View Full Version : Will Matt Prior be the Natwest sub?
mrcracker
5 Jul 2005, 10:41
Matt Prior was added to the Natwest Challenge squad in place of Kabir Ali, who didn't get a run in the Natwest series due to the form of Harmison and Flintoff. Prior in very good form with the bat and can smack it around the park. Also an excellent keeper. Dave Graveney's comments on this selection indicate he could be the 12th man and the super sub for the series:
"With new playing regulations set to come into effect for The NatWest Challenge, we were conscious of the need to give the captain and coach greater flexibility within the squad. Matt Prior has been chosen as an impact player who is in good form and his inclusion will give Duncan [Fletcher] and Michael [Vaughan] more options for their choice as substitute.
"Matt has been chosen purely as a specialist batsman, although he will obviously provide cover for Geraint Jones in the event of injury. Geraint has been in excellent form with both the bat and the gloves and the innings he produced under great pressure on Saturday was an outstanding effort."
Australia's choice of sub seems pretty straight forward, Shane Watson as 12th man offers a lot of substitute options to replace a struggling bowler if they bowl first or lengthen the batting if they bat first and collapse.
linger_isgod
5 Jul 2005, 10:46
Supposedly Prior is pretty handy in the field too - a pretty important aspect of the sub thingy.
What I heard someone suggest, and I think I like, is having someone like a Hussey as a sub. Then if we bat first, and are in dire straits, we can sub in Hussey and sacrifice a bowler for later on (but Huss helps a little bit) and if we bowl first Hussey comes into the side at the change of innings.
mrcracker
5 Jul 2005, 11:40
Under the substitute system you need 60 overs of bowling from your players in case you need to substitute a specialist bowler before he has bowled 10 overs. England already have Flintoff and Collingwood who are genuine allrounders. This means they can put a specialist batsman in as 12th man. Australia have just Symonds as a genuine allrounder and are going to need Watson. Watson can be either 12th man or in the starting 11. Just as long as they have 60 overs of quality bowling.
Consider the Natwest final with either Hussey or Watson as 12th man. Once it was realised a batting collapse was underway and Australia would struggle to bat out 50 overs Gillespie would have been subbed out and Watson would have come in ahead of Hogg. Australia could have added an extra 20-30 runs and batted out the full 50 overs instead of being dismissed in the 49th. Watson would have bowled in Gillespie's place. England would have subbed Prior for a bowler at the changeover and had an extra batsman for the run chase.
If you bat first you need to be ready to sacrifice a specialist bowler in the event of a batting collapse.
The tactics of this are going to be interesting.
If it's pretty clearly the kind of day that you'd bowl first it's gotta be worth picking 6 bats & only 4 bowlers & having a bowling sub.
The if as expected you get put in then you have the extra batter, & if the opposition tried to screw up your plan then you just sub off one of your bats & get to bowl in good conditions.
In the papers they're talking about whether it would be better to have a batsman or a bowler as sub but nobody has mentioned naming only 4 bowlers & having a bowling sub, it puts a bit of pressure on the opposition if they fancy a bowl.
linger_isgod
6 Jul 2005, 12:57
Personally, if he were over there, I think that James Hopes is the guy currently around who would be best suited to being the sub. Maybe even Cam White long term. Watson - possibly, but his game, IMO, doesnt' really suit ODI cricket.
Maybe even Cam White.
lmao! you pricktorians are killing me :D
linger_isgod
6 Jul 2005, 13:33
lmao! you pricktorians are killing me :D
I'm talking about the type of player. Currently, White doesnt deserve it, but he is the perfect type of player for the role. Someone averaging 30 odd with both bat and ball is the perfect fit for the substitution. The only drawback is he is relatively weaker in the ring compared to other candidates - does most of his fielding in the slips for Victoria.
Under the substitute system you need 60 overs of bowling from your players in case you need to substitute a specialist bowler before he has bowled 10 overs. England already have Flintoff and Collingwood who are genuine allrounders. This means they can put a specialist batsman in as 12th man. Australia have just Symonds as a genuine allrounder and are going to need Watson. Watson can be either 12th man or in the starting 11. Just as long as they have 60 overs of quality bowling.
Consider the Natwest final with either Hussey or Watson as 12th man. Once it was realised a batting collapse was underway and Australia would struggle to bat out 50 overs Gillespie would have been subbed out and Watson would have come in ahead of Hogg. Australia could have added an extra 20-30 runs and batted out the full 50 overs instead of being dismissed in the 49th. Watson would have bowled in Gillespie's place. England would have subbed Prior for a bowler at the changeover and had an extra batsman for the run chase.
If you bat first you need to be ready to sacrifice a specialist bowler in the event of a batting collapse.
What you are saying sounds reasonable, but I think you are saying it with the benefit of hindsight. If Bing had been erratic and Dizzy had clicked and bowled beautifully I don’t thing you would have suggested the above.
I think it would be way, way, way harder to drop a frontline bowler before they have even had the chance to test out the deck. For all you know at the time Dizzy could have turned out to be the match winner.
Even if Aus had made 220 I think they would have gone into the second innings thinking they would have to bowl the opposition out. Extremely hard to do that if you have short changed yourself a strike bowler.
...As it turns out (with the full benefit of hindsight) I think Australia would have been better off to sub out one of the batsman at the innings break so we had an extra bowling option.
The wicket didn’t suit Hogg, he could have shared his overs with Watson and their 10 could have been bowled out much sooner. This would have allowed us to use the frontline bowlers at the death.
I still can’t help but think this ‘all-rounder swapped in at the start of the second innings’ scenario will become the default substitute move that almost every team makes.
The only drawback is he is relatively weaker in the ring compared to other candidates - does most of his fielding in the slips for Victoria.
Seems to field close-in in the ING games.