Cricket Australia’s CEO James Sutherland’s suggestion injured cricketers in a Test should be replaced has merit, but it’s fraught with danger.
This Test at the SCG against Pakistan is a perfect example
Australia’s opening batsman Matt Renshaw has copped two severe blows to the helmet, either one could have ruled him out of the Test with concussion.
The two hits left him understandably nauseous with a thumping headache, and he’s rightfully been ruled out of the Test.
If the suggested rule was operative, Jackson Bird would be the replacement. He’s already been on field for a sick keeper Matt Wade, where Peter Handscomb took over the gloves and Bird became the 11th man, taking two catches in the deep.
But if he was the one to replace Renshaw today as a participant that would dramatically change the Australian side, with a frontline bowler replacing a pure batsman, especially as Australia is seeking a whitewash series win.
The attack would have six front-line bowlers instead of the originally selected five – with four pacemen Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood, Hilton Cartwright, and Bird, plus spinners Nathan Lyon, and Steve O’Keefe.
The whole dynamics of the Australian attack would be changed for the better thanks to Renshaw’s concussion – and that’s not cricket.
To be fair, any replacement must be a similar player – batsman for batsman, bowler for bowler if the replacement is to be active, and not just field.
As for Sutherland’s second suggestion that any injured player, over and above concussion, be replaceable, that is not on.
If ever a suggestion was open to abuse, that’s it.
Having said that, even Sutherland’s original suggestion will have trouble being accepted by the blinkered ICC which hasn’t even budged on any decision of head injuries, two years after the tragic death of Phil Hughes.
But Sutherland did make a cracking good decision yesterday that today’s fifth and final day at the SCG will be open to the public for a gold coin admission with all proceeds being donated to the McGrath Foundation.
The offer is not only brilliant, but it couldn’t be better timed for a Saturday.
At last call the Foundation was $365,000 better off for this Test, but still $25,000 shy of the target.
A 30,000 crowd today, weather permitting, will see that target covered and well in surplus, which is exactly what the Foundation deserves in its work in funding carers around Australia for breast cancer sufferers.
tyrone
Guest
This was trialed many years ago in the domestic one day comp
davSA
Guest
I'll second that Dexter The Hamster.
Dexter The Hamster
Guest
Thanks Sava. Many of us love Test cricket, and enjoy the battle between bat and ball, knowing that leaving the ball go through to the keeper, and avoiding bouncers are both important parts of the game. Glad you have taken an interest, but maybe you stick to T20 and enjoy it for what it is.
Dexter The Hamster
Guest
Wow, he was standing at bat pad, as his team needed him to. By your logic he should have been more conservative and stood next the square leg umpire. His poor judgement in doing as the team needed is just bad luck for him. Your comment is perplexing in more than one way.
mattatooski
Roar Rookie
I like it ..... It would add another dimension to the cricket, but unfortunately that is probably why it will never be introduced. The tradionalists will never approve it. It would great to see in action though. Chris Lynne would be 12th man in perpetuity.
Al
Guest
Genius. Problem solved, Sheek straight to the MCC (ICC?) rules committee.
Ken (Sava) Lloyd
Guest
David. Unless Test cricket rules are changed to compete with the popularity of the BBL then Test cricket will become second rate as a sport.to watch.The Test batsmen letting ball after ball go through to the keeper is a turnoff,the continued chatting by wicket keepers also most annoying,Bouncers ,havn't we learnt by recent tragic events that they are dangerous and should not be and should never have been in the game,Now a few things re BBL,to see the way young people have taken to this form of Cricket is great BUT the way the batsmen are hitting sixers into the crowd that is made up of lots of young kids,care should be taken that one of those kids dont get sconed.I did notice last night that some enterprising firm have helmets for kids and I hope the announcers at the BBl games are keeping parents informed to watch their kids. And get rid of that stupid Coee call its worse than Aussie Aussie Aussie,And that is saying something. Sava
anon
Roar Pro
Part of the skill of test cricket is surviving out in the middle for long periods. That means being conservative and prudent in your approach to batting (also why test cricket is tedious and T20 is really exciting). Tough luck for Renshaw. He wasn't cautious enough. Got hit in the head. Next time he'll be more cautious. Luckily for Renshaw, Australia were playing a team generally non-competitive in Australia in addition to routinely fixing games over the last three decades -- so his poor judgement didn't cost his team the match.
DavSA
Guest
Hi David , the suggestion is absolutely daft. What is it about the current generation of sports administrators that if they are not suggesting and implementing rule changes then they feel they are not doing their job. For many years now an injured player could be replaced with a fielder only . The system works , that's why its been a rule for so long. The first test SA vs AUS when Steyn got injured simply forced the Proteas to have to readjust their game plans on the hoof . Its part of the game. Change rules only when absolutely essential. As in Soccer , FIFA very very rarely implement any tweaking to the game. As for batsmen getting tagged with a bouncer , well there is already rule protection in place limiting the amount per over .Or should bouncers now be ruled out altogether .
sheek
Roar Guru
Hi David, I'm totally opposed to the idea of subbing players if they are injured during a test & allowing the sub to bat or bowl. It would play havoc with the stats. However, I do have another idea which I have borrowed from American baseball, the concept of a designated hitter. Expanding on this theme, each team should select 12 players instead of 11, with the worst batter not getting a hit. But the worst batter might also be the best bowler ( a la McGrath) & he would obviously be part of the bowling armoury. Only 11 players can field, so the 12th player could be rotated while the team is in the field, & cover for emergencies such as Renshaw's head knock. Nominally, the 12 would include seven specialist batsmen, including keeper-batsman, & five front-line bowlers. One of the bowlers won't be required to bat, while perhaps the batsmen can rotate having a rest in the sheds when the team is fielding. That's my suggestion.
nanda
Guest
Players do get injured. Not sure if there is a statistic available, but I would guess that the number of players who pick up injuries of any kind will be less than 2 % and due to concussion will be in sub decimals. Why replace only a concussion sub. What happens if a fast bowler pulls up with a hamy in the first session of play. It has happened before. Zaheer Khan picked up a hamy in the first session in England and India bowled with 3 bowlers and obviously lost. So why not allow replacement for such injuries. My sense is that the number of such cases are low and hence the current system works well. If some one gets injured, tough luck, captain has to bring something new out of the box.
JGK
Roar Guru
Yep. Players and coaches couldn't be trusted when it came to getting runners so why do we think they could be trusted about this?
Wayne
Roar Guru
I think "tough luck" comes into it. Otherwise my dodgy hammy is a bit sore so my team can bring in a fresh player. Teams don't go out to injure players. It's not like players are getting ruled out with injury on a regular basis like contact sports.
Anindya Dutta
Roar Guru
Agreed David. This suggestion is indeed fraught with danger. But what if in the squad of 14 or 16 (depending on which country you are in and whether you are a touring party or not) who are present at the ground, there is an almost like for like replacement available in the side and only that replacement can be used? So at worst a middle order bat for Renshaw in this case? Would that be better?
tyrone
Guest
A concussion that is not avoidable, eg while batting or a return hit towards a bowler should be able to be replaced. A concussion because you are standing too close to the batsman to allow time to get out of the way is your own fault and should not be replaced. I was actually surprised Wade was replaced, he finally caught something and got runs
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Enter at own risk. Many modern batsmen choose not to duck or use their bat and gloves to fend bouncers.
twodogs
Guest
Do you not then, in your home country, have like for like replacements. A player can be pulled from anywhere quite quickly and if touring, the pool is generally large enough to pick from. Bowler - bowler and batsman - batsman. 'Keepers are no problem, anyone can do that. Ask Wadey? Severe circumstances should allow some sort of balance.
spruce moose
Guest
Yes, but they were strategic/tactical substitutions. I'm trembling as i write this but i agree with David.
mds1970
Roar Guru
They tried having substitutions in one-day cricket about 10 years ago; but the idea was quickly abandoned and it went back to being a fixed 11.