From Supersub to Concussion Sub: Cricket’s Long Argument Over the Like-for-Like Replacement

Twice since 2005 international cricket has allowed one player to come off and another to take over his or her full role in a match. The first attempt, a tactical substitute in one-day cricket, lasted less than a year. The second, the concussion replacement brought in for all international cricket on 1 August 2019, has stayed. But it keeps running into the same question that sank the first: when one player comes on for another, how much should the balance of the side be allowed to change?

The supersub: a tactical experiment

In July 2005 the ICC began a trial in one-day internationals that let each team name one substitute before the toss and bring that player into the match at any stage. The first use came in an England v Australia one-day series that month, when Vikram Solanki came on for the fast bowler Simon Jones once Jones had finished his overs.

The thinking behind it was that teams would pick more all-rounders. ICC general manager David Richardson later said the rule had been meant to “encourage teams to make greater use of allrounders” in the one-day game. That is not what happened. Teams chose a specialist as the substitute, a batter or a bowler held in reserve for the half of the match where they would be needed. Because the substitute had to be named before the toss, a side that lost the toss could find its reserve in the wrong role. Richardson said the rule ended up “placing undue importance on winning the toss”.

In February 2006 the ICC’s chief executives recommended ending the trial, and on 20 March 2006, after a board meeting in Dubai, the ICC announced it had been scrapped. The board ended the playing condition with immediate effect.

The lesson, in our reading, was that a replacement chosen for tactical reasons will always be used for tactical advantage. If the rules let a team swap a bowler who has finished for a batter who has not started, teams will do exactly that.

The concussion replacement: a medical rule

The next substitute rule started from a different place: player safety. Before any global rule existed, the idea was tested at home: Australia tried it within its own domestic cricket from the 2016-17 season, and England used it across all four of its professional domestic competitions from 2018. In July 2019, after its annual conference in London, the ICC approved concussion replacements in all formats of men’s and women’s international cricket and in first-class cricket worldwide, from 1 August 2019.

The rule arrived less than five years after the death of the Australia Test batter Phillip Hughes, who was struck by a bouncer from Sean Abbott in a Sheffield Shield match at the Sydney Cricket Ground on 25 November 2014 and died two days later, aged 25. No single event explains a rule change, but the timing put head injuries at the centre of the discussion.

Under the playing conditions, the team’s medical representative makes the concussion decision, not the captain. The replacement may bat and bowl, but must be approved by the match referee as a “like-for-like” player. That phrase, as we read it, is what separates the rule from the supersub. It is also the part that has caused nearly every dispute since.

Lord’s, August 2019: the rule’s first test

The rule was used within three weeks. In the second Ashes Test at Lord's, Jofra Archer struck Steve Smith on the neck with a bouncer on the fourth day, and Smith was later diagnosed with concussion. On 18 August 2019, the fifth day, Marnus Labuschagne replaced him, the first concussion substitute in Test cricket. Labuschagne made 59 from 100 balls, the highest score of Australia's second innings, and the match was drawn. Smith missed the third Test at Headingley.

Few disputed that one. Smith was a specialist batter and Labuschagne came in to bat. Women’s international cricket saw its first use in November 2019, when Chinelle Henry of West Indies was concussed after diving and colliding with the boundary boards in a one-day international against India in Antigua, a match West Indies won by one run.

Canberra, December 2020: the all-rounder problem

The hard cases come when the concussed player does more than one job. In the first T20 international between Australia and India at Manuka Oval, Canberra, on 4 December 2020, Ravindra Jadeja was hit on the helmet by Mitchell Starc off an outside edge in the 20th over. He had no treatment at the time, finished on 44 not out from 23 balls as India made 161 for seven, and was replaced at the innings break by Yuzvendra Chahal, a specialist bowler.

Chahal took three for 25 from his four overs, Australia finished on 150 for seven, India won by 11 runs and Chahal was named player of the match. Australia’s coach Justin Langer had a tense exchange with the match referee David Boon before the second innings. Moises Henriques said player safety came first, but questioned the swap: “Whether it was a like-for-like replacement – that’s the question we’d like to see.” His point was that Jadeja is an all-rounder and a strong fielder, while Chahal is an out-and-out bowler. India’s captain Virat Kohli described concussion replacements as “strange things” and suggested that, in a different match, India might not have had a like-for-like player to call on.

Pune, January 2025: the same argument, louder

Just over four years later the argument came back. In the fourth T20 international between India and England at Pune on 31 January 2025, Shivam Dube was hit on the helmet by a Jamie Overton bouncer off the penultimate ball of India’s innings. He had scored 53 from 34 balls in India’s 181 for nine. India replaced Dube, a batting all-rounder who bowls only occasionally, with the specialist pace bowler Harshit Rana.

Rana took three for 33, England were bowled out for 166 in 19.4 overs, and India won by 15 runs to take an unbeatable 3-1 lead in a series they went on to win 4-1. England’s captain Jos Buttler responded with sarcasm: “I think either Shivam Dube put on 25mph with the ball or Harshit Rana has improved a lot with his batting.” The former England batter Mark Butcher called the decision “wildly wrong” and said it “did change the game”.

Why like-for-like is so hard to judge

Several structural problems, as we see them, lie behind these disputes, and none of them is about medicine.

• Timing: in both Canberra and Pune the player was hurt at the end of his side’s batting innings. By then his batting was finished, so the only work left for a replacement was bowling and fielding. A replacement who matches the injured player’s batting adds little. One who adds bowling changes the match.
• All-rounders have no exact match: a specialist batter can be swapped for another specialist batter. A player who bats in the middle order and bowls a few overs rarely has a twin in the squad.
• The squad decides the options: a referee can only approve or reject players who are available. If the closest match is not in the group, the choice is between an imperfect swap and none.
• The judgement sits with one official: the match referee has to weigh roles under time pressure, with a game waiting. Different referees in different series may weigh those roles differently.

The supersub failed because it was designed to be tactical. The concussion replacement was designed to be neutral, a way of making sure a side is not punished for protecting a player’s health. The Lord’s case showed how well that works when roles line up. Canberra and Pune showed that when they do not, the rule can still shape a result, and the side that loses will say it worked like the supersub cricket gave up in 2006.

The principle itself has held. In Canberra, Henriques made clear that player safety came first; the complaint was about the replacement, not the diagnosis. In our view the argument is about where the line sits between a fair replacement and an advantage, and it is likely to return whenever an all-rounder is hurt at the end of an innings.