Alastair Cook suggests a change to new ball rule in Test cricket

London [UK], September 2 (ANI): Former England captain Alastair Cook suggested a new rule in Test cricket, that is to make the second new ball available at any point, but use it till 160 overs.

Cook, who played 161 Tests for England and scored 12,472 runs for the Three Lions at an average of 45.35, with 33 centuries, was speaking on the Stick to Cricket podcast.

Speaking during the podcast, he said, "A new rule I would add would be how about, in 160 overs, you can take the new ball whenever you want? You have got two new balls for those 160 overs, and you can take that second ball whenever you want. You could take one after 30 overs if you wanted to."

Currently, the bowling side are offered a new ball after 80 overs. The availability of new ball came under major spotlight during the recently-concluded India tour of England, during which the Dukes ball would get out of shape within very less time, some time, as early as within first 10 overs.

Also, former English captain Michael Vaughan, who was also a part of the podcast, called for use of substitutes, not only for concussions, but also for serious injuries during a Test match, like the ones Rishabh Pant faced during two back-to-back Tests against England, a finger injury at Lord's, then a foot injury at Manchester. Despite his injuries, Pant fulfilled his responsibilities as a batter, garnering plenty of acclaim for his courage and determination, but it was Dhruv Jurel who filled in the space with his gloves behind the stumps. But Vaughan also called for "independent" doctors to decide the extent of an injury.

"In the first innings of the game, like-for-like, Rishabh Pant at Lord's is the perfect example," explained Vaughan.

"He takes a knock to his left hand, so he can bat, but he cannot keep - Dhruv Jurel comes on and keeps for him. You cannot spend the whole game off the field, not fielding and then bat. Nathan Lyon at Lord's in the last Ashes popped his calf early - is the game worse off for losing a player early in the game?"

"We have concussion subs, so if somebody gets hit early on the swede, you can replace that person. So why do not we have substitutes? All of the other sports have it - why are we allowing the game to be reduced in quality if someone gets a clip."

"The key to it will be an independent doctor on-site, but the independence will be very difficult to manage. But I think Test cricket now should have subs. It is got to be a serious injury - it might have to be if you have got a bone break. Or you have to have a scan to prove. Nathan Lyon had clearly popped his calf badly, and he is not going to play any part in the game. Should Australia have had a sub that day? I think so," he concluded. (ANI)

(This content is sourced from a syndicated feed and is published as received. The Tribune assumes no responsibility or liability for its accuracy, completeness, or content.)