• 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.

Should Smith have been allowed a runner?

Should Smith have been allowed a runner?


  • Total voters
    70

Fusion

Global Moderator
No and wouldn't be totally against getting rid of runners full stop.
Nor substitute fieldsmen tbh. Allow them, but with the proviso that if you go off the field and are replaced with a sub, you can't bowl again that innings.
AWTA. Injuries, and having to deal with them, is part of any sport. I don't see why Cricket allows for runners. If someone is not fit to play, then they should not play. If you are injured, then you should retire hurt and should not be able to come back in the game.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Deserve more than one vote. Popularity should be at its highest now, before you have to make any decisions.

Hey GIMH. :)
TBF I didn't vote for that option, guilty til proven innocent in my book. Let's have a manly hug Jack.
 

Fusion

Global Moderator
Most sports do have some kind of substitution rule to allow for injuries tbh.
Yes, but the substitution generally means the injured player is off the field though. Cricket is the only major sport I can think of where the main object of the opposition is allowed to play on with a runner. If a batsman can’t run, then either he should retire hurt or play on without a runner if need be.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Would you rather he were allowed to be substituted off for a reserve batsman? That's what happens in a lot of other sports.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Indeed, when Aldo was injured all the time for the whites we'd have loved to have someone else to do his running as long as he was still there to put it in the net :ph34r:
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Indeed, when Aldo was injured all the time for the whites we'd have loved to have someone else to do his running as long as he was still there to put it in the net :ph34r:
Heard Andrew Flintoff's reward for his run-out in the Fifth Test was six overs off the ground, ITBT.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
TBF that was because if he stayed on the field he'd have ran all the Aussies out and we didn't want to cheat the paying crowd out of a full day's cricket
 

Fusion

Global Moderator
Would you rather he were allowed to be substituted off for a reserve batsman? That's what happens in a lot of other sports.
My personal preference is that if he's hurt, then there should be no substitution period. IMHO that’s the harsh, but most fair way to deal with it.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Would you rather he were allowed to be substituted off for a reserve batsman? That's what happens in a lot of other sports.
Nah, it'd be too open to abuse and the supersub in ODIs was a bust.

Runners less than perfect, but the only other option is the batsman sucking it up. Which there's an argument that they should anyway, bowlers don't get a runner if they're crocked in the course of a game.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
My personal preference is that if he's hurt, then there should be no substitution period. IMHO that’s the harsh, but most fair way to deal with it.
I don't really agree I guess. I think there's a safety element to consider too. Players will generally play on if the other option is to make their team play with ten men. They could be aggravating injuries further and doing themselves some damage by, for example, continuing to run when their hamstring's gone. Substitutions don't really work for cricket, but having a runner is the next best thing.

Unlike the issue of substitute-fielders, it's not like teams are gaining any kind of advantage by using a runner unless they're properly ****ed. It screws up the running between the wicket pretty horribly. You generally don't want one unless it's completely necessary. If I were Strauss I'd probably have let Smith have one and told my infielders to be on their toes for the inevitable run-out.
 

shivfan

Banned
Did someone actually quote Ian Healy as an authority? Lol.

Anyway, Strauss should have had no say in it at all.
I agree....

I don't see why the fielding captain should be asked at all. It's about time cricket moved on from this false premise of the 'spirit of the game', and put the umpires in sole charge of deciding whether a batsman can have a runner or not. This business of asking the fielding captain has to come to an end.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Cramping isn't an injury, it's a conditioning issue. To quote Ian Healy, you don't get a runner for being a fat *******, nor should you get one for lacking the fitness required. Maybe it was an extreme level of fitness required in this instance, but one of the things that makes someone a exceptional champion.
You could probably argue the same for those who get injured during a game and require a runner. The fitter you are as a player, the less likely you are to get injured and James Anderson and Makhaya Ntini are walking proof of that.

I'm a bit torn between this issue. Honestly, I'm against the opinion of anyone getting a runner in the first place because quite frankly if you get injured then its your own fault and you shouldn't be allowed a fresher, and usually more agile, runner to come in for you. Running and physical exertion in general in ODI cricket play a very big role the longer you bat, any one who's ever played a long inning knows how much running drains out of you and it affects the rest of your game.

Should Strauss have allowed Smith a runner? Well yes, because of his philosophy: you can't be hypocritical and allow someone a runner based on what type of pain they are suffering from.

Should players be allowed runners? No, go back to the dressing room if you are not fit to run.
 

Kyle

School Boy/Girl Captain
It was unsporting. It is the same law, so Shah should not have been allowed a substitute fielder, he clearly had no injury. England are one of the most prolific abusers of the substitute fielder.

England now have a series in South Africa. You can bet if there's a runner needed by England, there'll be an argument.
 
Last edited:

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If you came into a game with a pre-existing injury and you were struggling with it and wanted a runner it would be tough luck.

If you come into a game suffering from a pre-existing penchant for pies then I don't see how it's any different.
 

Kyle

School Boy/Girl Captain
If you came into a game with a pre-existing injury and you were struggling with it and wanted a runner it would be tough luck.

If you come into a game suffering from a pre-existing penchant for pies then I don't see how it's any different.
Hi Scaly, Page 1 called, it wants its fat jokes back.
 
Last edited:

Top