07-23-2025, 06:13 PM
(07-23-2025, 05:18 PM)Jacko Wrote:(07-23-2025, 05:05 PM)rsbaggy2 Wrote:(07-23-2025, 04:57 PM)Jacko Wrote: Can only assume you've never played the game. Having a substitute wicketkeeper on the field for the entirety of both innings is a massive advantage, if the injured party is still allowed to bat with no penalty for time off the field.
You assume too much. I would rather have a fit Pant keeping wicket and batting.
The 12 v 13 was as nonsensical as your 11 v 12.
If an England player had the same misfortune I don't think you would be so flippant about a sub keeper.
We should start doing it. Get Smith to wear one on the wrist on the first morning of the test and have Foakes as a named 12th man. Job done. It's a joke and one of the laws that needs looking at.
Jurel is fundamentally a better wicketkeeper. The fatigue of keeping wicket and also batting long innings should not be understated.
Jacko, the guy couldn't even walk off the pitch. He had to retire hurt when his team needed him out in the middle and may not be able to bat for the rest of the match. I can't see how you interpret this as some sort of sneaky plan to gain an advantage.

