Ringrose and Woakes: Contrasting Tales of Player Welfare
In the summer of 2025, two moments in elite sport captured the sharply contrasting approaches to player welfare. On one hand, Garry Ringrose, the British & Irish Lions centre, withdrew from the third and final Test against Australia after experiencing symptoms of concussion during training. On the other, Chris Woakes, the seasoned England all-rounder, walked out to bat in the final Test against India at The Oval, despite having dislocated his shoulder in the field just hours earlier. The contrast was striking.
Woakes' decision to go out to bat in pain and visibly hampered, was met with admiration. With England nine down and still requiring 17 runs to win, the moment was imbued with all the romanticism Test cricket can produce. There was a poetic, heroic quality to it - the wounded warrior emerging when all seemed lost. Despite England still going on to lose by 6 runs, had Woakes not come out, we would have been robbed of what many are calling one of the most iconic moments in Test cricket history.
But his decision was not purely one of personal bravery. In many ways, he had no choice. The traditions and expectations of Test cricket — particularly in the high-stakes cauldron of a match and a moment that decides a series – leaves players with little autonomy. The ethos of "getting on with it," of enduring pain for the cause, is deeply ingrained in the cricket’s fabric. Woakes’ courage is not in question, but the structures and norms that led him to that moment perhaps should be.
Contrast that with Ringrose's situation. A decade or so ago Ringrose, like Woakes may well have felt compelled to play on. Concussions in rugby – and indeed cricket – were once naively brushed off as "head knocks," with the expectation that players would continue regardless. Thankfully times have changed when it comes to concussion. On the back of recent and ongoing litigation from over 1000 former players, rugby union and rugby league have been forced to implement strategies designed to improve player welfare regarding head injury.
Ringrose’s personal withdrawal perhaps symbolises the increasing autonomy that players now feel to make an informed decision that will receive backing from coaches and the wider sport. Although surprising, it wasn’t dramatic. It didn’t produce a tearful walk-off or a last stand. It was clinical, cautious, and crucially, supported by medical protocols. It was widely applauded and indicative of the changing culture of prioritising long-term health over short-term performance.
Therein lies the tension.
No doubt the widespread introduction of better concussion protocols across sport provides essential protection for individual player health. Against this backdrop, the disregard for player welfare in the case of Woakes was stark. For his 0 not out, not only did Woakes have to cope with the obvious pain of running with a recently dislocated shoulder, but also with 3-4 days of the pressure, fear and anxiety of the prospect of going out to bat with one arm. There is no doubting his amazing courage, and had he not walked out, Test cricket would have missed one of its most spine-tingling moments. But were the risks and the pain endured by Woakes worth the benefit to the spectacle? Some may argue yes, but just as playing through concussion is increasingly seen as unacceptable, it seems likely that growing calls for improved player welfare (such as injury substitutes in Test cricket) will soon consign such moments to history.
