Loaded Rule

For someone regarded as one of world cricket's finest contemporarythinkers, New Zealand captain Stephen Fleming surprises me with his continuedposture against the experimental Super Sub rule in limited-over internationals.Instead of working his way around a rule that has not been thought through inthe first place and offering feedback at the right time, he appears to be makingall the wrong noises.

In fact, I believe India has understood the use of the Super Sub conceptbetter than New Zealand. I can see you raise your eyebrows wondering if Iremember that Shane Bond took six wickets for next to nothing and thatVenugopala Rao was dismissed first ball when the teams met first in Bulawayolast week. Of course both are hard to forget but let me explain why I believeFleming got away with a risk then.

Even though the replacement concept has been borrowed from soccer, it is notas if cricket teams can choose any player from the reserves to go in as areplacement. When they exchange the team lists before the toss, the captainswill also have to nominate the players who they intend to use as Super Sub.Under the circumstances, it would be foolish for a team to risk choosing aspecialist batsman or a pure bowler for this role since it will be unaware ofwhether it would set a target or chase one.

I remember former Australian batsman Dean Jones talking about how the SuperSub rule would help prolong the one-day careers of V.V.S. Laxman and Anil Kumble.He was suggesting Laxman could do the batting and Kumble could bowl when Indiawas fielding. He could not have been wider off the mark since the experimentalrule is loaded against specialist batsmen and bowlers.

Take the match in question, what would Fleming have done had India captainSaurav Ganguly won the toss and batted first? Would have he risked droppingNathan Astle to include Bond at the start of the match itself? I am sure hewould have his own plans for such an eventuality and that may not have includedAstle. Or, he would have been forced to give Bond some rest.

Just pause to think of what could have happened if India batted first and NewZealand unleashed Bond on the track that had something for the quicker bowlers.Fleming denied himself the pleasure of watching India hop against Bond at thestart of the match. It was a decision that could have backfired had New Zealandnot rallied from 36 for five to raise a challenging 215.

India's idea of sending Rao to bat at the fall of the first wicketdefied logic, unless of course he was being sent as a sacrificial lamb. On atrack that had pace and bounce for the bowler willing to bend his back, youwould have expected Rahul Dravid to walk in to bat at one-drop, particularlysince Ganguly's wicket fell in just the third over.

If only India had used its resources a little more smartly, it may have had adifferent story to tell from Bulawayo. The trick is not just in making the rightchoice about the Super Sub but also in bringing him in at the right time. And itis in making a mistake with getting on Rao at the wrong time, Indiaallowed Bond to taste more blood and fire away. He needed to be stopped then.

From the time the International Cricket Council confirmed that the Super Subhad to be named along with the playing XI, it was clear that teams would have toname all-rounders of some quality for this task. It would have to be someone whocould step in and help a team with either the bat or the ball. I have believedthe Super Sub is quite like the fire fighter, primed up and ready to swing intoaction at all times.

The way I see it is simple: There is a rule in place, howsoever good or bad.If it does look like making it tough for the team batting second, it is onlybecause sides are so hung up on not understanding the nature of the rule thatfavours all-rounders. Teams need to open their minds just that bit to realisethat they pick a Super Sub who can bolster the team's needs by being able tobat or bowl decently enough.