If anyone was watching the ENG vs WI test yesterday, they probably recall Michael Holding voicing his opinion on substitute fielders. Although Mikey has been coming up with a bit more than the usual nonsense recently (still love him though), it got be thinking and I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
Now for those who didn't hear it, Mikey was bemoaning the constant substitutions made by both teams in this test (at the time I believe WI were fielding). He believes that you should be able to go off the field for as long as you like - "go out for a meal if you want" - but that you should not be able to have a substitute unless you are injured (new injury, not existing).
I can sort of see his point. Although current rules mean you have to be on the field for at least as long as you were off before bowling, you should be picking players that are fit enough to play a 5-day test. It's not fair to bring on players that may even be specialist fielders so your bowlers can put their feet up. This of course being one of the controversial moments in the 2005 Ashes, when ENG were bringing on specialist fielders and Ricky Ponting lost his shit when he was run out by one (notwithstanding this occasion it being for the test-ending injury of Simon Jones).
As far as comfort breaks are concerned, I'm not sure if the rules allow you bring on subsitutes anyway and I'm sure grown adults can wait until session or drinks breaks. Naturally this has nothing to do with concussions substitutes, which have been brought in for very good reasons.
What do you think about this then? Have any of you got other good cricketing anecdotes that apply here (professional game or local)? I'm still on the fence over this one.
[link] [comments]
from Cricket https://ift.tt/3hB9HkD
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment