Like for like injury replacements

[Jack1]

Needs to be introduced in all formats. Not just for concussion. A great game ruined by an in game injury. Another game in the tournament England were a batsman down (Malan) due to injury. I am very happy England won and England have several players out injured already but winning like that is slightly annoying

 

[Victor Ian]

who could pakistan have played as like for like to afridi? it would have been 4th quick in line which is not like for like. would also have been hammered.

 

[sledger]

Weak thread

 

[Daemon]

The only way I see this working is you name a replacement bowler and batsman before the game. Come injury that player comes in, doesn’t matter if it’s a spinner or quick, lefty or righty etc.

Not sold on the idea but it kinda makes sense.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Most sports have tactical subs, not just for injuries. It’s too open to abuse. I don’t follow rugby, but I remember a few years ago rugby allowed some sort of extra subs for blood inducing injuries, and players started carrying fake blood capsules onto the pitch.

 

[Ashes81]

I don't see how this would work and is open to abuse.

How would it work in practice - how do you decide if someone actually is injured. Do we take the players word or would they need to be examined.

What's to stop say a bowler who is going around the park feigning injury so he can be replaced.

Also who decides what is like for like. Is a right arm seamer the same as a left armer. Is a leg spinner the same as an off spinner.

What about batting skills of bowlers. Could Monty Panesar be replaced by Moeen, who is still to bat etc

 

[GIMH]

The very nature of cricket just makes it less practical.

As LT says most sports have tactical subs but in cricket that would just descend to farce.

End of the day, you pick a 6th bowling option generally in limited overs. Not necessarily to hedge against injury but usually to hedge against a bowler having a bad day. But the ends are the same. If a bowler goes down, you use another. It’s harsh but that’s elite sport.

Hot take but I think we’d have still won today btw. It just may have involved me having morning drinks though

 

[TheJediBrah]

No fitness is important. If you get injured it's becuase you have failed in some way. You weren't strong enough, or flexible enough, or aware enough of your limitations. McGrath didn't look at the ground when he stepped on the ball. Glenn Maxwell broke his leg ****ing around at a party. You break a finger because you caught/batted wrong.

Sure there's often luck involved and sometimes you are just really unlucky but that's life. The vast majority of the time a player has to withdraw because of injury it's through the fault of their own physicality

edit: So what I'm saying is I think you don't deserve a replacement because one of your players wasn't good enough to stay uninjured

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Every team that wants to replace an injured player gets to replace them with Ian Salisbury. That way, no one will feel like they should game the system by faking injuries. The safest way to be sure.

 

[Burgey]

I think the shorter the format, the less likely injury subs are to be dodgy, but haven't really thought the whole idea through. Pakistan were unlucky last night with the injury, but I don't know if I'm sold on substitutes. Policing what is like-for-like would be problematic in a lot of cases.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You'd get a lot of taking advantage of it. Even without this rule we've already seen India bring in a specialist keeper when Pant was "injured", but still having Pant bat. Blatant cheating. England have been blatantly cheating with specialist sub fielders for nearly 2 decades. This would make it 10000x worse

 

[Line and Length]

In the AFL, the medical sub was introduced primarily to protect players who are concussed during a game. I have seen this abused when a supposedly injured big man was replaced by a smaller, quicker medical sub.

 

[Burgey]

You'd get a lot of taking advantage of it. Even without this rule we've already seen India bring in a specialist keeper when Pant was "injured", but still having Pant bat. Blatant cheating. England have been blatantly cheating with specialist sub fielders for nearly 2 decades. This would make it 10000x worse

That’s a good point actually. I was obviously looking at it through the prism of Australian cricket and not that of the constant cheating nations like those you’ve mentioned

 

[TheJediBrah]

That’s a good point actually. I was obviously looking at it through the prism of Australian cricket and not that of the constant cheating nations like those you’ve mentioned

Sometimes you need to put yourself in the mentality of someone who would #crosstheline

 

[Jack1]

You are very cynical. Not my problem. I think it is worth considering.

 

[trundler]

Nah it would change things too much. What happened yesterday was deeply unfortunate but that's how England win things anyway.

 

[Line and Length]

More sour grapes on this thread. Selecting and using a gun fielder as a 12th man isn't cheating. It's common sense selection.

 

[DriveClub]

More sour grapes on this thread. Selecting and using a gun fielder as a 12th man isn't cheating. It's common sense selection.

Wot? It is cheating if 12th man jordan is subbed in for no legit reason (unless injury to an existing player or something similar)

 

[TheJediBrah]

More sour grapes on this thread. Selecting and using a gun fielder as a 12th man isn't cheating. It's common sense selection.

What about murray mints

 

[Line and Length]

Murray mints, sandpaper, bottle tops .... cheating has been rife for years when it comes to ball tampering. I'm referring to the use of a 12th man. Back in his day Dennis Lillee regularly took 5-10 minute breaks between spells to shower and change shirts. He was usually replaced with a pretty sharp fielder. I didn't consider that cheating so why is it now?