Is it time for injury replacements in Test cricket?

Is it time for cricket to alter its formula and allow teams to replace injured players?

When Richard Ngarava, the frontline bowler, was forced to be helped off the field due to a back injury, Zimbabwe were already struggling on day one of the one-off Test against England at Trent Bridge.

The tourists were potentially playing with 10 men because an injured player could be replaced on the field but couldn’t bat or bowl.

Later in the day, Ngarava was able to bowl because of how long he had been away from the field, and he looked unwell before once more making his way to the changing rooms.

The Marylebone Cricket Club’s (MCC) regulations allow the umpires to substitute a player who has “been injured or become ill and that this occurred during the match” or for “any other wholly acceptable reason.”

The Law further states that a substitute may only act as wicketkeeper with the approval of the umpires and not bowl or play as captain.

The only circumstance is a concussion, which occurs.

Since 2019, concussion replacements have been permitted (Australia’s Marnus Labuschagne famously became the first concussion sub in Test cricket when Steve Smith was replaced in the Ashes). They can bat and bowl.

There are numerous instances where games have been impacted by injuries.

After James Anderson suffered a calf injury for four overs before day one, England effectively played the entire first Test of the 2019 Ashes at Edgbaston with ten players.

Australia’s spinner Nathan Lyon suffered a calf injury on day two of the second Test at Lord’s in 2023.

Famous players have been fighting their way through injuries, which has enhanced the spectacle.

In cricket, substitutes are not completely absent.

Supersubs were introduced to one-day internationals in 2005, with England’s Vikram Solanki the first to play for Australia at Headingley, but they were dropped in 2006.

The Indian Premier League’s impact player rule, which allows teams to substitute one of four players, was implemented between 2020 and 2022, while Australia’s Big Bash had a similar X-Factor player rule.

Michael Vaughan, the former England captain,

In the first innings of the match, players should not be able to play in injured-related cricket. An independent physician should be present. You should be able to play a sub if the doctor determines a player is unable to continue playing.

Only the first innings should be used. There might be some skullduggery if you let it continue into the second inning. The game and the entertainment that fans pay to watch are affected if a real injury occurs in the first inning. To make things fair, the first innings are a good cut-off.

Former England bowler Jonathan Agnew, the BBC’s chief cricket commentator, is here.

A team’s failure to deliver results in a number of Tests. How can it be proven? Another instance of potential conflict is here. It is extremely challenging to demonstrate.

Of course, common sense says yes, but you also need a convincing way to demonstrate without a doubt that the player is seriously injured. That would be open to various arguments, in my opinion.

Vic Marks, a former England off-spinner,

It merits consideration. Just to make sure the injury is completely genuine, there would need some administration. You wouldn’t want to see someone who can fake injuries to alter a team’s personality due to poor form or circumstances.

We used to spilt fake blood in rugby, so we want to stay away from that. Although it should be looked into, you need that proviso to ensure that the system isn’t used abusively.

Henry Olonga, a former seamer in Zimbabwe,

I’m open to the idea of substitutes, perhaps with a limited number, but not necessarily like-for-like and limited to injuries. Make the game more similar to other sports with subs allowed if you want to expand it globally.

Think of football tactically: If a game is moving in a certain direction, substitutes can change the direction. Why not switch out a spinner if a fast bowler is only going for a few runs? Although I don’t believe it will be widely held, I’m sticking with it.

Alison Mitchell, a TMS analyst,

Yes, it needs to be looked into, but a system that can’t be used is required. If a player is concussed, like-for-like substitutes can already be used. Therefore, they should be used for other injuries.

Simon Mann, a commentator for TMS,

I’ve long held the view that in a test match, there can’t be a substitute. It’s present in every other sport. Why not cricket, though?

I understand the difficulty of proving an injury, but a halfway house might be the first two days of a test as a replacement.

Stephan Shemilt, the chief cricket correspondent for BBC Sport, is in charge.

Any idea of injury replacements has the potential to be abused, as many have already pointed out. Therefore, I don’t believe there could be a halfway house. If a replacement is permitted, you can also allow them for tactical reasons.

A 12th player can be named before the toss, and that player can be brought in for tactical reasons or injuries. But just one. That would ensnare the plot even more. Which player would you pick? When are they used? You risk later getting hurt if you make a tactical move. Can a team accurately assess the situation to maximize the replacement’s introduction tactically?