'Impact Player Rule Hurting Indian National Team Has Killed The...': Former Indian Player Lashes Out

Introduced as yet another tweaked rendition of the ‘Super Sub’ rule that we cricket fans have witnessed in ODIs, the Impact Player rule in the IPL has made for quite some talk around cricketing circles.

Whilst the promise and deliverance of added entertainment, mostly in the form of increased batting prowess at display, has certainly been met with the introduction of the Impact Player rule, one question still remains: at what cost?

Well, at the cost of never truly understanding and getting the best out of our players, says a former Indian cricketer-turned-broadcaster, according to reports from PTI.

Stay updated with the latest from IPL 2024, including top contenders for the IPL 2024 Orange Cap and IPL 2024 Purple Cap. Explore the complete IPL 2024 Schedule, IPL 2024 Points Table and players with the Most Sixes, Most Fours and Most Fifties in IPL 2024

According the the source, an argument could be made that the Impact Player rule has rendered the aspect of fitness and the appreciation of true all-rounders as it diminishes their skillset and categorizes them into one certain box.

“The ‘Impact Player’ rule, which is basically a glorified ’12-a-side’ cricket contest has been good for IPL viewership but detrimental for Indian cricket. It has killed the concept of all-rounder and hence a half-fit Hardik Pandya also has premium value because he can bowl,” he stated.

“Think about it, if there was no Impact Player rule, could MS Dhoni (not Ruturaj Gaikwad) as CSK ‘skipper’ afford to not bowl Dube? Selectors don’t know about Dube’s bowling form.

“Similarly, a guy like Rahul Tewatia is no longer in contention despite being a good finisher, who also used to be a handy leg-break bowler. He doesn’t bowl now as he is an ‘Impact Player’. Who is it hurting? The national team,” he pointed out.

Now, as discussed, one thing can be positively said about the rule as well. It has definitely added another element of surprise and unpredictability to the game, as teams get to make changes on the fly depending on their position in the game, making for added entertainment for the spectators.

And of course, in terms of managing injuries, the rule is an added layer of protection, allowing players to rest or be substituted depending on the situation.

But, the cons far outweigh the pros of the rule.

For starters, the diminishing value of all-rounders, as stated above, is a pressing issue. There now exists a vacuum within which certain niche role players are able to thrive. And in the larger picture, this spells trouble for the future of the national team, as players become more one-dimensional to suit their needs and wants and discredit the value of work ethic.

When time comes to represent at the international level, a lack of multi-discipline players who are well-rounded in their skillsets would prove to be a dire issue.

Despite the game moving towards a more fan-centric experience, nobody else benefits more from such rule changes than those in power, who profit off the eyeballs they capture, whilst the integrity and the future of the gentleman’s game is tarnished all in the name of capital.

Given the monopoly that exists in the field of cricket in our country, ultimately they are the only ones benefit as they weaponise and strengthen the chokehold they already possess over the game. And as the years roll on and the game, as a whole, continues to deteriorate at the whim and greed of the`bourgeoisie.