Should cricket allow replacement players?

In the high-stakes world of Test cricket, where battles are waged over five gruelling days and every session can shift the balance of a match, the injury of a key player can derail an entire team’s campaign. This issue has come sharply into focus once again following Indian wicketkeeper-batsman Rishabh Pant’s toe fracture during the ongoing Manchester Test. With India now forced to field a makeshift wicketkeeper and potentially bat one short, questions have resurfaced: Should cricket permit full-fledged replacement players in Tests for injuries beyond just concussions?

In-the-high-stakes-world-of-Test-cricket-where-battles-are-waged-over-five-gruelling-days-and-every-session-can-shift-the-balance-of-a-match-the-injury-of-a-key-player-can-derail-an-entire-team’s-campaign

Current Scenario: Limited Replacements, Limited Relief
As per ICC’s playing conditions, teams are currently allowed to bring in a like-for-like replacement only in the event of a concussion, introduced in 2019 after much deliberation and in line with practices in sports like rugby and football. However, non-concussion injuries—even if they result in a player being completely unavailable for the remainder of the match—do not qualify for any such replacement.

As-per-ICC’s-playing-conditions-teams-are-currently-allowed-to-bring-in-a-like-for-like-replacement-only-in-the-event-of-a-concussion-introduced-in-2019-after-much-deliberation-and-in-line-with-practices-in-sports-like-rugby-and-football

This nuance has left India in a tough spot. Pant, who has been central to India’s middle-order resilience, can neither keep wickets nor run freely between the wickets. Dhruv Jurel has been handed the gloves, but according to the rulebook, he cannot bat unless he was part of the playing XI. The team is effectively playing with 10.5 men—hardly ideal in a Test match in England against a strong opponent.

The Argument for Allowing Injury Replacements
Advocates for permitting injury-based replacements argue that the current rules are archaic and do not reflect the physical demands and risks of modern cricket, especially Test cricket. While the game still clings to its traditional roots, much else has evolved—players are faster, bowlers are stronger, and the volume of international cricket has exploded.

Advocates-for-permitting-injury-based-replacements-argue-that-the-current-rules-are-archaic-and-do-not-reflect-the-physical-demands-and-risks-of-modern-cricket-especially-Test-cricket

Injuries—especially sudden ones like a broken toe or hamstring tear—can occur without warning. Should a team be punished for a moment of misfortune? “It’s harsh on the team and the fans. A rule that penalizes a side for an injury to a player is outdated. Imagine a World Test Championship final with one side a batter short from Day 2—it affects the integrity of the match,” said a former ICC technical committee member.

Moreover, allowing like-for-like injury replacements would enhance the fairness and competitive balance of a match. It would also remove the pressure on injured players to push through pain, which could exacerbate long-term damage, particularly in the case of multi-format players like Pant.

Precedents in Limited-Overs Cricket
It’s not that cricket is unfamiliar with the concept of substitution. Over the years, different formats have experimented with tactical changes:

Super Sub Rule (2005-2006) in ODIs allowed one designated substitute, though the system was scrapped due to its imbalance favoring the toss-winning team.

Impact Player Rule in the IPL has gained popularity, permitting teams to replace one player during a game for tactical or injury reasons.

Concussion Substitutes in international cricket, first seen during the 2019 Ashes, have set a precedent for in-game injury replacements.

However, each of these has functioned within specific boundaries—either format-based (limited-overs only) or injury-specific (concussion only). The Test format, often heralded as the purest form of the game, remains stubbornly resistant to this change.

Arguments Against Mid-Match Replacements
The counter-argument is deeply rooted in the tradition and ethos of Test cricket. Critics argue that allowing replacements could dilute the unique challenges of Test cricket, where a team’s resilience is often tested through adversities like injury, illness, or poor form.

“This isn’t football. A team has to strategize and adapt. Playing with 10 men after an injury is part of the game’s character,” says a former Test cricketer turned commentator. There’s also concern about exploiting the rule—teams might fake or exaggerate injuries to bring in fresh legs or match-up specialists.

This-isn’t-football-A-team-has-to-strategize-and-adapt-Playing-with-10-men-after-an-injury-is-part-of-the-game’s-character-says-a-former-Test-cricketer-turned-commentator

Even with concussion substitutes, controversies have arisen about the subjectivity involved in assessing the “like-for-like” nature of a replacement. Expanding the scope to include broader injuries could make it harder for match referees to police these changes consistently.

The Role of Technology and Oversight
One potential solution is the strict medical vetting and approval process—like in rugby or football—where a neutral medical official assesses injuries before approving substitutions. Technology, too, can play a role in ensuring authenticity, through instant scans, real-time updates, and biometric trackers.

There’s also a case for limited replacements—for instance, a substitute who can bat but not bowl, or vice versa—ensuring that no team gains an undue advantage but also doesn’t suffer disproportionately due to injuries.

Voices from the Dressing Room
Rishabh Pant himself, while hobbling out to bat with painkillers, symbolized the grit often celebrated in Test cricket. But is that grit heroic—or reckless? “No one wants to see a half-fit player risk his career just to keep the team afloat for a day. We need to protect the players,” said a BCCI official off the record.

Rishabh-Pant-himself-while-hobbling-out-to-bat-with-painkillers-symbolized-the-grit-often-celebrated-in-Test-cricket

Other players, like Pat Cummins and Joe Root, have previously called for broader conversations on this topic at the ICC level. “It’s about time we modernize the laws to ensure fairness. Injuries shouldn’t decide the fate of matches,” Cummins said during a 2023 tour of India when Mitchell Starc played through a finger fracture.

The Future: What Lies Ahead?
The ICC Cricket Committee has mulled over this issue repeatedly. In the wake of increased injuries and player workload, the idea of a non-concussion injury substitute is now being discussed more seriously. However, traditionalists continue to resist any change that appears to dilute the original format.

Still, the growing frequency of injuries, the increasing financial and emotional investment in Test cricket—particularly marquee events like the WTC Final, Ashes, or India-Australia series—makes it increasingly untenable to ignore the demand for change.

A trial phase, perhaps during less high-stakes bilateral series, could be the ideal middle ground. Much like DRS and concussion rules, a well-structured pilot program can help the ICC fine-tune the conditions under which injury replacements are permitted.

Conclusion: Balancing Tradition and Fairness
The Pant episode has once again exposed the fragility of cricket’s current substitution policy. While purists argue that the game’s essence lies in adapting to setbacks, modern realities demand a more humane and flexible approach. The key will lie in crafting rules that ensure fairness without encouraging gamesmanship.

Whether the ICC will finally bite the bullet remains to be seen. But if Test cricket is to stay relevant in an era of high-octane T20s and overloaded calendars, it must evolve—starting perhaps, with how it treats its injured.

Click here to watch more!