ChrisNelson
Full Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,576
Isn't it a bit daft that you can't replace an injured batsman if you've not batted yet? What difference does it actually make?
It's open to abuse I suppose.
Let's say hypothetically England had skittled Australia for 150, what's stopping an England player (lower order batter) miraculously becoming injured and unable to bat in our first innings.
Stokes replaces him with another batter, figuring that will allow us to put the game beyond Australia and not require an extra bowler.