Simon Jones' injury was bad luck for England. Not only did England lose their quickest bowler, they have been left a bowler short for the rest of the Test match.

Cricket is one of the only team sports which does not allow for replacement of players. Soccer does, rugby does, basketball does. However, these are not sports which last up to five days.

But is there merit in cricket sides being able to replace an injured player? Cricket is the most traditional of games and you might be hard-pressed to convince the purists that the change is worthwhile.

It has also been the inability to replace injured players which have brought the game some of its most heroic moments. Such as the time Eddie Paynter came out of hospital to hit the winning runs for England in the fourth Test of the Bodyline Series.

How could anyone ever forget Rick McCosker coming out to bat in the Centenary Test with a broken jaw. Coming in at the fall of the eighth wicket, his 25 runs, and his partnership with Rodney Marsh, proved the difference.

That's batsmen and there is no doubt that cricket is a batsman's game because if you are a bowler and are injured, it's doubtful that you would be able to bowl. And it's not like you have to. That tenth wicket may prove the difference but if you can't bowl, the ball is simply thrown to another bowler.

Maybe one solution is to allow the 12th man to bowl. Who knows?

Cricket has embraced the technologies which are available and updated the game to complement the modern age. The whole concept of the twelfth man, substitutes and replacements is something which the ICC should look at modernising next.

© David Wiseman

This report does not necessarily represent the views of the Australian Cricket Board.