������Ƶ

In the recent Test series between England and India, serious injuries were sustained by two players during a match that prevented their ongoing full contribution. Consequently, discussions have reopened relating to the introduction of full like-for-like substitutes in the game’s longest format.

During its historical development, first-class cricket has flirted with substitution from time to time.

An early example of substitution occurred in 1843. Thomas Barker of Nottinghamshire broke his leg while getting out of a horse-drawn carriage before a match against Hampshire at Southampton. It was agreed that, rather than Nottinghamshire playing with 10 men, another member of the team would be allowed to bat twice in each innings. It seems that in the gentlemanly era of the mid to late 19th century, numerous substitutions occurred for reasons other than injury. One England XI captain decided not to take any further part in a match against Yorkshire because he was booed by the crowd.

More recently, there have been occasions when a player has been called up for his national team while playing for his state or county team. A playing substitute was allowed, only for him to be replaced by the returning original player who had not been selected to play for his country. A more frequent occurrence is when a player is selected for a Test squad, but is not selected for the playing 11 and returns to his state or county team to replace someone who began the match. While this rather fluid approach is allowed in relation to national call-ups, neither illness nor injury have been considered acceptable reasons for full substitution.

Partial substitution has been allowed since the late 19th century. This allows for the injured or ill player to be substituted in the field, but the substitute may not bowl, bat or be captain. In 2017, a previous ban on substitute wicketkeepers was lifted. A more fundamental change occurred in 2019 with the introduction of concussion substitutes. If a player is hit on the head/helmet, a concussion review is conducted by a doctor or suitably trained person. The player is asked if there is any feeling of headache or nausea. His or her balance is checked and memory tested through questions. If concussion is diagnosed, a like-for-like substitute is allowed, who participates fully. 

In 2005, the International Cricket Council trialled tactical substitutions in One Day Internationals over a ten-month period. Each team was allowed one substitute, termed a “super-sub,” who had to be named prior to the toss and could be introduced at any stage of the match. The trial first applied to an ODI series between England and Australia. It was not popular, largely on the basis that it was perceived to give the team that won the toss an enhanced advantage. Captains suggested that it would be preferable to nominate the sub after the toss had been made. The level of opposition to the trial was sufficient for the ICC to withdraw the regulation.  

More recently, in 2023, the Board of Control for Cricket in India — BCCI — introduced the Impact Player into the Indian Premier League, having trialled it in a domestic competition. A team can replace any player from the original starting 11 with a substitute at any point of the match from after the first ball of the first innings to before the last ball of the second innings. Both teams are allowed to name their playing eleven after the toss. Despite criticism from leading players, the regulation will stay in place until 2027. The ILT20 franchise league in the UAE introduced an Impact Sub in 2024.

The extension of substitutes to the longer formats received a boost this week when the BCCI announced an amendment to playing conditions for its 2025-26 season, due to open on Aug. 28. In multi-day cricket, injury replacements will be allowed. The amendment states that “If a player sustains a serious injury during the course of the relevant match, a Serious Injury Replacement may be permitted in the following circumstances.”

The first of these circumstances’ states that “The serious injury must have been sustained during play and within the playing area.” Furthermore, “the injury must have occurred due to an external blow and result in fracture/ deep cut/dislocation. The injury should render the player unavailable for remainder of the match.” Both of the recent serious injuries to Rishabh Pant in the fourth Test and Chris Woakes in the fifth Test should have rendered them unavailable for the remainder of the match. Yet, because of the circumstances of the match, both did participate, clearly in great pain and at risk of exacerbating their injuries.

The speed with which the BCCI has moved reflects the division of opinion on the subject. India’s coach, Gautam Gambir, said that he was “all for it,” whereas England’s captain, Ben Stokes, was resolutely against it, saying that “there would just be too many loopholes for teams to be able to go through.” He went on to say that “if you stick me in an MRI scanner, I could get someone else in straightaway.”  

Clearly mindful of the potential abuse to which the proposal may be subject, the BCCI has laid out in detail the procedure for an injury replacement. Nevertheless, there is some inconsistency. One clause says that “On-field umpires shall be the final authority to decide on the extent of serious injury and allowability of Serious Injury Replacement. They may consult the BCCI Match Referee and/ or doctor available on the ground.” A later clause says that “the decision of the BCCI Match Referee in relation to any Serious Injury Replacement Request shall be final and neither team shall have any right of appeal.”

This illustrates the complexity of the issue. It is further complicated by the definition of what is a like-for-like player. It may be assumed that a right-handed batter will be replaced by another right-handed batter, and similarly for a bowler. However, will a fast bowler be replaced by another fast bowler or can a slow bowler act as a replacement? The BCCI has partially addressed this in stating that a “like-for-like replacement will not excessively advantage his team for the remainder of the match.” This is very much a matter of judgment and potential controversy.   

It seems that India has decided which side it sits in this polarizing issue. In an increasing frantic playing calendar, in which players are subjecting their bodies to unprecedented pressures, their safety should be paramount. The alternative argument is the one articulated by Stokes: “You pick your 11 for a game; injuries are part of the game.” Those who agree with him will say that Test cricket’s charm lies in its raw, unscripted, human moments, sometimes occasioned by injury, which generate authentic, compelling, drama.

This charm includes the notion of 10 versus 11. It is one that is becoming more difficult to justify. Concussion substitution has been introduced seamlessly, impact substitutions are part of the franchise game, the BCCI has shown its hand, the ICC is encouraging national boards to trial full substitution in domestic competitions. It is hard to deny that a direction of travel seems to be set for the next stage, Test cricket. This will require a watertight process to assess whether a player is genuinely injured.