Sport Today

by **Andrew Da** » Sun, 27 Nov 1994 02:28:15

Now that Cricket is a truely professional game, isn't it about time the twelth
man is picked for his value, not because he almost made the team. I mean the
only thing he might do is field, so why not pick the best fielder around. I
don't know much about Crawley, but surely Fleming is similar to most bowlers -
a fine leg/third man/mid on/ mid off specialist. I understand that having
Veletta or similar missing out on the Shield matches all the time is not too
good, but even picking a local cricketer would be better. I think its just
missing out on a chance to get a slight edge over the other team.

BTW did anyone else see Velettas incredible catch today? At a wide third slip
diving to his right, catching the ball wiht his body horizontal about a metre
off the ground. Hope there's a picture in the paper tomorrow.
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Andrew Dare | | | |
| Chem Eng | | | | | |

| Australia | Q~ * /_/ |
| | L\_ Carn the Dockers!!! |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|

by **Balakrishnan G Na** » Sun, 27 Nov 1994 04:27:45

Quote:

> Now that Cricket is a truely professional game, isn't it about time the twelth
> man is picked for his value, not because he almost made the team. I mean the
> only thing he might do is field, so why not pick the best fielder around.

I think that the argument is that the 12th man is supposed to field only if
some member of the team REALLY needs a break. If it were other-wise, then
you would see certain bad fielders getting "injured" regularly, maybe even
under instructions from their skippers! So the purpose of the "same 11 men
playing the whole test" would be defeated.

-Balky
(The Debo-Nair)

by **Sneha Kumar Kase** » Sun, 27 Nov 1994 09:51:54

|> > Now that Cricket is a truely professional game, isn't it about time the twelth
|> > man is picked for his value, not because he almost made the team. I mean the
|> > only thing he might do is field, so why not pick the best fielder around.
|>
|> I think that the argument is that the 12th man is supposed to field only if
|> some member of the team REALLY needs a break. If it were other-wise, then
|> you would see certain bad fielders getting "injured" regularly, maybe even
|> under instructions from their skippers! So the purpose of the "same 11 men
|> playing the whole test" would be defeated.
|>
|> -Balky
|> (The Debo-Nair)

I wish to start a new thread here. What if the the 12th man is allowed to play
for the team in the second innings ? This would make things more interesting.
A team might want to have a batsman , bowler etc. as a 12th man and replace
a member of the XI by the 12th man depending in its weaknesses or needs.
Such a scheme would be valid only for 2 innings matches.

Any comments ?

Sneha K. Kasera

by **J. Sreedha** » Sun, 27 Nov 1994 16:19:43

Quote:

>> Now that Cricket is a truely professional game, isn't it about time the twelth
>> man is picked for his value, not because he almost made the team. I mean the
>> only thing he might do is field, so why not pick the best fielder around.
>I think that the argument is that the 12th man is supposed to field only if
>some member of the team REALLY needs a break. If it were other-wise, then
>you would see certain bad fielders getting "injured" regularly, maybe even
>under instructions from their skippers! So the purpose of the "same 11 men
>playing the whole test" would be defeated.

Didn't think of that! But cricket, though a professional
game now, is (still) supposed to be a gentleman's game...

And anyway if someone absents himself regularly
his teammates are not going to like it.

Andrew makes a valid point.

A 12th man gets to contribute to his team's cause *solely*
through his fielding. So it makes sense to pick the best
fielder amongst those who do not make the playing XI.

by **Hamish La** » Tue, 29 Nov 1994 08:18:45

Quote:

> Now that Cricket is a truely professional game, isn't it about time the twelth
> man is picked for his value, not because he almost made the team. I mean the
> only thing he might do is field, so why not pick the best fielder around. I
> don't know much about Crawley, but surely Fleming is similar to most bowlers -
> a fine leg/third man/mid on/ mid off specialist. I understand that having
> Veletta or similar missing out on the Shield matches all the time is not too
> good, but even picking a local cricketer would be better. I think its just
> missing out on a chance to get a slight edge over the other team.

If you recall the Windies during the early 80's they typically had 12th man
Logie or Harper and thus got this advantage. On the other hand it is out of
the question now because of the rules/playing conditions that somehow mean
that if a bowler goes off the ground he cannot bowl again until he has been
back on the ground for as long as he had been off it and somehow how long a
batsman is off is related to where he can bat.

Quote:

> BTW did anyone else see Velettas incredible catch today? At a wide third slip
> diving to his right, catching the ball wiht his body horizontal about a metre
> off the ground. Hope there's a picture in the paper tomorrow.

Wish I had, he and Dirk Wellham rate very high on my list of fieldsmen of
the past ten years.

by **John Ha** » Fri, 02 Dec 1994 05:31:05

Quote:

> Now that Cricket is a truely professional game, isn't it about time the twelth
> man is picked for his value, not because he almost made the team. I mean the
> only thing he might do is field, so why not pick the best fielder around.

The main argument against this is that often the decision on who to
omit from the 12 is not made till the morning of the match. For
example, you might be intending to play 2 spinners and leave out one
of your pacemen, but if the first morning of the game turns out
overcast and muggy you might decide to leave out the second spinner in
favour of the pace bowler, and put the opponents in if you win the toss.
--

| If I have erred in the above posting,
Cranleigh, Surrey, England | please be charitable.

by **Julian Frank Andrew Magar** » Fri, 02 Dec 1994 23:15:29

Quote:

>Subject: Re: Twelth men - why, why, why?
>Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 20:31:05 +0000

>> Now that Cricket is a truely professional game, isn't it about time the twelth
>> man is picked for his value, not because he almost made the team. I mean the
>> only thing he might do is field, so why not pick the best fielder around.
>The main argument against this is that often the decision on who to
>omit from the 12 is not made till the morning of the match. For
>example, you might be intending to play 2 spinners and leave out one
>of your pacemen, but if the first morning of the game turns out
>overcast and muggy you might decide to leave out the second spinner in
>favour of the pace bowler, and put the opponents in if you win the toss.
>--

And furthermore, the nominated "twelfth man" from each side does not always
act as the substitute fielder anyway. Touring sides tend to put out their best
fielder as the sub regardless of who was in the original squad of twelve. Home
sides often pack the nominated twelfth back off to first-class cricket and use
some keen local youngster as the sub. The modern reason for choosing a squad
of twelve is exactly as John states - flexibility.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> | If I have erred in the above posting,
> Cranleigh, Surrey, England | please be charitable.

by **Phil She** » Sun, 04 Dec 1994 08:11:15

Quote:

>fielder as the sub regardless of who was in the original squad of twelve. Home
>sides often pack the nominated twelfth back off to first-class cricket and use
>some keen local youngster as the sub. The modern reason for choosing a squad

Only in the land of pie-throwers do they send the twelfth man home.