'Supersub' not to have any further role in the game?

July 7, 2005 was the day when Vikram Solanki was appointed the first supersub under the new laws for one-day cricket. Since then a number of matches have been played with this rule in place. Skippers have spontaneously voiced their opinions about the supersub rule and many cricket writers and buffs followed suit. Most of those voices reserved some harsh words for arguably the most radical experiment tried till date in the one-day format. Now the ICC have published their verdict against the rule. 'Supersub' will ironically be subbed out of the game with immediate effect.

The principal argument against the present rule is serious. It makes the toss more vital to the match result than ever before. A cricinfo study on win-loss ratio stats from recent ODI's confirmed that as a fact. We saw an interesting case study of this increased impact of the toss during the 1st and 2nd ODI's between India and South Africa in November last year.

In the 1st match India apointed a specialist batting supersub Gambhir. However they had to bat 1st in the match and lost a few quick wickets. A bowler from the first 11, Murali Kartik was subbed out without even stepping out of the pavilion. Gambhir the supersub came out to bat and departed soon after scoring a single. In effect India were 10 players and a fielder thereafter.

The 2nd ODI saw India play with a similar plan. The key difference: they won the toss. RP Singh bowled a reasonable 5 overs in the field and was then subbed by Gambhir who scored a handy 38 to kick-start the Indian chase of a small South African total.

India may have lost the 1st one and won the 2nd even in the pre (or post) 'supersub' era. Yet the toss had a higher say on the difference of result in those matches than it should have. And this demanded re-appraisal of the logic behind asking teams to select supersubs BEFORE the toss. By scrapping the rule altogether though, ICC are taking a step too far too soon.

It is quite unlikely that the rule was implemented just for the heck of it. Surely there was an angle to it that was thought to be beneficial to the game. The proposers of this innovation are yet to come out in defence of the supersub by articulating about their dream of 'cricket after supersub'.

Can cricket afford to be so regressive in this day and age? Who knows, a proper implementation of that rule may have ensured that the traditionally skilled cricketers - those who are not in the bits-and-pieces mould - add more to the game than they are normally allowed to. In other words, vitalising droplets of quality could be added to the sometimes monotonous brew that modern one-day cricket can be.

If the rule were to be retained with the necessary modification(s), McGrath and Warne could think of playing on for a few more years than they will now. So could Shoaib Akhtar, Tendulkar and Harmison in the future when age catches up with them. On a lesser scale, India could consider Ashish Nehra as a potential new-ball partner for Irfan Pathan.

Maybe a facelift to the 'supersub' rule was all that was really required.