India coach Gautam Gambhir has nudged the debate over player welfare a step further, arguing that injured cricketers should be replaceable during Test matches. His England counterpart, Ben Stokes, reckons that is “absolutely ridiculous,” and wants the discussion parked for good.
The flashpoint came in Manchester last week, where Rishabh Pant retired hurt on the opening afternoon of the fourth Test, only to hobble back a day later with a confirmed fracture in his right foot. Pant added 17 more runs, but scans ended his series and forced India to summon N Jagadeesan for the decider at The Oval.
Gambhir’s view
“Absolutely, I’m all for it,” Gambhir said, when asked if Tests should mirror concussion-sub rules for other serious injuries. “If the umpires and the match referee sees and feels that is a major injury, I think it’s very important. It’s very important to have this rule where you can get a substitute – that is, if it’s very visible.”
He pointed out the competitive stakes. “Imagine if we would’ve had to play with 10 men against 11. How unfortunate would this be for us.”
India were allowed a temporary wicketkeeping stand-in, Dhruv Jurel, yet under ICC regulations Jurel could not bat in Pant’s place. Only concussions or Covid-19 currently trigger like-for-like replacements in Tests. A handful of domestic competitions plan to experiment with wider injury subs later this year, though nothing is locked in.
Pant’s bravery clearly left a mark on his coach. “Any amount of praise is not enough for him, especially batting with a broken foot,” Gambhir said. “Not many people have done that in the past.”
Stokes hits back
Stokes, speaking before England’s training session at The Oval, could hardly disagree more. “I think it’s absolutely ridiculous that there’s a conversation around an injury replacement,” he said. “You pick your 11 for a game; injuries are part of the game.”
While accepting concussion rules for “player welfare,” Stokes worries an expanded policy would be ripe for manipulation. “If you stick me in an MRI scanner, I could get someone else in straightaway,” he argued. “If you stick anyone else with an MRI scanner, a bowler is going to show, ‘Oh yeah, you’ve got a bit of inflammation around your knee. Oh sweet, we can get another fresh bowler in’. I just think that conversation should be shut down and stopped.”
What could change?
The key sticking point is policing intent. Concussion swaps are binary – you either have a head knock or you don’t. Soft-tissue problems and stress fractures are greyer. Coaches and physios might be tempted to exploit the rule on tiring fifth-day pitches, exactly the loophole Stokes fears.
Supporters of change note how other sports allow rolling subs and medical replacements without collapsing into chaos. Cricket already embraced innovation with the concussion law in 2019; proponents argue that extending it safeguards careers, especially for fast bowlers.
A middle ground might be a neutral medical panel ruling on eligibility, much like independent doctors in rugby. That, though, adds cost and complexity, particularly on low-profile tours.
Pant’s immediate future
Pant will watch The Oval Test on television, boot on foot, leg propped up. India’s management insist the keeper-batter will travel with the squad as moral support, though he could miss the early part of the home season if the fracture fails to heal quickly.
Gambhir hopes Pant’s effort sets a standard. “One thing I want to say is that the character, the foundation of this team will be built on something that [he] did for the team and for the country as well,” the coach said. “Generations to come forward would talk about his bravery.”
Meanwhile, Jagadeesan is likely to slot straight in behind the stumps, with Dhruv Jurel remaining reserve. England, unchanged and energised by Stokes’ words, need victory to square the series 2-2. India require only a draw to lift the Anthony de Mello Trophy outright.
Whether or not the law changes, the image of Pant limping back to the crease, bat in hand, has reignited a classic cricketing argument: should courage be applauded above all, or does the sport owe its players stronger protection? For now the ICC’s answer is “no substitution,” but the conversation – despite Stokes’ wishes – is far from over.
