• 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.

3rd Test (Lord’s) - 10 July to 14 July

Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
cnerd123 said:
Disagree. At the professional level if you go into the game without an actual wicketkeeper you may as well forfeit the match. Having someone inexperienced behind there won't just cost you runs and wickets, it is an actual safety risk.

I see the point that there is a lot of part-time wicketkeepers going around and very rarely will a team have no one able to substitute in the XI. But the rules have to cover every possible scenario. It doesn't make sense to allow for a substitute for every position on the field barring one
Click to expand...
I get that it sucks, but it’s much more of a game ruiner when your best bowler breaks down in his first spell, and cricket’s rule on that is ‘tough ****’. It’s a ridiculous unfair advantage to be able to sub in a significantly better keeper because the one you picked got an injury that doesn’t seem to affect his world class batting at all. Not that I’m criticising India, it’s what the rules allow, but I imagine they’ll probably change that rule in the future.
 
Johan

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
Chin Music said:
What greentop in 2021? The most bowler friendly surface was Headingley but that was more overhead conditions than a green pitch.
Click to expand...
less so greentops and moreso "traditional English wickets" IE the ones that were around before Bazball and Global Warming effect, as that was the topic
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
Uppercut said:
I get that it sucks, but it’s much more of a game ruiner when your best bowler breaks down in his first spell, and cricket’s rule on that is ‘tough ****’. It’s a ridiculous unfair advantage to be able to sub in a significantly better keeper because the one you picked got an injury that doesn’t seem to affect his world class batting at all. Not that I’m criticising India, it’s what the rules allow, but I imagine they’ll probably change that rule in the future.
Click to expand...
I agree it sucks when a key bowler or batter breaks down and can't be replaced. I think the solution to that should be expanding the concussion sub protocol to all manners of external injuries that rule a player out from a game. It's backwards thinking that forces a team to play on without their strike seamer, or without a competent wicketkeeper.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
cnerd123 said:
I agree it sucks when a key bowler or batter breaks down and can't be replaced. I think the solution to that should be expanding the concussion sub protocol to all manners of external injuries that rule a player out from a game. It's backwards thinking that forces a team to play on without their strike seamer, or without a competent wicketkeeper.
Click to expand...
They should appoint a panel of doctors for test matches (if they haven’t already), and have one from a neutral country responsible for overseeing this for each game. And if a team is unhappy with their ruling they can ask for a second, third, fourth opinion until some **** gets it right
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
We're moaning so much about Jurel being allowed to keep we're overlooking what a ****ing heroic effort this has been from Pant with the bat this Test. He's basically batting one handed.

It does not look like he'll be fit to play next Test
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top