London, July 29: The sight of Rishabh Pant limping out to bat with a fractured foot at Old Trafford during the fourth Test between India and England evoked admiration, emotion, and an outpouring of support. But beyond the applause and the headlines lies a simmering debate that refuses to go away: why does Test cricket, in its current form, not allow full substitutes for injured players?
Pant’s innings, which included audacious boundaries, a composed fifty, and sheer defiance, added to his growing reputation as one of the game’s most spirited cricketers. However, it also highlighted a glaring loophole in cricket’s rules — one that forces players to choose between valor and well-being. When the fracture was confirmed, many believed Pant’s match was over. When he padded up, few expected him to bat. When he walked out, few thought he would last. Yet he did, and in doing so, reignited one of cricket’s most critical conversations.
Pant’s courage follows a long lineage of similar episodes in the history of the game. Nathan Lyon, the Australian spinner, batted with a torn calf during the 2023 Ashes series at Lord’s, despite being unable to bowl. Batting is not even Lyon’s primary role, but with his team under pressure, he risked aggravating his injury rather than let a wicket go in vain.
The list of such stories is long and iconic — Rick McCosker with a broken jaw in the 1977 Centenary Test, Malcolm Marshall bowling with a fractured hand, Anil Kumble’s spellbinding spell with a broken jaw against the West Indies, Graeme Smith walking out with a broken hand to save a Test in Sydney. Each story stirs the soul. Yet, each also underlines a system that prioritises spectacle over sense.
Even more distressing are the instances where players were ready to play despite serious injury, simply because there were no alternatives. In 2006, Justin Langer suffered a blow to the helmet in Johannesburg and was forced to retire hurt. Australia, chasing 292, were eight wickets down when Langer — padded up and determined — waited his turn to bat. Captain Ricky Ponting, aware of the danger, reportedly told him, “If you go out, we’re not friends anymore.” Thankfully, Australia won before Langer’s turn came.
There have also been Tests where teams were reduced to nine or ten fit players, simply because there was no provision for replacements. From Jack Hobbs’ appendicitis in 1921, to Norman O’Neill’s stomach infection in 1964, to multiple injuries in Pakistan’s squad in the late ‘50s, the game has often unfolded as an uneven contest, not by skill or strategy, but due to sheer physical attrition.
“Imagine if we had to play with ten men against eleven — how unfortunate would that be for us?” remarked Indian head coach Gautam Gambhir after the Manchester Test, summing up the frustration many teams have felt over the decades.
Contrary to what traditionalists believe, the idea of full substitutes isn’t alien to cricket. In fact, historical records from the 19th and early 20th centuries show several instances of teams using full replacements in first-class cricket. In 1897, Ernest Killick replaced Cyril Bland for Sussex. In 1902, John Broughton stepped in for Syd Barnes in a match for Lancashire. In 1904, two replacements were made in a Gentlemen vs Players fixture.Even more dramatically, in 1895, England XI captain Herbie Hewett left the field after being booed by the crowd and never returned. Fred Spofforth took his place. These substitutions, though rare, were not outlawed. They were accepted by teams and authorities as pragmatic solutions to unforeseen circumstances.
Even in modern first-class cricket, there have been exceptions. Warwickshire’s Gladstone Small once left a county match mid-way to join the England camp. In his absence, team manager David Brown replaced him and even took a wicket. When Small returned — not selected for the Test — he slotted back into the XI. More recently, Surrey in 2019 were denied a full substitute for Gareth Batty, who fell ill, and were told the match would lose its first-class status if Amar Virdi replaced him. Surrey were forced to play with ten and lost.
Change did begin to take shape in 2019 with the introduction of concussion substitutes. Marnus Labuschagne’s now-famous debut as a replacement for Steve Smith marked the beginning of a new era. Since then, players have been allowed full, like-for-like replacements if diagnosed with a concussion. No protests were raised. No chaos ensued. In fact, Labuschagne thrived — a testament to how sensible rule changes can enhance the game rather than dilute it.
Following that success, the ICC in June 2025 asked member boards to trial full-time substitutes in cases of “serious external injury” on the field. This is a step forward, but one with obvious limitations. It excludes injuries like Lyon’s calf tear, which, while serious, is internal and not visible externally. The reason for the cautious approach is understandable — the ICC wants to avoid potential misuse.
Concerns have already been raised. Ben Stokes once quipped, “If you stick me in an MRI scanner, I could get someone else in straightaway.” Steven Finn echoed a similar worry: “If you could substitute a fresh bowler in because of injury, it would just be wrong.”
And yet, the concussion protocol already demands trust in medical professionals. If they can be trusted to diagnose head injuries, why not other physical conditions?
The question is not if Test cricket should change — but how long it will take to do what’s right. (Agencies)
