Indian Premier League (IPL)

[Rajkumar Sharma]

Impact player rule is hurting pace bowling allrounders. This 3rd class rule should be removed, otherwise it wil be hard to find allrounders. To earn money, BCCI is changing the dynamics of the game.

Reputations are struggling in IPL, but the impact they have it will put them in that WC and team will face another defeat. MI is total joke, they are more intersted in booing Hardik and showing soft corner to Rohit, rather keeping an eye on their performances

[prasen9]

Yes. But, I would rather that the ICC change the rules so that 1 substitution is allowed at any time. That makes the game better because more skilled batters and more skilled bowlers can play instead of bits and pieces allrounders. I love watching good balls and great shots but don't really care to see the same person ball and bat at a slightly lower skill level that inevitably happens without subs. So, it is a great rule. The ICC should change and BCCi should use its power to get that rule changed. Until then, I agree that the rule is hurting allrounders and we perhaps should not use it.

The two bouncer rule actually has been helpful to pacers. They are doing well this IPL relatively speaking. With heavier bats and shorter grounds, maybe that too is a good rule. However, we, again need to get the ICC to change their rules. Otherwise, our bowlers will be hiding behind two bouncers per over and doing well, then going to the WC and not being able to contain because they have one bounder less.

It is okay to experiment for one season but we have had the sub rule for a season and it worked great. Now time to pressure the ICC to change things.

[indiansportsfan]

Well then why limit to just 1 sub? Why not allow unlimited subs? That would mean only specialists, maybe more like baseball.

[Rajkumar Sharma]

Forget Sub rule. BCCI should use its full power and ask ICC to crown them as WC winners in all the upcomming WCs

[prasen9]

Well then why limit to just 1 sub? Why not allow unlimited subs? That would mean only specialists, maybe more like baseball.

I would love that. But, changes don't come mass-scale. So, start with 1. If I were deciding and allowed unlimited subs, I would go for that at the drop of a hat. Brings in more strategy. Baseball has limits that one player once subbed out cannot be subbed in. That is realistic because otherwise, there would be subs and subs and subbing would take up too much time. So, maybe a team of 15 and then any number of subs in a game is fine. I love seeing high quality batting and bowling and subs would make that possible.

[prasen9]

Forget Sub rule. BCCI should use its full power and ask ICC to crown them as WC winners in all the upcomming WCs

Sure, only morons will like that. But, hey, whatever you want. This is a free forum. Your opinion is your opinion.

The sub rule is a very good rule that increases the quality of cricket and the number of runs scored, which viewers like. The bowling quality is also improved. So, I would want the BCCI to press ICC to implement it. That does not mean that we are going to be automatically beneficiaries more than others. Other teams have very good batters and bowlers and will be competitive too. The rule you proposed is just plain stupid.

[Kumar]

Impact player rule is hurting pace bowling allrounders. This 3rd class rule should be removed, otherwise it wil be hard to find allrounders. To earn money, BCCI is changing the dynamics of the game.

Maxwell is still bowling 2-4 overs. So if our all rounders are not good enough to bowl even one over in domestic league. How do u expect them to bowl in T20I where they will get clobbered. Why is Shivam Dube substituted as impact player? Is he that bad a fielder? Why is CSK not having him in regular playing 11?

[Rajkumar Sharma]

Forget Sub rule. BCCI should use its full power and ask ICC to crown them as WC winners in all the upcomming WCs

Sure, only morons will like that.

You are one of that. Just put a Kim Jong from India in that ICC chair, he will do it for you

The sub rule is a very good rule that increases the quality of cricket and the number of runs scored, which viewers like. The bowling quality is also improved. So, I would want the BCCI to press ICC to implement it. That does not mean that we are going to be automatically beneficiaries more than others. Other teams have very good batters and bowlers and will be competitive too. The rule you proposed is just plain stupid.

For the sake of own team you are bringing your stupidity.Battings giant like India will love this rule to come in ICC, other teams doesnt have such individual brilliance in their side.It will benefit India more then other teams. This type of rule was already imposed by ICC as super sub in one day cricket, later it proved controversial and was removed. If you can't win by rule, just changed the rule

[prasen9]

Forget Sub rule. BCCI should use its full power and ask ICC to crown them as WC winners in all the upcomming WCs

Sure, only morons will like that.

You are one of that. Just put a Kim Jong from India in that ICC chair, he will do it for you

What else is new? Pouring some rubbish here and then blaming it on me. Go at it. You proposed crowning India and you proposed Kim. You own your own nonsense and garbage. Don't foist it on me.

The sub rule is a very good rule that increases the quality of cricket and the number of runs scored, which viewers like. The bowling quality is also improved. So, I would want the BCCI to press ICC to implement it. That does not mean that we are going to be automatically beneficiaries more than others. Other teams have very good batters and bowlers and will be competitive too. The rule you proposed is just plain stupid.

For the sake of own team you are bringing your stupidity.

More utter nonsense. There is no reason other teams cannot use the substitution rule. In fact, even if we had substitutions, the Indian team may win very few cups. I have provided clear reasons why the game is better to watch with better bowlers and better batters. For your stupidity about capturing the WC with a dictator etc. you have provided no logic. No logic absolutely as to why the impact rule produces worse cricket. Of course, this is nothing new. Go spew more of your garbage. I will not dignify garbage with any more resposne. The last word is yours.

Battings giant like India will love this rule to come in ICC, other teams doesnt have such individual brilliance in their side.It will benefit India more then other teams.

This is complete BS. Other teams have much better batters than us. We are struggling to find good hitters. Look at the number of over 140 SR batters England has or other teams have with an avg. of 25, required for top 5 batters and you will see. It is utter nonsense devoid of any logic to say India is a batting giant. If you have the evidence show it how our team has better batters. And, even if we do, other teams can use an extra batter and thus they will be more benefited if they don't have good batters. If you have great batters then the impact rule will not help you much because your batters are not getting out and thus you can stack more bowlers.

This type of rule was already imposed by ICC as super sub in one day cricket, later it proved controversial and was removed. If you can't win by rule, just changed the rule

That is your nonsense. It is not about winning or losing. My stances are principles. It is simply about better cricket. I never said India will win if we change the rule and I do not think India will win even if we change the rule. But, hey, go about creating more nonsense and put it on me. Seems like you lack basic reading and reasoning skills to read all sorts of nonsense that you hallucinate that I have not written about. Go at it.

[Rajkumar Sharma]

You may not consider india batting giant with your rubbish statpadding. Those who matters they rightly knows India won most of their games with strong batting either home or away.Bowling has never been a plus point for Indian team.If impact sub rule comes into force, Indian team will get high brnefit from it then others. You better become member of BCCI.... and give your rubbish suggestion. Player should be utilized properly not like the bogus rule of impact sub. This sort of rule is protecting oldies who should leave the game and give some chance to youngstars, they have been playing for decade and have achieved nothing. Their no achievement is enough for making spot for young talents. PBKS impact player did the job for the team, in other words gave full protection to their non performing top order who can play 6/7 games more as full player and make this young talents as impact sub.

[Atithee]

Can we please open a new thread titled Prasen and Sharma ji world championship match and have them duke it out there?

[prasen9]

Yes. I am ignoring the nonsense wrt this round for now. Of coure, I am a sucker and will perhaps engage in a future nonsensical post.

[Rajkumar Sharma]

Can't win with the rule break the rule using power....such type of nonsense view should'nt be brought. ICC already tried it in one dayers but it didnt lasted long. Subs should take part only in case of concussion. They could take the rule of two bluncers, to give some life to the pacers & DRS to check the wide delivery

[prasen9]

More power to nonsense! Let's fill up the board with it. As I had said, I will not argue the nonsense. Go at it. I don't mind two bouncers as long as it is not directed at the batters head or body (i.e., intention to hurt/intimidate, which is unethical and unsportsmanlike imho), multiple bouncers are fine otherwise. DRS for wides is a good idea.

[Rajkumar Sharma]

Bouncers & wide in DRS are atleast better then nonsense sub rule as it does'nt change the dynamics of the game. Sub rule is just use for entertainment, money, protect the game from being one sided by issuing a extra talent for last time in the game, only a fool will ask to put it in ICC. If it had purpose then other boards who have started experimenting their leagues before IPL should have adopted earlier.Once Kohli wanted Eliminator & Play off rule of IPL after 2019 WC defeat but it appeared to be foolish.