What we learned from the 5th Test

[capt_Luffy]

Prasidh krishna is million times better then trundler like kamboj. Just needs to stop spraying

Million times zero is still zero

 

[capt_Luffy]

There have been worse, to be honest. Keaton Jennings, Dom Bess, Tom Westley, etc. But agreed, Overton was useless. Only picked cause it was his home ground.

Jennings and Bess both were alright players deserving of caps.

 

[shortpitched713]

Million times zero is still zero

Calling one of this match's match winners a zero, is wild.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Calling one of this match's match winners a zero, is wild.

He was largely to blame for the first loss as well. I am not in favour of bollocks who can't control their line and length ffs

 

[Ju7]

Shouldn’t have dislocated his shoulder imo.

Its impossible to perfectly sub a player in that can replicate another. One team will be pissed and the other will have an advantage depending on the match situation. That’s why they only do fielding subs since a fielder will have less impact than a batsman/bowler. Perhaps it needs to be looked at, but I don’t really think there’s a simple solution.

I don't want to change the current rules.I believe Stokes said that he was against it.He said he would have played in the 5th test if he knew he could be subbed incase he couldn't see the game through.I agree with him that that would be wrong.

 

[ma1978]

He was largely to blame for the first loss as well. I am not in favour of bollocks who can't control their line and length ffs

this is a sign of youth and not knowing how bad it can get

14 wickets at 37 for a third / fourth seamer is not bad on these roads

 

[Prince EWS]

Prasidh krishna is million times better then trundler like kamboj. Just needs to stop spraying

@Spark

 

[honestbharani]

I don't want to change the current rules.I believe Stokes said that he was against it.He said he would have played in the 5th test if he knew he could be subbed incase he couldn't see the game through.I agree with him that that would be wrong.

That is not how it works or it would work. Its why they have the internal vs external injury rules.

 

[Daemon]

I only see it working under very restrictive rules to the point where it just becomes cumbersome and largely useless.

1. Only for external injuries like a clearly broken bone, eye injury, etc. No soft tissue injuries, ligament sprains, tears etc allowed. The issue with the latter is as Stokes put it nicely - you put some of these fast bowlers through a scan and it’ll tell you they shouldn’t even be walking.

2. You can’t address the issue of getting a new fresh bowler very well, so a compromise would be something like the sub can only bowl in the next innings. No issues with batsmen.

3. Like for like. Name them at the start, subject to match referee concurrence just like concussions. This can get tricky though and potentially unfair in some situations - for example who is Kuldeep’s sub for India? All our other spinners are good batsmen.

I just don’t feel like it’s worth the hassle and potential for unfair advantages.

 

[Prince EWS]

I only see it working under very restrictive rules to the point where it just becomes cumbersome and largely useless.

1. Only for external injuries like a clearly broken bone, eye injury, etc. No soft tissue injuries, ligament sprains, tears etc allowed. The issue with the latter is as Stokes put it nicely - you put some of these fast bowlers through a scan and it’ll tell you they shouldn’t even be walking.

2. You can’t address the issue of getting a new fresh bowler very well, so a compromise would be something like the sub can only bowl in the next innings. No issues with batsmen.

3. Like for like. Name them at the start, subject to match referee concurrence just like concussions. This can get tricky though and potentially unfair in some situations - for example who is Kuldeep’s sub for India? All our other spinners are good batsmen.

I just don’t feel like it’s worth the hassle and potential for unfair advantages.

Yeah I'd actually be going the other way and banning sub fielders from keeping wicket or fielding in close catching positions. I don't like the concussion sub rule either but they're just doing that to prevent future lawsuits.

Part of the challenge of Test cricket is being able to stay fit and firing for five days, and the nature of cricket being turn based with its batting and bowling innings means there is too much risk of a team actually benefiting from its own injury.

 

[CricAddict]

Overton should never play Test Cricket again.

The sub rule needs looking at, any bloke with a dislocated shoulder should not be running around in agony.

The English captain strongly objects to that.

 

[capt_Luffy]

this is a sign of youth and not knowing how bad it can get

14 wickets at 37 for a third / fourth seamer is not bad on these roads

It isn't but I think it's one of those instances were stats make him look significantly better than how he largely bowled.

 

[Daemon]

Yeah I'd actually be going the other way

@TheJediBrah

 

[TheJediBrah]

I just don’t feel like it’s worth the hassle and potential for unfair advantages.

Correct

Yeah I'd actually be going the other way and banning sub fielders from keeping wicket or fielding in close catching positions

close catching I don't see the big deal, but keeping definitely. The situation that has happened twice with Pant now has been a farce

 

[honestbharani]

I only see it working under very restrictive rules to the point where it just becomes cumbersome and largely useless.

1. Only for external injuries like a clearly broken bone, eye injury, etc. No soft tissue injuries, ligament sprains, tears etc allowed. The issue with the latter is as Stokes put it nicely - you put some of these fast bowlers through a scan and it’ll tell you they shouldn’t even be walking.

2. You can’t address the issue of getting a new fresh bowler very well, so a compromise would be something like the sub can only bowl in the next innings. No issues with batsmen.

3. Like for like. Name them at the start, subject to match referee concurrence just like concussions. This can get tricky though and potentially unfair in some situations - for example who is Kuldeep’s sub for India? All our other spinners are good batsmen.

I just don’t feel like it’s worth the hassle and potential for unfair advantages.

See now, 1 and 3 are already covered by existing rules. The rules are there that define what is "external and internal" injuries and which qualifies as what. And the like for likes are named before the game because of concussion and covid sub protocols. The only worry would be 2 and I dont think its such a difficult thing to figure out that should keep such an important rule off the charts. The need is to ensure no one has to put themselves in needless danger and/or aggravate their injuries/conditions and to enable it still being a fair 11 V 11 contest.

 

[Third_Man]

England are over dependent on Stokes and have not managed Bethell well.

 

[Molehill]

See now, 1 and 3 are already covered by existing rules. The rules are there that define what is "external and internal" injuries and which qualifies as what. And the like for likes are named before the game because of concussion and covid sub protocols. The only worry would be 2 and I dont think its such a difficult thing to figure out that should keep such an important rule off the charts. The need is to ensure no one has to put themselves in needless danger and/or aggravate their injuries/conditions and to enable it still being a fair 11 V 11 contest.

Agree with this. Vaughan mentioned that anyone injured in the first innings should get a second innings sub (but not till then), so that kind of negates the freshness factor. That would work for me.

I really wonder what India would've done had they ended up bowling to Woakes yesterday, it's not actually a great position to put a bowler in.

It's also poor that 'fat *****' from previous generations so took advantage of the runner rule that we now make people like Woakes have to run as well.

 

[Daemon]

I’m perfectly ok with a keeper getting a sub like Pant did.

Makes total sense.

You can’t have someone who has never kept wicket properly suddenly keep 90 overs or whatever against proper international standard pace. Could get smashed in the face, would probably sprain all their fingers.

 

[Molehill]

I’m perfectly ok with a keeper getting a sub like Pant did.

Makes total sense.

You can’t have someone who has never kept wicket properly suddenly keep 90 overs or whatever against proper international standard pace. Could get smashed in the face, would probably sprain all their fingers.

But India already had Rahul in their team. England had Pope and Duckett, SA have Rickelton etc. It's pretty rare these days that teams don't have a spare keeper in their side. India definitely benefitted from Pant not having to keep before going out to bat.

 

[Daemon]

India definitely benefitted from Pant not having to keep before going out to bat

They would have benefited anyways, he literally couldn’t keep.

You can’t bank on all teams having a part time keeper. I’m sure there are teams that don’t.