Goodbye to runners

[Cevno]

For the sake of argument, It could be said that a player in military shape would be less likely to pick up an external injury on the field compared to an extremely unfit player. So under the previous system, wouldn't we be benefiting unfit cricketers on a general level by providing runners for external injuries?

I think this is a great move, personally.

That's not true ,though.

Zaheer Khan or Gautam Gambhir can be more Injury prone than a Ramesh Powar or a Ranatunga for example.
Ultimately some players are just naturally more injury prone than others.

 

[Teja.]

That's not true ,though.

Zaheer Khan or Gautam Gambhir can be more Injury prone than a Ramesh Powar or a Ranatunga for example.
Ultimately some players are just naturally more injury prone than others.

On a general level. I'd certainly not have Zaheer Khan as a model of fitness anyway considering the number of times he breaks down.

My main point of contention is the external/internal injury bias. Under the previous system, we did not have runners allowed for internal problems such as cramps due to not wanting to reward unfit ****s for being unfit ****s but the external injury rule also does the same to a lesser extent.

 

[Jarquis]

In Test cricket, definitely. No need for batsmen to run between wickets at all. Would be fun to watch actually if it happened.

Yeah, it's far from perfect and players risking worsening injuries in order to continue batting isn't perfect but depending on what the injury is, there's nothing to suggest that it'd actually make the batsman incapable of scoring runs

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think it's a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but it does seem to be the same kind of players using runners (those whose BMIs might not be all their fitness coaches would wish seem to be over-represented) and, as most injuries that require a runner's services are internal, it would be very difficult to police effectively.

A compromise would be that runners are allowed but should a batsman use one he'd be barred from the next international fixture if it starts within (say) 2 weeks of the conclusion of the current game.

I reckon that would reduce the players needed runners pretty effectively.

 

[GIMH]

Top_Cat has expressed my thoughts, pretty much.

 

[Uppercut]

I wouldn't say it's a disastrous decision but I don't agree with it.

On an unrelated note, I'd almost always rather lose 1/11th of my batting lineup than 1/4 of my bowling attack. With SS on that.

 

[benchmark00]

I wouldn't say it's a disastrous decision but I don't agree with it.

On an unrelated note, I'd almost always rather lose 1/11th of my batting lineup than 1/4 of my bowling attack. With SS on that.

It's more like 1/6 or 1/7 of your batting lineup.

 

[Jarquis]

Nah, in the current game #8-11 can reasonably be expected to collectively contribute the same number of runs as a recognised batsman so it'd be 1/8 at most IMO.

 

[benchmark00]

And here's me forgetting that only four bowlers ever bowl in an innings.

 

[Jarquis]

And here's me forgetting that only four bowlers ever bowl in an innings.

And that everybody who does bowl bowls and equal number of overs. Forgetful Murphy is forgetful.

 

[benchmark00]

Errr, wouldn't it be more relevant to compare output in terms of wickets in terms of length bowling if we're going to make a fair comparison? Not every bowler takes a wicket.

 

[zaremba]

If a bowler isn't fit enough to bowl, then someone else bowls the overs.

You could have a system whereby a genuinely injured bowler could be carried in his run-up by his team-mates.

Or maybe a relay - a team mate does his run-up for him, hands over the ball to the bowler standing at the bowling crease, who delivers the ball

 

[G.I.Joe]

I'd keep runners with the proviso that the fielding side gets to pick the runner.

And yeah, the bowling side loses out more with a bowler getting injured than the batting side does with a batsman getting injured.

 

[BoyBrumby]

TBF if a bowler pulls a hammy in the first inninngs the chances are he'll need a runner to bat. Not quite as simple as dividing cricketers into "bowlers" and "batsman"; the former are always expected to bat and it's not uncommon for at least one or two of the top six to send down a few overs.

 

[GIMH]

I don't think you can make such a blanket statement.

Say the match was Brisbane 2010. The team is Australia. The batsmen is Hussey, the bowler is Johnson. Which one has the greater effect if gone? Without Hussey, Australia might lose that game. Without Johnson? Hmmm.

A part-time bowler has a better chance of filling in effectively than the batsman's replacement....

Edit - @ GI Dickoe

 

[silentstriker]

A part-time bowler has a better chance of filling in effectively than the batsman's replacement....

Really? Don't buy that at all.

 

[GIMH]

Really? Don't buy that at all.

It's an undebatable point given the batsman can't be replaced...

 

[silentstriker]

It's an undebatable point given the batsman can't be replaced...

OK, I see what you were saying.

However, I would still say that the loss of a batsman's average contribution to an innings is usually less than that of an average bowler and his replacement...plus the likely scenario that all the other bowlers might bowl worse since they now likely have to shoulder a bigger load.

 

[GIMH]

Can anyone remember what happened the last time a Test side were cut down to three bowlers through injury (and not the bowler being a ******)?

 

[G.I.Joe]

I don't think you can make such a blanket statement.

Say the match was Brisbane 2010. The team is Australia. The batsmen is Hussey, the bowler is Johnson. Which one has the greater effect if gone? Without Hussey, Australia might lose that game. Without Johnson? Hmmm.

A part-time bowler has a better chance of filling in effectively than the batsman's replacement....

Edit - @ GI Dickoe

You can't expect to make a balanced argument by using two unequal examples. I'd say a Sehwag has as much chance of bowling and picking up a 5-fer (which he's done) as a Harbhajan has of batting and scoring a 100 (which he's also done).