• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Like for like injury replacements

ParwazHaiJunoon

First Class Debutant
My take:-

All 15 players can take part in LOI match.
Anyone can bat or bowl.
For Fielding team, max 11 players are allowed on field.
No one can bowl overs >10 in ODIs & >4 in T20s.
For batting team, max 10 Outs are allowed.
This will increase batting quality. (as genuine batters can bat at #7)
Injury to any player (esp. bowler) will not screw chances of his team.
Chris Jordan type tactical fielders get legitimacy.
etc.
 

Xuhaib

International Coach
Subs should be allowed in limited overs cricket.

I don't understand how will teams abuse the law. Say Rohit Sharma bats and in the second innings he gets replaced by Ashwin how is this any different in football to a Striker getting a replaced by a defender in the second half with his side 2 - 0 up.

Its called tactical play not cheating.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Subs should be allowed in limited overs cricket.

I don't understand how will teams abuse the law. Say Rohit Sharma bats and in the second innings he gets replaced by Ashwin how is this any different in football to a Striker getting a replaced by a defender in the second half with his side 2 - 0 up.

Its called tactical play not cheating.
Obviously if it’s allowed it’s not cheating. Cheating would apply if the subs were intended for injury only and injuries were feigned.
That’s what happened with English football in the mid 60’s when one sub was allowed for injuries and injuries were faked, so after a couple of years they changed it to allow the sub for other reasons.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Big believer that subs should be allowed in every format, and for tactical reasons too, not just injuries. If a player is sucking, teams should be allowed to bench him. There's some fun tactical play that cricket loses out on.

I remember they trialled supersubs around 2005-6 as a tactical play but it didn't work. It gave 1 team an unfair advantage depending on who won the toss.
Allow teams to finalize their playing XI after the toss. Simple.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Big believer that subs should be allowed in every format, and for tactical reasons too, not just injuries. If a player is sucking, teams should be allowed to bench him. There's some fun tactical play that cricket loses out on.
Right but cricket is turn based. Why wouldn't teams just go totally full ****ing ham in the fourth innings and have either eleven batsmen or eleven bowlers?
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Right but cricket is turn based. Why wouldn't teams just go totally full ****ing ham in the fourth innings and have either eleven batsmen or eleven bowlers?
That's only a problem if it's unlimited subs which I'm obviously not advocating for.

I dunno, make it 1-2 subs allowed for a test. I just don't think it should be zero.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
That's only a problem if it's unlimited subs which I'm obviously not advocating for.

I dunno, make it 1-2 subs allowed for a test. I just don't think it should be zero.
I think any number that's not eleven but also not zero will probably just enhance the value of the toss in Tests.

Let them do it in T20 IMO - make it 11 bats v 11 bowlers if they want - but the balance of Tests is really good.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think any number that's not eleven but also not zero will probably just enhance the value of the toss in Tests.

Let them do it in T20 IMO - make it 11 bats v 11 bowlers if they want - but the balance of Tests is really good.
Would it really enhance the value of the toss that much if it's just 1 sub? It's not like the team that loses the toss wouldn't be allowed to make one.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
If the ICC is gonna have their own docs for every international game to rule on concussion subs, surely they can rule on injury subs as well? The match ref gets to take the call on like for like as it also depends on who is available in the squad.
 

cnerd123

likes this
If the ICC is gonna have their own docs for every international game to rule on concussion subs, surely they can rule on injury subs as well? The match ref gets to take the call on like for like as it also depends on who is available in the squad.
The problem is that staying fit is part of Test cricket, so if you lose a player due to injury then you cop the consequences

There is also a wide spectrum of injuries a player can suffer, which means there will inevitably be backlash on a doctor taking a borderline call on whether or not a player is injured enough to be replaced. It's unfair to put them in that situation. It's a high pressure time constrained environment without the option for a second opinion.

Not only is the outcome of the game at stake, but also potentially the career of that player. Is the ICC going to be liable for their doctor clearing a player to play, who then goes on to aggregate the injury further?
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The problem is that staying fit is part of Test cricket, so if you lose a player due to injury then you cop the consequences
Staying fit is a part of every single sport. Cricket is the only one weirdly anal about not allowing those players to be replaced.

Imo, a key bowler getting injured in the middle of a test match puts the team at such a massive disadvantage and ruins games. I genuinely can't believe sometimes why people think watching a team struggle to fill their quota by bowling other randoms makes for good cricket.
 

Jack1

International Debutant
The worst it can do is make a team's squad bigger. More players making a living. That's assuming the team's can afford to do it.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
There is also a wide spectrum of injuries a player can suffer, which means there will inevitably be backlash on a doctor taking a borderline call on whether or not a player is injured enough to be replaced. It's unfair to put them in that situation. It's a high pressure time constrained environment without the option for a second opinion.
:laugh: Cnerd simping for the doctors now
 

Shady Slim

International Coach
Staying fit is a part of every single sport. Cricket is the only one weirdly anal about not allowing those players to be replaced.

Imo, a key bowler getting injured in the middle of a test match puts the team at such a massive disadvantage and ruins games. I genuinely can't believe sometimes why people think watching a team struggle to fill their quota by bowling other randoms makes for good cricket.
this isn't quite exactly right though if i'm being pedantic right? like in a hockey match if you lose a defenseman to injury you gotta roll with five defensemen for the rest of the night. sure you can replace him on the ice, but that's not a function of hockey allowing for injured players to be replaced, it is a function of hockey allowing for skaters to be replaced writ large for any reason from your benches - you don't actually get to replace the guy who's injured and theoretically if fourteen of your eighteen skaters got injured you wouldn't be able to call up a nineteeth

EBUG rule is the exception to this ofc where if both of your goaltenders get hurt you pick a guy from the crowd to suit up
 

Top