'Not like for like': Buttler fumes as India's concussion sub makes big impact

Shivam Dube made his presence and absence count in the fourth T20I against England in Pune on Friday and Jos Buttler was not too amused. The England skipper vented out his displeasure after India used a concussion sub for the all-rounder. The replacement, Harisht Rana, was as impactful with the ball as Dube was with the bat.

"Either Shivam Dube has put on about 25 mph with the ball or Harshit has really improved his batting." Buttler fumed. "It's not a like-for-like replacement, we don't agree with that. It's part of the game, I still think we should have gone on to win the match but we disagree with the decision." The England skipper did not try to mince words after India won the game 15 runs to take an insurmountable 3-1 lead in the five-match series. The fifth and final T20I is at the Wankhede in Mumbai on Sunday.

Dube, batting at No 6, hammered a typically belligerent half century (53) before being run out off the last ball of the Indian innings. A ball earlier (19.5), he was hit on the helmet. India brought in Rana as a concussion substitute when they fielded. Buttler said he will take up the matter as there was no consultation.

"There's no consultation. It was something as I came out to bat, I was thinking 'who's Harshit on for' and I was told he was the concussion replacement, which I obviously disagreed with, it's not a like-for-like replacement. They [umpires] said the match referee had made the decision so we had no say in it or any part of it. We'll ask Javagal Srinath [match referee] some questions just to get some clarity around it."

According to ICC rules, the match referee is needed to approve the concussion sub. Normally, it has to be a like for like replacement and the substitute is not expected to give a dramatic advantage to the team.

Whether it was a like-for-like or not was a matter of interpretation. Dube is a left-hander and Rana is a right-hander. But both Rana and Dube are right-handed bowlers. But the English camp thinks Rana gave a huge advantage to India. "No, we had no consultation in the game or were asked about it. It's not the whole reason why we didn't win the match and we had our chances to win the game, which we could have still taken. But yeah, I'd like to just get a bit of clarity around that," Buttler complained.

There was no question asked on the issue at the post-match presentation but the consensus among the commentators was that the England management had every right to be peeved. It felt like an Impact Player rule of the IPL where teams field 12 players. "Maybe at the toss next game I'll say we're going to play 12 as well," Buttler said in a rather lighter vein. But he looked both unhappy and upset at the post match media interaction.

Rana had not played a T20I before this match – he had two Tests under his belt. In his quota of overs, he claimed the wickets of Liam Livingstone, Jacob Bethel and Jamie Overton and his strikes came in his first over (12th) and then in the final over (19th) as England collapsed to 166 after being 62 for no loss at one stage. Pointed out that England did not lose the match because of Rana, Buttler said the replacement helped the Indian win. "No, he didn't [win the game on his own], but he helped."