Gilchrist - Sub sub?

[The_MaFeeLi_Tiger]

Listening to the commentators talking about Gilchrist and how his form has dipped because he plays so much cricket and is always on the pitch. So i got thinking, why not use him as the suber-sub? He probably woldn't have to wicket keep if Aus won the toss, prolonging his career and his knees.

Completely and utterly stupid i hear you say? It's just an idea!

 

[Twizzle]

then the super sub would need to be Haddin or similar

under the current rules, this is not such a good idea

what if we bat second, he'd have to keep first before he can bat, and the sub would be wasted

another reason why the super sub rule should be changed imo

 

[lockyno1]

Under the current rules, it would be a waste. But I firmly believe the best set of rules are the former ING rules, where 12 play, 11 bat, 11 bowl. A specialist bowler and a specialist batsman in the squad. It does not disadvatage anyone!

 

[The_MaFeeLi_Tiger]

It would probably waste the super-sub, but does Australia really need it?

 

[lockyno1]

It would probably waste the super-sub, but does Australia really need it?

If it is a waste it is like playing 12 on 11. It is too risky especially in run chases!

 

[Twizzle]

It would probably waste the super-sub, but does Australia really need it?

with a team full of old farts, I'd say yes

 

[aussies1st]

Not Gilly hes not even in form. Just rest him. No point in having him as supersub.

 

[Tom Shines]

Listening to the commentators talking about Gilchrist and how his form has dipped because he plays so much cricket and is always on the pitch. So i got thinking, why not use him as the suber-sub? He probably woldn't have to wicket keep if Aus won the toss, prolonging his career and his knees.

Completely and utterly stupid i hear you say? It's just an idea!

For the record, you have the best signature graphics on the board.