“The only thing that is constant is change” is an oft used quote given by the Greek philosopher Heraclitus. Heraclitus was known as the “dark philosopher” as his writings were deemed so hard to understand, and also because he apparently held the nature of life and purpose of life as well as his fellow philosophers in contempt. In fact he compared most people’s understanding to those who were asleep.
Sport today is constantly changing. Across all sports every year we see rule or law changes. Some for the better some not, but nearly all because some administrator or committee needs to justify their existence. Many of these changes may as well have been made by people in their sleep.
For Cricket traditionalists the Ashes series taking place in England has been one with plenty of change. For a start we had players playing in a Test Match with numbers on the back of their shirts for the first time. They also had their names emblazoned across their shoulders.
Commercially it makes perfect sense. Identifying the players when all are dressed the same and are a fair distance from those at the ground has always been tricky. Yet with this “innovation” more of the romance of watching the great game has been taken away. Growing up as a follower of the game you would identify players by who always wore a sunhat rather than a traditional cap, who preferred a long sleeve jumper or shirt to the short version of both. Other players were identified by their body shape or their gait. As you scanned the field it was these little details that helped you determine who was fielding where. Now you will see the vast number on their backs, and simply look down at the scorecard – if they still print these? – or program you have had to buy to determine which player is wearing what number.
Clearly there are some who do not like this new look. Others dislike the necessity for the numbers on the players back having to be so large. Then there is issue of the numbers nominated by each player, which has irked some. Those people asking why if numbers were to be used, players could not simply be numbered 1-11 as per their place in the batting order? On face value it appears a valid argument.
Sadly today many players are identified in the more lucrative T20 cricket by their shirt number, so to link the two formats of the game and also their marketability the players themselves wish to hang onto the number that “is theirs.”
If the numbers were not enough to upset the stalwarts of the game, the first substitute player to play in a Test match has seen more scratching of heads.
The South African born Marnus Labuschagne, whose family moved to Australia when he was ten, became the first substitute player in Test Match Cricket. He replaced former captain Steve Smith who had been forced to withdraw from the match following delayed concussion, after being struck on the neck by England’s Jofra Archer. Despite few being able to pronounce his surname correctly in the commentary box, Labuscagne has carved his place in history.
Whereas in most sports one always wants to see teams evenly matched in terms of numbers of players, cricket has always been slightly different. After all it is a series of individual battles within a team environment. Which is what makes it such a compelling sport.
It is, as we saw when Steve Smith came back out to resume his innings, a sport in which there are huge amounts of courage. Yet allowing teams to have a substitute player in such circumstances has again robbed the sport of a repeat of some memorable moments of courage – some may say foolishness – and moments that live long in the memory and the history of Test Cricket.
We will never see the likes of Rick McCosker coming out to bat with his head bandaged up after having his jaw broken by Bob Willis in the Centenary Test match in Melbourne in 1977. Or the late great Malcolm Marshall of the West Indies coming out to bat in 1984 with his left arm in plaster and unable to grip his bat. He had broken his thumb while fielding in the gully when stopping a shot from Chris Broad. Larry Gomes was on 96 when the ninth wicket fell and out strode Marshall. Gomes scored his hundred and Marshall managed to hit a one handed four. He then came out and ripped England apart taking 7-53 and the West Indies won the Test.
In the fourth Test of the same series between England and the West Indies Hampshire’s Paul Terry had his arm broken in the first innings by Winston Davis, but like his county team mate came out to bat this time to help Allan Lamb achieve his century. Who can forget Terry with his arm in a sling underneath his jumper coming out to bat. His arm took so long to heal that he never played Test Cricket again! However he carved his place in cricket history with that one innings.
In 2002 Indian Anil Kumble was hit in the face by a rising ball from West Indian Mervyn Dillon in Antigua. He spat blood but batted on. Only after his innings was over was it discovered that he had in fact fractured his jaw. He still bowled 14 overs with his head bandaged and took the crucial wicket of Brian Lara!
You can go back further in time and there are similar feats. In 1963 on day four of the Lords Test Colin Cowdrey was struck by a rising ball and a crack was heard around the ground. He retired hurt, his wrist broken. Chasing 234 to win England were 219 for 8 when what appeared to be the last pair were batting. The last over came and England needed eight runs to win, the West Indies thought they needed one wicket to win. Hampshire’s Len Shackleton was run out off the fourth ball. This meant that England needed six runs off two balls. More importantly Cowdrey came out to prevent an England loss. He was fortunately at the non-striker’s end, as Dave Allen kept Wes Hall at bay for the last two balls.
Even before Cowdrey there was the New Zealand batsman Bert Sutcliffe who was struck by a bouncer in the Test Match against South Africa in Johannesburg in 1953. He was out for the count and rushed to hospital. There was no fracture, but he was told to rest. Seeing wickets falling he put his pads back on and went out to bat again. He hit Hugh Tayfield for 25 runs off one over, a record that stood for over 50 years. He scored 80 in a losing match for New Zealand, but etched his name in the history books as one of the greats.
These are moments of immense heroism in a sporting context. They were moments that were part of the romance of cricket. Now they have been taken away. Some may say in a world obsessed with health and safety that this is rightly so, but you cannot help feeling that the sport has lost so much more. Every player dreams of playing for their country and every player dreams of performing heroic deeds, sometimes those deeds have been unorthodox or not been the way they may have dreamt, but they have been heroic in the context of the game and the circumstances.
The numbers on the back of shorts suddenly pale into insignificance, compared to the introduction of a substitute. Diehard cricket fans cannot but feel that this change has robbed the game of something special and witnessing some special players and their deeds. Deeds that will be remembered and talked about for years to come.
