In the cricket community, the controversy over injury replacements in Test matches is flaring up once again. Recent events with major players have fueled this new push for rehashing. As the laws of the game stand, teams can only replace injured players in rare circumstances. By making concussion substitution possible, FIFA created this opportunity with the implementation of concussion substitutes in 2019. This limitation has drawn attention after Zimbabwe’s Richard Ngarava suffered a hamstring injury during a Test match against England, highlighting the need for a reevaluation of existing regulations.
As for Ngarava, he was eventually carried off the field during the match, only to briefly return to the field. Sadly, his awkward bowling motion suffered from all the time he lost while hurt. This incident paralleled recent history in Test cricket. So for instance, in the first Test of the 2019 Ashes at Edgbaston, England were made to fight with just ten men after James Anderson tore his calf. Similarly, Australia’s Nathan Lyon limped off on day two of the second Test at Lord’s in 2023 with a calf issue, further emphasizing how injuries can impact the dynamics of a match.
Proposed solutions to address these challenges include permitting a replacement for a clearly injured player within the first two days of a Test. This kind of guideline serves to level the playing field while enabling all teams to compete at a high level. Limiting replacements to the first innings may be the best middle ground. This rule would prevent teams from facing unfair disadvantages due to the impact of injuries.
The 12th man can be named in advance of the toss. This third player can be brought in for tactical purposes or in the event of an injury. This concept presents teams with numerous strategic flexibility, but it has not been formally adopted in Test cricket, at least, not yet. By way of comparison, one-day internationals used to have “supersubs” from 2005-2006, permitting a substitute player to take the field and bat and bowl. England’s Vikram Solanki was named the first supersub in one-day cricket in a match against Australia on July 28, 2005.
As we wrote the first time it was introduced, concussion substitutes have been an overwhelming success since the first rollout. Players like Australia’s Marnus Labuschagne have showcased how such provisions can maintain the competitiveness and integrity of matches after an injury occurs. Historical examples provide testament to the lengths players are willing to go in an effort to help, even in times of injury. Colin Cowdrey made a famous appearance with a broken arm in 1963 and Graeme Smith played one-handed with a broken hand in 2009 to help save a Test against Australia.
The discourse around such an injury replacement has sparked criticism on all sides from different former players and media personalities. One change I’d consider Substitution Vic Marks is open to the idea of substitutions. As he argues, there need to be broader limits, and these replacements need not be one-to-one. Michael Vaughan advocates for injury replacements in Test cricket, provided there is a robust system to prevent abuse.
Jonathan Agnew has articulated one of the core concerns regarding injuries in Test matches:
“If there’s a genuine injury in the first innings, it affects the game and the entertainment, which fans pay money to watch. The first innings is a good cut-off to make it fair.”
Henry Olonga weighed in on this topic, suggesting that while it is worth considering, careful administration would be necessary:
“It’s well worth considering. It would take a bit of administrating, just to make sure the injury is absolutely genuine. You wouldn’t want to see anyone have the opportunity to fake injuries in order to change the nature of a team because of conditions or lack of form.”
Leave a Reply