India Vs England 4th Test: Rishabh Pant’s Injured Fifty Shows ‘Cricket Is In Dark Ages’ With Substitutes, Says Vaughan

Injured India batter Rishabh Pant's brave fifty with a broken foot in the fourth Test against England was "great theatre" but it also showed "cricket is in dark ages" on the issue of allowing medical substitutes, feels former England captain Michael Vaughan.

Pant remarkably came out to bat with a fractured foot in the morning session on Thursday after retiring hurt the previous day, and went on to add 17 runs to his overnight 37 for his 18th Test fifty.

"I have felt for many years that Test cricket should introduce substitutes for injuries that are clear and obvious, like we have seen with Rishabh Pant in the fourth Test at Old Trafford," Vaughan wrote in his column for 'The Telegraph'.

"It was great theatre watching Pant come out to bat with a broken foot on the second morning. It was unbelievable courage, and there was some amazing skill to scramble 17 runs from 28 balls. But he was not fit to bat, could not run, and could have made the injury so much worse.

"...the fact that he (Pant) was allowed to have a replacement as wicketkeeper, but not to bat or bowl. It is all a bit odd, and inconsistent. We are the only team sport that does this and it is an example of cricket being stuck in the dark ages, I think."

He felt sticking to the old rules "is intentionally depleting a contest by making one of the teams effectively play with 10 men for four days of the match, on the back of bad luck".

On a possible solution for such eventualities, the former England batter said, "If a player suffers a new injury such as a broken bone or pulls a muscle so badly that they cannot play a further part in the game -- injuries that can easily be proven by a scan and an independent doctor -- they can be replaced by a like-for-like substitute after two innings of the match.

"Before the match, each player could have an allocated replacement for both injuries and concussion, pre-approved by both teams. There would be some logistical issues, more for the home team than the tourists, who tend to have a bigger group of players at the venue. But it is not insurmountable."

He admitted that replacement rules are "more open to abuse" closer to the end of a game, but if the substitutes are pre-named -- batsman for batsman, spinner for spinner -- and managed well by the match referee, it could be handled very well.

"I take concussion very seriously and applaud the game for bringing in subs for it a few years ago. But I do find it bizarre that that is the only reason you can have a sub.

"You can be hit on the head because you have played a short ball really poorly - effectively that you lack skill in that department - and you can be replaced."

Vaughan, though, felt that Pant's shot off Chris Woakes on the first day that led to his injury was "stupid", and he would "have been better off playing the ball more classically".

"But it was just dumb luck, pure and simple, that it ended up breaking his foot. Of course the rub of the green does come into Test cricket at the toss and in how overhead conditions change, but in a contest that is so heated, so hard-thought ... I find it very odd that we do not allow a substitute for a very clearly incapacitated player, to retain the competitive balance."

Recounting near identical "chivalrous" acts in the past, Vaughan said, "Nobody injured (in the past) has resembled Pant, if only because nobody when fit has resembled Pant, the most maverick of Test cricketers to date.

"Never mind that the injury was self-inflicted to all intents - any sensible person would not have tried to reverse-sweep Chris Woakes. Still, it was a valiant act when he hobbled out half-an-hour before lunch on day two, his right shoe bigger and more substantially padded than his left.

"Fainter hearts would not have fancied a bat against Ben Stokes operating at full throttle in grey light."