Should teams be allowed to replace players injured in-game?

[weldone]

If this happens, then teams will never play more than 4 bowlers in test matches imo. First XIs will see more 150+ kmph bowlers and they will break down (even) more often as a result.

 

[sledger]

Part of the skill of the game is surely in selecting a team that can last the duration of the match, whichever format it might be. It's a categorical no from me.

 

[Howe_zat]

Part of the skill of the game is surely in selecting a team that can last the duration of the match, whichever format it might be. It's a categorical no from me.

Can't believe you broke your five year run on cricket chat ****posting.

 

[Cabinet96]

Yeah IMO you'd have to actually decide that you're going to allow tactical subs in test matches (which is pretty radical and I imagine most would be heavily against) otherwise it's too easy to be abused, even in cases when there is a legitimate injury.

 

[Cabinet96]

Part of the skill of the game is surely in selecting a team that can last the duration of the match, whichever format it might be. It's a categorical no from me.

Just to play devil's advocate, why isn't this the case in a sport like football which allows subs?

 

[Prince EWS]

Just to play devil's advocate, why isn't this the case in a sport like football which allows subs?

I think the main difference with cricket is each player is selected in the team to perform at a certain phase of the game. Being able to sub out McGrath for Lehmann after you've finished bowling would be a much bigger advantage than any sort of sub you get in other sports. You don't defend for a quarter of the game and then attack for a quarter of the game in football; it's fluid.

Even beyond the massive differences between batting and bowling, subbing out a pace bowler for a spinner just for the second half of a Test cricket match would be an advantage you'd not usually see with subs in other spots, which are usually just for fatigue or injury reasons.

 

[Day Man]

No to the OP, we need more of Dhoni rolling up to bowl on day 1 of a Test series.

 

[Howe_zat]

I think the main difference with cricket is each player is selected in the team to perform at a certain phase of the game. Being able to sub out McGrath for Lehmann after you've finished bowling would be a much bigger advantage than any sort of sub you get in other sports. You don't defend for a quarter of the game and then attack for a quarter of the game in football; it's fluid.

Even beyond the massive differences between batting and bowling, subbing out a pace bowler for a spinner just for the second half of a Test cricket match would be an advantage you'd not usually see with subs in other spots, which are usually just for fatigue or injury reasons.

I think there's two axes really. There's the extent to which different players being on at different times will help, but the extent to which the sport accepts that is pretty independent of that.

In cricket you are only ever batting or fielding, and your team just has to have those in it who do both. But in American football they 100% embrace that at any time you are either attacking or defending - so they sub out pretty much the entire team depending on which is happening.

 

[Daemon]

It's just not practical. Lets say you only allow quicks for quicks and batsmen for batsmen etc. Like Cribb mentioned earlier, imagine the uproar when a quick who can't bat gets subbed for a quick who can, and the subbed player goes on to make a decent contribution.

 

[Furball]

I seriously doubt this. It'd be too easy to debunk and players could be appropriately disincentivised by putting in place automatic match bans for the player and captain involved.

While I'm somewhat sympathetic to your second point, ultimately I feel that injury is always going to be largely out of the team's control, and so shouldn't count so heavily against them as it currently does. I can't think of any other major team sports that doesn't allow injury substitutions like cricket does.

How do you prove a player wasn't injured enough to be replaced?

 

[Zinzan]

Agree with most others, the fact it could conceivably work in the favour of the team hit with the injury makes it a no-go zone for me.

 

[Red]

It's kind of cool when a bowler gets injured though and the team has to rely on only 3 bowlers plus a couple of part timers. I enjoy that.

Also love it when a wicketkeeper can't keep for whatever reason and a non-keeper takes the gloves.

 

[Furball]

I think the main difference with cricket is each player is selected in the team to perform at a certain phase of the game.

This can be the case in football as well, I might select a player as a sub to be brought on to exploit a tired defence assuming the game plan for the first 65 mins works.

 

[Stefan9]

No. You either allow full subs or no subs in my book. So its either 1 sub for whatever reason or no subs in my book.

Personally I would be perfectly ok with one sub per team per game.

 

[Howe_zat]

It's just not practical. Lets say you only allow quicks for quicks and batsmen for batsmen etc. Like Cribb mentioned earlier, imagine the uproar when a quick who can't bat gets subbed for a quick who can, and the subbed player goes on to make a decent contribution.

It's easy to think of more spurious examples as well. What if it's Lyon who gets injured (with Aus playing an attack of Hazelwood, Starc, Siddle and MMarsh) and the only other offie in the squad is Maxwell? It'd be perfectly reasonable to make that change between matches, so Australia make it here, and then suddenly they gain an extra man to bat with.

 

[Athlai]

A lot of the hypothetical examples people are giving are of a superior batsman taking over the role of a bowler. What if you could only nominate the replacement (and it would have to be agreed by the opposing captain) to either bat or bowl?

Scenario 1:
Lyon goes down early first innings, Australia request for Maxwell to be used as an injury replacement to bowl.

Maxwell comes in to replace Lyon and he can only bowl/field. Australia bat with 10.

Scenario 2:
Late in the third innings, Lyon breaks his finger and can't bowl or bat. Australia request for Maxwell to be used as an injury replacement to bat. Get declined. They then nominate Hazlewood.

Hazlewood comes in and can only field/bat. Australia get to bat with 11.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Thinking back to the daynight test at Adelaide, I'm still struck by how utterly unfair it was that Australia had to play through the majority of that match with only 2 specialist quicks after Mitchell Starc broke down on day 1. Things were nearly as bad for them in the 2nd test when they were forced to save the game with just 10 fit batsmen after Uz pulled a hammy on day 2. And New Zealand suffered there own misfortune in that series when Southee broke down with a back problem on day 1 of the Gabba test.

I never really thought much about it before, but I don't understand why teams aren't allowed to properly replace a player when an injury occurs. It has the potential to ruin fair and entertaining contests, and strikes me as being a rule without sensible purpose.

What do you think, should the rules be changed to allow injury replacements, or are there compelling reasons for requiring a team to soldier on in the event of medical misfortune?

I think we can make a case for external injuries that happen on the ground.

So if someone gets smashed on the head by a ball and is taken out, then we know it's genuine.

If someone pulls up during a run up and complains about the groin, nope.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

The chance of teams actually profiting from this just makes it a no-go for me.

I thought you'd be in favour of deregulation to increase profit.