Duty of Care In Action … or not?

What a great summer of sport it has been and with more still to come. With great apologies (and huge congratulations) to the England Lionesses on retaining their European crown I’m going to concentrate on the men’s British and Irish Lions rugby and the men’s cricket teams – two sports I love dearly.

The Lions have completed a series win 2-1 in Australia but somehow it feels hollow. There has been a lot of media coverage about the place of the 2025 Lions alongside others – notably John Dawes’ side in New Zealand in 1971, Willie John McBride’s team in South Africa 3 years later and Martin Johnson’s pride of the Lions in 1997. I think a 2-1 victory against a poorly prepared team ranking #6 in the world at the start of their season says it all.

All of the 2025 Lions squad including the coaches led by the excellent Andy Farrell declared their desire to be the greatest ever team to pull on the jersey by being unbeaten. But they lost in the opener against an understrength Argentina) and so this was revised to a 3-0 series win whilst playing excellent showpiece rugby selling the game worldwide and to a largely uninterested Australian population more aligned to Aussies Rules, rugby league and cricket.

This is where duty of care to the players comes in. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but what about the team selection for the 3rd test? Andy Farrell asked the majority of his test 23 to go to the well one last time. That was how he thought the Lions had the best chance of a series whitewash. He’s paid a lot of money to make those calls and he was consistent in his belief. But what will be the impact on the players in terms of short-term recovery mentally and physically? Would it have been better to select others from what became a 43-man squad as new players replaced those injured? Others who were fresher mentally and physically. It’s a moot point and everyone is entitled to their opinions. Me included.

One other alarming statistic was that 5 of the Lions squad had to leave the pitch for Head Injury Assessments (HIAs) during the tour (3 in the final game, the dead rubber third test) and there was also one Australian. Have World Rugby as the overall custodians of the game got the right laws in place .. in this case tackle height? The laws were introduced for the right reasons but arguably with unforeseen consequences.

The Lions didn’t achieve their objective of a 3-0 series and becoming ‘The Invincibles. It will have been a fantastic experience for all the squad whatever their role. But it will be interesting to watch the demands on the players once the agreed rest period has expired and the new Premiership and United Rugby Championship get under way closely followed by the Autumn Internationals. Other than the relevant players’ associations who else is taking the long-term view? Who genuinely cares?

And then to the cricket and the sporting theatre that was the drawn series between England and India. Just brilliant. But let’s take a wider view. 8 English cricketers were either unavailable for selection due to injury either prior to or during the 5-match series. In addition there were 4 Indians and the excellent bowler Jasprit Bumrah who was rested to manage his workload after a knee operation.

Same question about duty of care (or not), different sport. The impact on the players of their workloads playing 52 weeks a year across high performance cricket and the many franchise leagues around the world is immense. As a result this 5 match test series was shoe-horned into a condensed season to leave room for the English Cricket Board’s money earner ‘The Hundred’ in the month of August. The result was there was little time for the players to recover mentally and physically – especially as all five of the tests in this series went the full five days. Short term financial gain, using the players as commodities. Never mind if these players are forced to retire early there are plenty more waiting in the wings. Oh and we won’t bother too much about the players’ welfare in the medium to long term post career either.

Ultimately though the players also have a duty of care to themselves too. And let’s contrast the decisions of two players in the two sports – Garry Ringrose of the Lions and Chris Woakes of the England cricket team.

Ringrose had had a head injury, suffering an earlier concussion during the match against the ACT Brumbies. Having gone through the necessary 12-day protocol he was eligible again for selection and was duly picked for the second test. His family travelled to watch him become a Test Lion – the ultimate in British rugby. Yet despite all of the pressure Ringrose took the brave decision himself to withdraw from the team. That selfless decision took great courage. It was the right one for him and his family in the long-term and what he did will be remembered as a positive legacy of the tour, in rugby and in other contact sports particularly.

Chris Woakes fell and dislocated his shoulder at the end of the first day and as a result was ruled out of any further involvement in the match. In the best interests of the player but also possibly because both he AND the selectors wanted him to be available for the long-awaited Ashes tour to Australia later in the year.

Then came the drama of the last day of the last test when England had been set 374 runs to win. The drama and the stage was set at the end of the penultimate day when England lost 2 late wickets leaving the team needing 57 runs to win with 4 wickets in hand on the start of the final day. But one of those wickets in hand was that of Woakes – who was not playing any further part remember. Or was he? There was a collapse and a heavily strapped Woakes with his arm in a sling under his jumper emerged from the pavilion to bat one handed with England still needing 17 runs. All in vain as it turned out.

Like Garry Ringrose, Chris Woakes was also incredibly brave but shouldn’t the coaching team, the medical team, Ben Stokes, or Ollie Pope (captain for the test due to Stokes’ shoulder injury) have made a better decision for him? Personally, I couldn’t watch or listen. Great theatre yes, but excruciating for Woakes (and all those watching). He too will be remembered for his part in that game.

People, leaders, custodians of sport all talk about player welfare being paramount, but it isn’t consistent in its application. Duty of care for the sport has generally turned into a money-making exercise due to poor administration and management in the past. People afraid to make difficult long-term decisions. Duty of care in action is more nuanced and needs all parties to be aligned taking long and short-term difficult decisions for the benefit of the athletes and the coaches especially. Will lessons from the summer of 2025 be learnt? Sadly, I suspect not.