Should Test cricket allow injury substitutions? What ex-players think

Unlike Stokes, Gautam Gambhir supported the idea of introducing injury substitutes, particularly in cases where an injury is visible and prevents a player from fulfilling their role on the field.

In the modern era of cricket, the issue of injury replacements has been a subject of much debate. While the implementation of concussion substitutes has received widespread support, the discussion around injury substitutes continues to divide opinions.  This was evident when England captain Ben Stokes and India head coach Gautam Gambhir shared contrasting views on the issue, following Rishabh Pant’s injury in the ongoing Test series between India and England.

 

The Current Rule on Injury Substitutes

 

Under the current International Cricket Council (ICC) regulations, teams can only replace a player in the playing XI under specific circumstances, such as concussion or a positive COVID-19 test. The rule does not provide for injury substitutes, even if a player is physically unable to perform his role in the team. 

  For example, Rishabh Pant’s broken foot during the Manchester Test led to India having to make do without their regular wicketkeeper, with Dhruv Jurel stepping in as a substitute behind the stumps. Despite Pant's courageous batting display in the first innings, his inability to keep wickets left India at a disadvantage.  

Ben Stokes’ Strong Opinion: The 'Ridiculous' Debate

 

Ben Stokes, England’s captain, was quick to dismiss the debate surrounding injury replacements, labeling it as "absolutely ridiculous." He argued that such a provision would open the door for numerous loopholes, making it difficult to maintain fairness in the game. In an interview, Stokes explained, “You pick your eleven for a game; injuries are part of it. I completely understand the concussion replacement; player welfare, and player safety. But I think the conversation should just honestly stop around injury replacements.”

 

Stokes' criticism stems from concerns that teams could exploit the rule to gain unfair advantages. He emphasized that a player could easily be sent for an MRI scan, and even a slight injury could lead to a substitute being called in, which could disrupt the balance of the game. According to Stokes, introducing injury substitutes would "open too many loopholes," and the debate should be concluded. 

 

Gautam Gambhir’s Support for Injury Substitutes

 

On the other hand, India’s head coach Gautam Gambhir supported the idea of introducing injury substitutes, particularly in cases where an injury is visible and prevents a player from fulfilling their role on the field. Gambhir referred to the introduction of concussion substitutes after the tragic death of Australian cricketer Phil Hughes in 2014 and suggested that a similar provision for serious injuries would be beneficial.

 

“I’m all for it, if the umpires and match referee see and feel that there’s a major injury. It’s important to have this rule, where you can get a substitute,” Gambhir said. He pointed out the unfairness of playing with 10 men in a crucial match, highlighting that teams should not be penalized for a player’s injury. In a closely contested series like the one between India and England, Gambhir argued, such a rule could level the playing field.

 

The debate over injury replacements remains unresolved. While Stokes’ concerns about potential misuse are valid, Gambhir’s argument for fairness in case of genuine injuries also carries weight. As cricket evolves, the ICC may have to re-evaluate its stance on injury substitutes to ensure that the game remains competitive and equitable, especially in longer formats like Test cricket, where injuries can have a significant impact on a team’s performance.

 

For now, the current regulations stand, and the conversation around injury replacements continues to be a topic of intense discussion among players and officials.  What the ex-players think about the rule?  Former England captain Michael Vaughanalso had his say on what the rule will do to Test cricket, giving out a positive opinion about it. 

“If there’s a genuine injury in the first innings, it affects the game and the entertainment, which fans pay money to watch,” Vaughan said. “The first innings is a good cutoff to make it fair.” he added.

 

'He is milking that injury'

 

Former England cricketer David Lloyd also added his thoughts on Pant's injury, saying that the wicketkeeper-batter was probably making the most out of his injury.  "I've never had a metatarsal, which I think is somewhere in the foot, seeing Rishabh Pant. I have had a smashed hand against Andy Roberts and a broken cheekbone. I couldn't bat on after either, although I think I did continue when I had a broken finger. Pant looked in pain; it was pretty heroic of him to come out, though," Lloyd told talkSPORT Cricket.

 

"I was in that legends lounge today, and the consensus was, 'He is milking that injury. It can't be that bad. He's milked it, coming down those steps, and one or two said, 'He should be timed out."

 

"I probably am against runners, but I am pro substitutes for an external injury. It opens up a can of worms, it really does. But if it is an external injury, a break, and medically he isn't going to be fit for six weeks, you could have a like-for-like substitute. So that's something else that you've got to consider. Not like replacing a batter with a spinner, though."