Should cricket allow subs for injured players?

[smoker]

You could bring in fairly strict rules that would only allow like-for-like substitutes. You wouldn’t be able to sub a spinner in for a quick bowler for example.

But you could still substitute a leggie for an off spinner or a left armer for a right armer, which could give a tactical advantage, depending on the match situation.

If I'm batting fourth, I'm having Callum Parkinson pull up in the last few overs of the third and George Drissell replace him for the fourth innings.

 

[Raymondo]

Could you have a quick bowler that specialises with the old ball replacing an ‘injury’ that a new ball specialist bowler has received? Or if a bowler is ‘injured’ who is a hopeless batsman be replaced by a similar bowler who is much better at batting?

It’s your hypothetical this marra, make it whatever you want

 

[jaxaxe]

If you can't replace a bowler with a bowler, then you should not be allowed to replace a wicketkeeper with a specialist wicketkeeper

Just as the bowling resources are limited to the eleven that initially took the field, so should it be with wicketkeepers.

Bring on a sub fielder. But that's it.

 

[Raymondo]

But you could still substitute a leggie for an off spinner or a left armer for a right armer, which could give a tactical advantage, depending on the match situation.

Not if the rules don’t allow it.

It’s obviously still in the planning stage, but like for like in my view means just that. A SLA would have to be replaced by a SLA.

If you can't replace a bowler with a bowler, then you should not be allowed to replace a wicketkeeper with a specialist wicketkeeper

Just as the bowling resources are limited to the eleven that took the field, so should it be with wicketkeepers.

I don’t see the wicketkeeper thing as being as much of an issue now anyway, if England’s wicket keeper was to get hurt, we’ve mostly had someone in the field capable of taking the gloves.

 

[jaxaxe]

I don’t see the wicketkeeper thing as being as much of an issue now anyway, if England’s wicket keeper was to get hurt, we’ve mostly had someone in the field capable of taking the gloves.

And that is what should happen.

The replacement wicketkeeper should be from the eleven that started the game. And bring on a sub outfielder. Just as it would be with bowlers.

India pulled a stroke having Pant doing the batting and the Son of Jor-El doing the wicketkeeping for two and a half tests. Couldn't see the Aussies putting up with that shit.

 

[Jasper]

Not for me. The whole Woakes situation today is all part of the beauty of test cricket.

 

[Raymondo]

And that is what should happen.

The replacement wicketkeeper should be from the eleven that started the game. And bring on a sub outfielder. Just as it would be with bowlers.

India pulled a stroke having Pant doing the batting and the Son of Jor-El doing the wicketkeeping for two and a half tests. Couldn't see the Aussies putting up with that shit.

They didn’t have that as you describe for ‘two and a half tests’ though .

 

[MadMackem10]

This might sound daft but what about just having a runner to replace an inured player? They have to come out last and they aren't allowed to face a ball but it allows the batting team to use up all 10 of their wickets. If they end up on strike batters simply swap ends before the next ball

Had Woakes done what he did in the first inning as well England could easily have got those extra 6/7 runs even if he didn't face a ball.

 

[jaxaxe]

They didn’t have that as you describe for ‘two and a half tests’ though .

They had Pant batting and Jurel keeping wicket for 2 and a half tests.

Effectively twelve players. Pick your favoured eleven depending on whether batting or fielding.

England are a soft touch for allowing that to happen without comment. They were soft touches in the rest of the game as well

 

[Dexter]

I reckon we should just go fully in on the idea and have an IPL style impact player - maybe two because test cricket is five days. Imagine the scenes day five of the test match and the ball is hooping around corners:

“BAH GAWD, IS THAT JAMES ANDERSON’S MUSIC” and out pops Jimmy through a cloud of smoke and fireworks in his Manchester Mad Kuntz hundred shirt to bowl us to victory.

Test cricket saved. You’re welcome.

 

[Fleagle]

It's arguable that England lost that game because a bowler was injured and could take no further part in the game? Is it about time the a sub is allowed where a player is conclusively ruled out?

I know it’s a football site, but it’s a cricket board so can we use the cricket language here?

Players are already allowed subs as of right when they’re injured. What you are talking about is allowing replacements as of right, for reasons other than concussion.

 

[Iamme]

It's arguable that England lost that game because a bowler was injured and could take no further part in the game? Is it about time the a sub is allowed where a player is conclusively ruled out?

Yes should be 3 subs allowed.

A batter bowler and all rounder and they should be allowed to come on and replace anybody at any point of the game.

Make the captains job more tactical these days.