Injuries sustained during a match

[Shifter]

There's a thread on rule changes, but I thought this might be better as its own separate thread.

When a player sustains an injury that prevents them from continuing a match it creates an unfair situation I'm sure we can all agree. I've thought on the matter a bit and wonder if there isn't a better way.

I've been thinking on some sort of substitute system where players can only replace other players in a like for like fashion. For example a fast bowler can only be replaced by another fast bowler.

Does anyone else have any views on this, and what are the pitfalls of a substitute system in cricket might be?

All I know is that being forced to play with 10 men vs 11 through no fault of your own isn't a fair contest.

[Johnners]

I like the rule the way it is now, sure it gives one team an advantage, but that's just bad luck and needs to be accepted imo. Given that no 2 players have the exact same skill-set, it's arguable that the use of a replacement player could conceivably be more beneficial to the team than their original player in the first place, thus making it unfair on the opposition.

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, you'd get players faking injuries etc - or at worst suspicions of that happening - just to get others in due to the match situation. Players don't really have set role definitions either as much as we like to think they do.

I think maintaining one's fitness over five days is just part of the package needed for a successful Test cricketer.

[Shifter]

Luck should have as little to do with it as possible. Cricket already has a potentially significant luck factor outside the playing arena in the toss. Its supposed to be a test of how good your team is against another, everything else being equal.

Fitness is one thing, but there will be times that something just goes wrong even if you've taken all the reasonable steps to warding against it.

I don't see how you can be classed as a sporting contest in the event that you don't play under equal terms. It goes against the very idea of sport.

[Johnners]

It's unequal terms as well if one team is able to draft in a fresh player during the middle of a match due to another players poor fitness levels.

[Shifter]

If subs are an option for both teams (which it obviously will be) then its fair.

[Jayzamann]

If this were to be introduced, it would be used a lot more often than intended. People would stroll off for niggles and it would degenerate into what became of the 'super sub' a few summers back.

[Johnners]

Originally Posted by Shifter

If subs are an option for both teams (which it obviously will be) then its fair.

It's not though in the situation you were originally talking about. If the subs were only to happen in a situation where a player could not continue the game, it's not fair to the opposing team unless they also have a player succumb to an injury. Ironically though, it would all come down the factor you want to try and eliminate/minimize, luck.

[Shifter]

How about not allowing subs for fitness related things. In a case where a player is injured/pretends to be injured have an independent doctor evaluate it and if it can be determined he were faking then that players team defaults and are declared losers.

Furthermore, whats more unfair? A team getting a physically fresh player to even the numbers or a 10 v 11 situation.

[Matt79]

Keep it as is. Fitness and conditioning should be factors in team selection and success.

[Shifter]

That's why I said they won't allow subs for fitness related issues. Having your hand broken has got nothing to do with how well conditioned you are.

[Burgey]

We could use this to sub Michael Clarke out of any T20 where we're chasing >50.

Bring it.

[Johnners]

Originally Posted by Shifter

How about not allowing subs for fitness related things. In a case where a player is injured/pretends to be injured have an independent doctor evaluate it and if it can be determined he were faking then that players team defaults and are declared losers.

Furthermore, whats more unfair? A team getting a physically fresh player to even the numbers or a 10 v 11 situation.

It's incredibly unfair on the team whose original 11 players are fit enough to play a full match. It's not just about the sub being fresh though, it's about the sub having a different skill-set to the player they are replacing. Eg. It's a test match, day 4, Bryce McGain breaks down during the oppositions final innings at bat, and can no longer play any further part in the match. Steven Smith is the "spin bowler" who is selected to replace McGain, and Australia have to chase 400 down in the 4th innings. Is that not just a wee bit unfair on the opposition, that Australia are able to bring in another spin bowler, who just so happens to be a far better batsmen than the one he's replacing, where it's possible having another capable batsmen down the order swings the balance of the match back in Australia's favour.

[Shifter]

I said in the very first post that one of the conditions would be a like for like replacement. It would have to be a medium pace bowling all rounder, with a similar batting record.

[Smudge]

Originally Posted by Shifter

I said in the very first post that one of the conditions would be a like for like replacement. It would have to be a medium pace bowling all rounder, with a similar batting record.

In which case, you'd have to have a squad of about 17-19 for just one test. Overkill.