Discussion BBL|10 SC: Team & In-Game Discussion - Home of #1 and #2 Leagues
- Thread starter Goodie's Guns
- Start date
This new sub rule is very confusing - even after reading everything here.
Why don't they just make it simple!
Named starting XI get the points.
All subs do not.
Therefore, if your player does get subbed off, tough cheese. Isn't that the same as if one gets a duck, or one gets hurt.
All subs coming on, whether they take 5 wickets or not, too bad! 0 points.
Why don't they just make it simple!
Named starting XI get the points.
All subs do not.
Therefore, if your player does get subbed off, tough cheese. Isn't that the same as if one gets a duck, or one gets hurt.
All subs coming on, whether they take 5 wickets or not, too bad! 0 points.
Not sure but I guess having had Agar, Bailey, Stanlake etc at times over the last few years the on field "donuts" aren't a new thing to me 
I doubt too many specialist bowlers would bowl less than 1 in the first 10 so it could be the likes of Cook , Cooper , Jacks , Renshaw , M Short etc who could get subbed.
But then if the opposition is 0/100 you would want to keep your batsmen so maybe if they are 5/60 you would sub a bat off.
Like you unsure , hopefully they all use it differently.
I have a feeling this x-factor rule is being overthought.
There are three possible situations that sit on a spectrum of the game balance after 10 overs.
1. Batting team flying ie 0 or 1 for 90+
Batting team: Potentially consider bringing a bowler in over a batter - but if they run 4-5 specialist bowlers and have a couple all-rounders (e.g scorchers) would they do that? (E.g is there a benefit for scorchers to bring in Kelly for Turner?) Or stick status quo.
Bowling team: big total to chase, maybe replace weakest bowler that got tonked with batter.
2. Even-ish game ie 2-4 for 70ish-100
Both teams probably hold.
3. Bowling team dominant ie collapse 5-8 for 45-80.
Batting team: probably replace weakest bowler with batsman.
Bowling team: Why bring in another bowler when clearly what your doing is working.
In all situations the only players I can see being effected is teams ‘worst bowler’. I can’t really see where a bowler will be subbed in. So someone like Stanlake, or Parker (if he plays) are the only players I see as bigger risks.
A keeper like Pfeffer or Holt in the 13 is the biggest concern. We shouldn’t need either to loop the first 3 rounds so it’ll be one to monitor, how often it gets used.
There are three possible situations that sit on a spectrum of the game balance after 10 overs.
1. Batting team flying ie 0 or 1 for 90+
Batting team: Potentially consider bringing a bowler in over a batter - but if they run 4-5 specialist bowlers and have a couple all-rounders (e.g scorchers) would they do that? (E.g is there a benefit for scorchers to bring in Kelly for Turner?) Or stick status quo.
Bowling team: big total to chase, maybe replace weakest bowler that got tonked with batter.
2. Even-ish game ie 2-4 for 70ish-100
Both teams probably hold.
3. Bowling team dominant ie collapse 5-8 for 45-80.
Batting team: probably replace weakest bowler with batsman.
Bowling team: Why bring in another bowler when clearly what your doing is working.
In all situations the only players I can see being effected is teams ‘worst bowler’. I can’t really see where a bowler will be subbed in. So someone like Stanlake, or Parker (if he plays) are the only players I see as bigger risks.
A keeper like Pfeffer or Holt in the 13 is the biggest concern. We shouldn’t need either to loop the first 3 rounds so it’ll be one to monitor, how often it gets used.
I guess the batting team could replace a bowler with a different bowler , eg pace for spin or vice versa if they have misread the conditions and pitch , something I think Boof flagged a few weeks ago.
I will be just very pissed off if a batter gets subbed off then my Emergency batter does as well in the same round.
Don't agree with their ruling but oh well nothing I can do about it so won't stress too much.
There are many options for the VC/C loop so just a matter whether you start them or trade them in at the right time.
I will be just very pissed off if a batter gets subbed off then my Emergency batter does as well in the same round.
Don't agree with their ruling but oh well nothing I can do about it so won't stress too much.
There are many options for the VC/C loop so just a matter whether you start them or trade them in at the right time.
My initial take is:
- that the team fielding first might change the way they use their bowlers in the 1st 10 overs ... after they bowl their second over they can't sub that player out .... so Bowler A gets tonked off his first over .... try some other options and see how it goes ...
- the batting team will assess what they might need for the rest of the match ..... another bowler or another hitter .....
So pretty much agree with you ...
- that the team fielding first might change the way they use their bowlers in the 1st 10 overs ... after they bowl their second over they can't sub that player out .... so Bowler A gets tonked off his first over .... try some other options and see how it goes ...
- the batting team will assess what they might need for the rest of the match ..... another bowler or another hitter .....
So pretty much agree with you ...
It will probably be used differently early on when most teams will have little to no depth vs at times when they might have more options available. It's hard to see Doran, Moody, Bazley types being match changing subs, but the likes of Doggett, Tremain, O'Connor etc. could potentially make a difference.
It would be a bit on someone's confidence to be subbed out of a game after bowling 1 over though, especially for players who don't have much BBL experience. But then in teams with plenty of bowling options I suppose it's not uncommon for someone like Hinchcliffe to be a bit of a spare player at times.
It would be a bit on someone's confidence to be subbed out of a game after bowling 1 over though, especially for players who don't have much BBL experience. But then in teams with plenty of bowling options I suppose it's not uncommon for someone like Hinchcliffe to be a bit of a spare player at times.
Largely agree with this analysis, and it's really nice to see it written down because I couldn't quite articulate how I wanted to express similar thoughts.
I was going to say Pfeffer is the safer call given he's an LRP, but he's the direct replacement for Joe Burns, who given Warner's injury is now likely to play the entire Test series...
I was going to say Pfeffer is the safer call given he's an LRP, but he's the direct replacement for Joe Burns, who given Warner's injury is now likely to play the entire Test series...