India's Supersub faux pas

The Supersub rule has now been part of one-day cricket for about three months, but teams clearly haven't yet understood how to exploit this rule to the maximum. New Zealand once named Shane Bond as their Supersub in an ODI in Zimbabwe, while the latest faux pas happened in the Mohali one-day international, when India named S Sreesanth in that role, and then won the toss and inserted Sri Lanka in to bat, thereby ensuring that they gave themselves the least possible chance of taking advantage of a rule which allows a team to utilise an extra resource.

In its current shape, the new rule clearly favours the team which wins the toss, for a team would normally decide on a Supersub assuming it wins the toss. Thus, for a team winning the toss and batting, the sensible option would be to choose a bowler as a Supersub, for he could then replace a specialist batsman in the second half of the match. Similarly, if the idea is to win the toss and field, a batsman as a Supersub ensures more batting depth during the run-chase, while also allowing the team an extra bowler in the field in the first half of the match. However, with a specialist batsman or bowler as Supersub, the pre-match plans can go completely awry if the team loses the toss. Which is why a low-risk option is to go for an allrounder, who can contribute with both bat and ball and is hence an asset during the entire course of the match.

Given that India had decided to field if they won the toss in this match, the sensible option would have been to name a specialist batsman - probably Venugopal Rao - as the Supersub. If they won the toss, they would have nothing to complain about. Even if they lost the toss and were sent in, Venugopal Rao would have needed to bat only if the team lost early wickets and needed a specialist batsman to bail them out. If Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid and Co. continued their form from Nagpur, Venugopal could have cooled his heels in the dressing-room, and India would still have a full bowling line-up to defend a total.

The safer option, and one which would have given them greatest flexibility, would have been to go with Jai Prakash Yadav as the 12th player. With India fielding first, he wouldn't be needed if the specialist bowlers did the job well. If they didn't, he could still come in for one of them, and then stay around to do his bit with the bat as well.

Whichever way you look at it, though, the decision to go with Sreesanth as Supersub completely defies logic. It might not make a whit of a difference if India dismiss Sri Lanka quickly and then chase down the target in a canter, but it's surely something for Greg Chappell and Co. to mull about before the next match.