Time for ICC to overhaul 15-man squad limit amid spate of injuries

Picture the scene: two of France's centre-backs have gone down with niggles, so a third is summoned halfway across the world 48 hours before a vital FIFA World Cup match. "We couldn't risk being a defender down for Saturday," explains Didier Deschamps, their manager, while awaiting scan results for his first-choice pairing.

The idea seems anachronistic, not least in a sport that allows squads of up to 26 players at its World Cup. Yet it is exactly the situation facing New Zealand at the Cricket World Cup after Lockie Ferguson and Matt Henry's injuries left them with no choice but to fly Kyle Jamieson to Bengaluru as cover for Saturday's game against Pakistan.

Cricket is not football, and the existence of substitutions clearly demands a bigger squad in one than the other. But with several teams in India experiencing an availability crisis - Australia are picking from a squad of 13 against England on Saturday - it is time for the ICC to discuss the 15-man limit on squads at world events.

The issue was not raised internally at the ICC in the build-up to the World Cup but teams can propose a change via the men's cricket committee - which incidentally, Gary Stead, New Zealand's coach, sits on - or the chief executives' committee. It is time they do so, because the current level is needlessly strict.

New Zealand have been affected worse than most teams by injuries and left themselves open to the possibility of an availability crisis when they retained Kane Williamson in their squad despite his fractured thumb. But their scramble to find 11 fit players is a direct function of the tight cap on squad numbers.

"15 men is not enough," Steve Harmison said on ESPNcricinfo's Matchday show. "There's a lot of teams now having injuries at this time - and they're all muscle injuries. There's a lot of muscle injuries because you play, you travel, you play… it's not easy getting around India for nine games in this space of time."

The overall impact is to damage the quality of the game: players are selected even if they are not fully fit due to the lack of viable alternatives, and teams are forced to rebalance their sides in the event of injury, even if they may not want to. It is a situation that suits nobody.

There is a skill in selecting a squad versatile enough to overcome multiple injuries - but players can become unavailable at any time for any reason, as Australia's absentees this week have shown: if Glenn Maxwell's freak concussion was avoidable, then Mitchell Marsh's return home for family reasons was clearly not.

Another drawback is that selecting first-choice players who are carrying injuries - as Australia and New Zealand did with Travis Head and Williamson - becomes much more of a gamble than it should be. If the aim is to ensure the best players are involved, an extra two or three spots in a squad would help achieve that.

The principal argument against bigger squads is financial. Under current regulations, the ICC funds travel, accommodation and expenses for 15 squad members and eight support staff, with teams left to foot the bill in the event that they wish to bring travelling reserves or additional staff - as many do.

For most boards, the additional expenditure is nothing more than a rounding error on their balance sheet, but consider the Netherlands. Their travelling reserves, Noah Croes and Kyle Klein, have flown economy class and shared twin rooms throughout the World Cup, at a combined expense of around €22,000 across six weeks; according to the KNCB, that is more than the total cost of a short 'A' team tour to England.

In theory, smaller squads should help competitive balance, denying the best teams the opportunity to use their depth. In practice, smaller teams are affected just as badly: Sri Lanka have carried - and paid for - travelling reserves, and have used more players in the tournament than anyone else.

The 15-man cap has been constant since the 1999 World Cup despite fundamental changes to the sport and the format. There has been a marked shift in the physical demands on players, the athleticism that 50-over cricket requires and the tournament lasts significantly longer.

There is also scope for more flexibility within a seven-week tournament for players to come in and out of squads. If the ICC insist on keeping the cap at 15, there should be reasonable scope for teams to replace players for a set period: if Henry is ruled out for the next week, why shouldn't Jamieson be able to join the squad as cover for two games?

At one stage of their defeat to South Africa on Wednesday, New Zealand only had 11 players fit enough to field; the same could be true for them against Pakistan this weekend. Their plight should be enough to prompt change.