Tactical Substitutions in the IPL

So many fascinating tactical dynamics...

So, my next piece was going to be ‘How to Improve India, Part Two’ but the announcement that the IPL was to introduce tactical subs from the upcoming season piqued my interest, and I want to write about some of the tactical implications of this.

As I’m not currently working for an IPL team this year, I feel I can be a little more open in how I might try and gain a competitive advantage tactically with these changes, which I think could have an impact on IPL auction dynamics, as well as eventually revolutionising short-format cricket.

How could the rules work?

At this point, the exact regulations haven’t been published but recently the Impact Player rule in the Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy (seemingly a trial for the IPL) allowed one from four substitutes to be used as a replacement, and could replace any member of their team at any point before the 14th over of either innings. Not only this, they can bat in any role and bowl their full allocation of overs, where possible. I’d be surprised if the IPL deviated much from this. Here is a bit of commentary on Cricinfo of how some SMAT teams used the Impact player.

Difference from the Big Bash

This isn’t the first time that we’ve seen subs in T20 leagues. The Big Bash also had a more restrictive in usage ‘X factor’ substitute spot (choosing from less players too), but because squad player quality was so much lower than the IPL, there weren’t really any subs who could consistently be relied on to offer a point of difference. With eight overseas in the IPL, and higher quality domestic players in general, a point of difference could well be obtained.

Tactical implications and decisions

Injuries

The obvious and far from revolutionary first port of call for needing a substitution would be if a player gets injured. Remember Shaheen Shah Afridi getting injured in the recent T20 World Cup final? With subs, could he be replaced and would that have changed Pakistan’s chances of the trophy?

I think it’s fair to give teams this opportunity. Cricket’s current rules remind me of football before subs were allowed (no, I’m not that old!) where players were expected to battle on through injuries, which often makes the injury worse.

Batting depth

A fantastic side effect of the expected substitute should be the end of the oft-used statement from commentators suggesting a team has next to no chance of winning a match when they’re three wickets down in the Powerplay.

Now, if you find yourselves 40-3 after six overs, what’s stopping you subbing in a batter for one of the players already out - usefully lengthening your batting order. There’d definitely be no need to try and consolidate when your team is in trouble during an innings, knowing that effectively you have a spare top-order batter with the potential to be subbed in and produce a significant contribution.

Anchors

Because of this as well, another pleasing development - expect the value of anchors to drop even further. What’s the point of using a lot of resources to get set when you can play in a more attacking way, because you know you have a safety net of a spare batter to come in?

Hitters

Conversely, the value of hitters could rise. With this, I’m thinking of the more luxury players who bat, say 6-7, and don’t bowl much or at all. They could be subbed in after 14 overs of an innings and be the next player in to bat and produce a higher expected boundary percentage than a number 6-7 who is also in the team for their bowling.

All-Rounders

In theory, unless the all-rounder is outstanding in one area (e.g. a genuine hitter or a strong, regular four-over bowler) their value should decrease a little. With an impact player sub, there’s certainly more scope to structure up with 6 batters and 5 bowlers (e.g. losing an all-rounder) because if the batting is going badly, another batter can be subbed in, or if a bowler is struggling, another genuine frontline bowler can be introduced.

However, given the likes of Sam Curran, Ben Stokes and Cameron Green are set to be big players in the upcoming auction, I wouldn’t expect this dynamic to be evidenced much, at least in the short-term. I also would be surprised if teams devalued anchors as discussed above too - there seems to be more of a liking for them in the IPL compared to, say, The Hundred.

Phase Specialists

There are certain players who are, for example, pace-bowling Powerplay specialists - players such as Deepak Chahar, David Willey, or Mohammed Shami. There are often circumstances where their teams would want them to be bowled out before the 14th over, so they could bowl their full quota and then be subbed off for a death specialist. For example, if this rule extended to international cricket, England could bowl Willey for three or four overs upfront or by the midway point of their innings, and then sub on. Tymal Mills - more of a death overs specialist.

Reacting to opposition starting XIs & Match-ups

In theory at least, a team wouldn’t know their opposition’s starting XI until the toss. Let’s say the opposition make several unlikely changes, introducing several extra left-handers into their top six - then you could sub in an off-spinner to take advantage of those match-ups.

Or, if there’s a team with three lefties in their top three and none afterwards, the flip side where the off-spinner gets into the action early and then gets subbed off could be considered.

First or second innings?

My next potential tactical dimension of the rule focuses on whether a team decides to use a sub in their first or second innings. Find yourselves 150-2 after 16 overs with your anchor number four about to come in? Sub them off for a hitter or another bowler!

However, I do anticipate there to be a slight preference - at the start of the new rule implementation at least - to the more cautious second-innings usage as opposed to first innings. In theory there could well be more of a chasing bias than before the new rule, giving the ability for the chasing team to lengthen their batting if they so wished, while DLS calculations may need to be revised due to this dynamic as well. Rain-related tactical substitutions could also be useful at some points as well.

Reacting to conditions

Finally, teams could react to an unexpected change in conditions by utilising the Impact Player. If, for example, you’re away in Chepauk and you expect a rank turner, and are bowling second and you realise it’s not turning while you are batting, you can sub off a spinner and bring in an extra pacer. The converse situation, when you unexpectedly come across a spinning pitch, obviously also applies.

Will it produce higher scores?

It’s possible, but I’m not totally sure. Some may suggest looking at the impact on the recent SMAT, but I wouldn’t be keen to use the SMAT as a guide. This is due to differing quality of player pools, and not necessarily having the same quality of decision-makers for teams.

In theory at least, teams have the potential to improve the batting or their bowling, and the match-ups within, so it may well be that the average scores rise less than some may think.

What the new rule does do, however, is bring a fascinating new dynamic to the IPL and will no doubt produce numerous talking points as the season progresses. I would envisage that the team who can grasp the tactical nuances of the Impact Player rule quicker than others will get a really nice competitive advantage over their opposition, at least in the short-term.