Cricket: Test Cricket

2CentsWorth said:
It's just not really possible to implement a sub system.

Apart from the obvious replacing a specialist bowler with a specialist batsman to strategically gain the upper hand, there are other issues as well. The selection process is a very important part of a game - matches have been won and lost on selection before.

And what about when more than one player is injured and forced to retire hurt (or even dead)? It's not far fetched.... in 1975/76 five Indian players were retired hurt when playing the West Indies in the fourth Test in Jamaica: http://content-rsa.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63162.html

What do you do then?
Click to expand...

As I stated earlier, if a batsman gets injured, then they can sub him with a replacement batsman. If a bowler gets injured, then they get a replacement bowler etc... It's not that hard really IMO.
 
mercurial said:
As I stated earlier, if a batsman gets injured, then they can sub him with a replacement batsman. If a bowler gets injured, then they get a replacement bowler etc... It's not that hard really IMO.
Click to expand...

And if 2 batsmen are injured? And what about all rounders like Jaques Kallis. Do you replace him with a batsman or a bowler or both?

There's just too many ifs meaning there's just too much room for abuse.
 
2CentsWorth said:
And if 2 batsmen are injured? And what about all rounders like Jaques Kallis. Do you replace him with a batsman or a bowler or both?

There's just too many ifs meaning there's just too much room for abuse.
Click to expand...

Then that depends on which sub is included in the team's squad. If an all-rounder gets injured, they will have to choose who to sub him with, ie: batsman or bowler. They could of course just have an all-rounder in their squad subs. Look sometimes in soccer you have to replace players with less valued players but that's what they do. Sometimes players have to play out of position so that they can sub. If it can happen in one sport, why not another?
 
Last edited:
While I agree that it is a bit unfair not being able to sub an injured player, implementing the system would bring far too many complexities into the game when administering such a system.

Coming back to our target at hand: if we can get 438 in 50 overs, 314 in 90 overs are not such bad odds.

Go Proteas :).
 
AirWolf said:
While I agree that it is a bit unfair not being able to sub an injured player, implementing the system would bring far too many complexities into the game when administering such a system.

Coming back to our target at hand: if we can get 438 in 50 overs, 314 in 90 overs are not such bad odds.

Go Proteas :).
Click to expand...

Greame's absence is gonna play a big role, though I sincerely hope I'm wrong. He's been scoring runs and we've been winning. If you look at when he underperforms, then the team underperforms.
 
AirWolf said:
While I agree that it is a bit unfair not being able to sub an injured player, implementing the system would bring far too many complexities into the game when administering such a system.

Coming back to our target at hand: if we can get 438 in 50 overs, 314 in 90 overs are not such bad odds.

Go Proteas :).
Click to expand...

I am really holding my thumbs for the boys, but serisouly, you didn't just compare a ODI total to a Test total did you? :eek:
 
We were in a similar situation in the first test, needing some amount of runs to score on the last day and I didn't think we had a chance, but hey, it happened before so who knows what we can do tomorrow. It will be one helluva win to make it 3 - 0.
 
mercurial said:
We were in a similar situation in the first test, needing some amount of runs to score on the last day and I didn't think we had a chance, but hey, it happened before so who knows what we can do tomorrow. It will be one helluva win to make it 3 - 0.
Click to expand...

Yes in the first test we had to get the 2de highest 4th ennings total ever, and we did it with a smile :D

Hope we can pull this one off though.....
 
mercurial said:
Greame's absence is gonna play a big role, though I sincerely hope I'm wrong. He's been scoring runs and we've been winning. If you look at when he underperforms, then the team underperforms.
Click to expand...

Graeme's true brilliance is his captaincy. So many brilliant players all over the world lost their shine when they were made captain... Brian Lara, Sachin Tendulkar, etc. What sets Graeme apart is his getting the captaincy so young. He has taken the SA cricket team from a dysfunctional group of very talented individuals and created a team that can perform against any Test side in the world. He did this despite the huge criticism and against all the odds.

I am glad he is at the ground now yesterday he was in Melbourne, so he couldn't keep an eye on proceedings and keep a thumb on McKenzie.
 
2CentsWorth said:
Graeme's true brilliance is his captaincy. So many brilliant players all over the world lost their shine when they were made captain... Brian Lara, Sachin Tendulkar, etc. What sets Graeme apart is his getting the captaincy so young. He has taken the SA cricket team from a dysfunctional group of very talented individuals and created a team that can perform against any Test side in the world. He did this despite the huge criticism and against all the odds.

I am glad he is at the ground now yesterday he was in Melbourne, so he couldn't keep an eye on proceedings and keep a thumb on McKenzie.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
Yeah, accept I would have made Boucher captain NOT MCKENZIE, imo his got a bit more experience in the test arena
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure that the brains trust all have a say in whatever decision is finally made, so Boucher will regularly have talks with McKenzie. It was Mckenzie who told Smith to stand at short extra cover when he caught Ponting out on 99.
 
mercurial said:
I'm pretty sure that the brains trust all have a say in whatever decision is finally made, so Boucher will regularly have talks with McKenzie. It was Mckenzie who told Smith to stand at short extra cover when he caught Ponting out on 99.
Click to expand...

Probably because he wanted revenge, when McKenzie got ordered to stand close to Ponting he got a shot straight on the arm! :D
 
our boys have proven that they can do it and win this test however they havent really done anything like this before without smith so its not going to be easy but with senior guys there for support i think we can pull this off! i also think boucher should have been made captain...for me it was a no brainer.. :)
 
Bravestar said:
Yeah, accept I would have made Boucher captain NOT MCKENZIE, imo his got a bit more experience in the test arena
Click to expand...

Mckenzie is the most experienced captain in the side apart from Graeme. Boucher has very little captaincy experience at either test or first class level. Same goes for kallis who was the other option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X