Ben Stokes is wrong; substitutions should be allowed in Test cricket

People are always resistant to change. Always. In work, in life and perhaps most often in sport.

But change is often for the better. In the 1954 World Cup, the first substitutions were made in competitive football, with the 1965/66 season seeing substitutions introduced into English domestic football, albeit only for injured players.

Soon enough, they were accepted as a part of the game.

Could you imagine if at any point from around the 1970s onwards somebody suggested removing substitutes from football? The notion would be laughed out of the room because, despite initial resistance, substitutes were a huge benefit to the game.

The debate has reared its head with both England and India walking wounded in their fourth Test at Old Trafford; Rishabh Pant bravely batted on with a broken foot while Ben Stokes’ muscles are currently being held in place by masking tape.

Stokes himself spoke out against the idea, declaring that pain is merely an emotion; something that can just be ignored. That bloody-mindedness has made him one of England’s best cricketers and is admirable to an extent, but people can only push themselves so far. Eventually, bodies break down and quality is diminished.

Shoaib Bashir bowled with a broken finger in the third Test and was naturally ruled out of the fourth Test. In an ideal world, he’d have been replaced by another bowler.

There’s the argument that injury substitutions would be used tactically. Even in the early years of their introduction in football, players feigned injury to force subs.

We already have sub fielders in Test cricket and even they have been used tactically – Gary Pratt was never going to bat for England but his work in the field was without question, and he played a key role in England winning the 2005 Ashes, running out a furious Ricky Ponting.

But rather than risk anybody daring to act against the Spirit of the Game™, allow both teams one tactical substitution to use how they will. One substitution is unlikely to overly impact proceedings, but at least gives teams the option of removing injured players.

Perhaps a team could each name one substitute for a match. There would be a tactical consideration of naming a specialist batter, a specialist bowler or the more conservative all-rounder. If you do go with a bowler, would you want a spinner or an extra pace option?

The final session at Old Trafford was a miserable display of Test cricket. Devoid of drama or sporting merit, India had secured the draw while Chris Woakes and Jofra Archer had cleared 20 overs apiece; Liam Dawson approached 50.

In this instance a substitute wouldn’t have changed the game, but it would have at least allowed Stokes to rest one of his bowlers without calling upon Harry Brook and his unique take on spin bowling.

On the flip side, had KL Rahul, Shubman Gill, Washington Sundar and Ravindra Jadeja not have batted as superbly as they did, the tourists could have been forced to call upon the injured Pant. Instead of swapping Pant out, as common sense would allow, India could have lost the series due to essentially being a player down. Matches – and indeed series – shouldn’t be lost on the back of an injury.

Yes, Test cricket is the ultimate form of the game and examines both body and mind, but allowing one substitution wouldn’t change that.

It would bring another tactical element to the game while minimising the risk of matches being decided by injuries, and that can only be a good thing.

Liam Williams

• England Men's Cricket Team
• India Men's Cricket Team
• • 
  •