Smith is fitter than he has been and as so many have said in this thread, cramp has very little to do with fitness.
If you want to be a grammar nazi then you should end your question, even if rhetorical, with a question mark.
Pre-conditioning can help prevent most injuries. You can no more blame a lack of fitness for Smith getting cramp than you can blame a failure to warm up properly for someone pulling a hamstring, for example.
I don't know the details of this, but I'd have thought you'd allow the batsman a runner.
In any case, it might have been in England's interests to allow Smith a runner. When runners come on, confusion and run-outs often seem to follow. And I'd have thought that it would be pretty easily foreseeable that it would be a strong motivation to Smith if he was refused a runner.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this morally it was a pointless decision by Strauss that gained him nothing and will probably come back and bite him on the arse at sometime in the future.
Think Strauss was in the right on this one. I dont think runners should be allowed, except in the case of genuine on field injuries. A cramp does not qualify.
Its weird that it tends to happen in ODI cricket, perhaps because of the conditions? But I dont see batsmen being given a runner in tests just because they have been at the crease for 5 hours iin hot conditions, are cramping up, and are nearing a double hundred. I think the same should apply.
There is a difference between being sporting and giving the opposition a leg up. In this case it was the latter.
Dont know about substitute fielders rulings, although in my view that is also happening far too much of late (and not just for toilet breaks and on field niggles and the like). But in that case, Shah was in the wrong and should have stayed on the field. I did notice too, that soon after that 'ruckus' Shah returned to the field and took a catch (Smiths?). So Flower probably, and quite wisely, sent him out. Regardless, it is another area of the game that needs clamping down.
What the hell, how has this thread reached 5 pages? :laugh:
Having a runner for cramps is the most ridiculous pile of BS I've heard all week :happy:
Cramps are short and sharp, and although they may reoccur, any team physio worth their salt would be able to sort it out and relieve any pain.
They aren't an 'injury'.
England in moralising-on-runners-while-themselves-spurning-spirit-of-the-game-with-sub-fielder shocker.
No, he shouldn't. Cramp is NOT the same as an injury such as a hamstring tear or, in Ryder's case, an abductor muscle injury.
We played against a guy over a few seasons who had a long-standing muscle disorder/issue which caused him to cramp after batting for 30 overs. The first time we played him, we weren't aware, and allowed him a runner. But after we'd been advised of his issues during the next game that season, he wasn't getting a runner if it was the last thing we did.
I realise this is a very different situation to the one involving either Smith or the fella you're talking about, but I wonder whether it comes down to the level you're playing at when deciding these things.
From my understanding, the law is pretty clear. Smith should not have had a runner.
I think the umpires possibly forfeited some responsibility here and foisted it on Strauss, who was well within his rights to take the stance he did.