsman and being able to bowl some overs incase they lost the toss.

The ICC did have good reason to implement the supersub - unfortunately the teams didn't have the brains to understand how best to use it.

Hey Angs,
that the Diff Strokes bloggernots have to reply to each other's articles to increase the number of comments is bad enough but to put smiley faces when no one else cares is pathetic and sad..
Why don't you change Different Strokes to NO STROKES??
Sounds right to me. Your thick skins can handle it, I'm sure..so many million hits per month right?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. So why would you want to make cricket more attractive by introducing a retarded Supersub rule?

Cricket is doing just fine. TV ratings are up, even in England!! of all places. Other "lesser countries" (like Wisden once said it) like India, Pak, SL have made rapid strides over the last three decades and have definitely caught up with the original breeding homes of cricket. USA has a new league, people in Kenya, Holland, UAE seem to be interested in developing some cricketing infrastructure. So what is the big friggin' need for meddling with cricket? It's healthy as a horse: good heart rate, excellent cholesterol level, everything!! Just let the poor game be!!

in my view supersub is not a bad rule infact it adds fun value to cricket and makes it interesting i would like to suggest the supersub should be from the squad of players selected for the series this will defenietly give the captains few more options

Feroz

It is a marvel that you actually log on to the net and read / comment upon this blog; for you sound suspiciously like someone from a bygone era long before the internet was even imagined...a time when smiling was perhaps unbecoming of gentlemen and quoting others words without reference was interpreted as an attempt to usurp them.

BTW did it ever occur to you that there are some people who just love to smile, people's expectations be damned? Tell me I'm wrong even on this take.

Angs,
"quoting others words without reference was interpreted as an attempt to usurp them."
Not at all, Angs, in college it was called plagiarism, and your professors would call you in for a meeting if they thought that you had committed plagiarism, and your grade depended on your explanation and not on your parents' wealth. I did not go to Oxford, like Imran Khan, merely to the Pennsylvania State University (not Ivy league) but as a Journalism major, I learned to be very very careful in such matters.
The bad language is my fault.
Long live Penn State !! BTW I'm smiling now Angs..