Ball tampering, does every team do it?

[G.I.Joe]

You were the one that brought the "wickets ftw" group into things ITFP; I only mentioned the "runs ftw" group.

Honestly, the "wickets ftw" group is so small it barely registers; the "runs ftw" group on the other hand is massive.

The holding of the ill informed argument is what defines the ignoramus, not the number of those who do so.

 

[silentstriker]

I know you said that, which is what I disagree with if its meant to be accepted as a sort of theorem. We could cite examples for both sides of the argument, which if anything shows that you can't state it as such.

Like what? India had great batting lineup for a while but didn't become #1 until their bowling improved (and actually CW ranking has them at #3, but we'll ignore this point for now ). Wasim and Waqar were great but in their early career WI had better bowling then Pakistan, and better batting. Later on, Australia had at least equivalent bowling, and better batting.

 

[Richard]

I don't disagree that bowlers are treated roughly in the game. And I definitely prefer to see the give and take of runs and wickets. But that's from a spectator's perspective. From the perspective of a team, success is winning, not winnings some, losing some, and always providing a definitive result.

Yeah, but if you've got a really weak bowling attack you know you've next to no chance of winning anything; if you've a powerful bowling attack and weak batting you're probably going to lose lots but you've got a chance of winning, unlike in the former scenario.

 

[silentstriker]

I really can't think of any other way to say that. But I'll try, just for you...

A balance of good batting and bowling is what you need to win in cricket. One or the other is, on a long term basis, not enough.

Therefore bowling is not > batting. Just as batting is not > bowling.

Yes, balance > either bowling or batting.

However, the question was, which discipline contributes more to winning a matches? Just as I'd argue catching is more important than ground fielding (and that doesn't mean either is useless!), I would argue that bowling contributes more to a team being good than batting.

I never said bowling alone is better than balance.

 

[Richard]

The holding of the ill informed argument is what defines the ignoramus, not the number of those who do so.

But the point I was originally making in this post was that the influence of a large group of ignoramuses (almost by definition large groups have fair influence and small groups have none) affects the enjoyment of what I'd call the non-ignoramuses - ie, those who like to see balance between bat and ball.

I've hardly met anyone who wants to see constant scores of 90ao - I was the one who brought-up the ignoramuses, so it's the ignoramuses I was talking about, not the ones I wasn't, who are relevant to the discussion.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Like what? India had great batting lineup for a while but didn't become #1 until their bowling improved (and actually CW ranking has them at #3, but we'll ignore this point for now ). Wasim and Waqar were great but in their early career WI had better bowling then Pakistan, and better batting. Later on, Australia had at least equivalent bowling, and better batting.

Oh no. If anything the batting stocks have risen with the insertion of Gambhir, the reintroduction of Sehwag, Tendulkar rediscovering his form. Kumble and Srinath are gone. The batsmen won India the series that catapulted them to #1.

 

[silentstriker]

Wow, if you think the rise (which started under Ganguly, from the bleak 90s) was due to better batting rather than better bowling, we'll just agree to disagree there. That's a much bigger gulf in our views than I think can be resolved. I'll leave it here.

 

[G.I.Joe]

But the point I was originally making in this post was that the influence of a large group of ignoramuses (almost by definition large groups have fair influence and small groups have none) affects the enjoyment of what I'd call the non-ignoramuses - ie, those who like to see balance between bat and ball.

I've hardly met anyone who wants to see constant scores of 90ao - I was the one who brought-up the ignoramuses, so it's the ignoramuses I was talking about, not the ones I wasn't, who are relevant to the discussion.

Odd that the post you agreed with nowhere near mentions parity of bat and ball.

 

[Uppercut]

No one can say anything as crude as bowlers>batsmen or wickets>runs, but I do think sides with a mediocre batting lineup and a killer attack tend to be better than those the other way round. Or, to put it another way, the gap between the very best bowlers and the rest is greater than the gap between the very best batsmen and the rest in terms of contribution.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yeah, but if you've got a really weak bowling attack you know you've next to no chance of winning anything; if you've a powerful bowling attack and weak batting you're probably going to lose lots but you've got a chance of winning, unlike in the former scenario.

So from a results perspective, sure, power to the bowlers. From the perspective of winning more often than losing, you have to have balance.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yes, balance > either bowling or batting.

However, the question was, which discipline contributes more to winning a matches? Just as I'd argue catching is more important than ground fielding (and that doesn't mean either is useless!), I would argue that bowling contributes more to a team being good than batting.

I never said bowling alone is better than balance.

I don't think either contributes more than the other though.

You say you have to take 20 wickets to win a match. - Bowling
But you also have to defend your 20 wickets better than the opposition. - Batting

Yes, a good bowling attack is vital to winning matches. But at the end of the day everyone has to bat, and the point of the game is, when all is said and done, you score more than the other team.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Wow, if you think the rise (which started under Ganguly, from the bleak 90s) was due to better batting rather than better bowling, we'll just agree to disagree there. That's a much bigger gulf in our views than I think can be resolved. I'll leave it here.

Would you care to hazard a guess as to which component of the two (bat or ball) saw an improvement from the 90's to the 00's, and which regressed, as far as India is concerned?

 

[Richard]

So from a results perspective, sure, power to the bowlers. From the perspective of winning more often than losing, you have to have balance.

Of course you have - no-one's said otherwise. All we've said is that if you want to win you have to have good bowlers; if you want to win lots you have to have good bowlers and batsmen. Good batsmen alone will win you less than good bowlers alone will: good batsmen alone will win you matches only when you win the toss, bat first on a flat deck and are faced with opposition who routinely crumble in the face of massive totals however moderate the bowling; good bowlers alone almost always have a chance, even if merely an outside one, of winning you the match.

 

[AaronK]

NO.. they don't.. no one is stupied enough to do it infront of all those camra ans life t.v..

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Of course you have - no-one's said otherwise. All we've said is that if you want to win you have to have good bowlers; if you want to win lots you have to have good bowlers and batsmen. Good batsmen alone will win you less than good bowlers alone will: good batsmen alone will win you matches only when you win the toss, bat first on a flat deck and are faced with opposition who routinely crumble in the face of massive totals however moderate the bowling; good bowlers alone almost always have a chance, even if merely an outside one, of winning you the match.

But my point is that you won't win more than you lose if you just have good bowlers. Bowlers simply are not more important than batsmen. And that's exactly what was being said and argued.

 

[Richard]

Would you care to hazard a guess as to which component of the two (bat or ball) saw an improvement from the 90's to the 00's, and which regressed, as far as India is concerned?

I don't know that either improved, but I'd certainly say bowling and batting regressed. I'd take a composite Indian side of, say, 1990-2002 (I say 2002 because it's the obvious watershed for the biggest Indian player of all, Tendulkar) over one of 2003-2009, thus:
Sidhu
AN Other (can be almost anyone)
Dravid
Tendulkar
Azharuddin
Ganguly
Mongia
Kumble
Srinath
Prasad
AN Other (would be Sunil Joshi at home and that'd make a damn good attack actually)
vs.
Jaffer\Gambhir
Sehwag
Dravid
Tendulkar
Laxman
Ganguly\Yuvraj\Kaif\AN Other
Karthik\Dhoni
Kumble
Harbhajan Singh
Munaf Patel
AN Other (would be Ishant Sharma later on, having maybe been Sreesanth and Pathan earlier)

Of those in both sides, Dravid went forwards then backwards (so instead of lots of excellence you got a spell of brilliance and a spell of paucity - which is best is anyone's guess), Tendulkar went backwards, Ganguly went backwards then forwards and Kumble went forwards. Of the rest only Laxman instead of Azhar is what I'd call a real improvement, added obviously to Sehwag instead of an ever-changing other opener but for obvious reasons I don't consider that a fair comparison.

But obviously the fact that there is no team which remains the same either for 13 years nor 7 years means that "India 1990s vs. India 2000s" is so far from a real category (because both were ever-changing, as all sides are over such lengthy periods as a decade) that it's difficult to draw real comparisons.

 

[Richard]

But my point is that you won't win more than you lose if you just have good bowlers. Bowlers simply are not more important than batsmen. And that's exactly what was being said and argued.

I think bowlers are more important than batsmen not because either category can make a side win more than they lose against a side with both good batsmen and bowlers (obviously either will do against a side with bad bowlers and bad batsmen), but because the injection of good bowlers can make more of a difference than the injection of good batsmen can.

 

[Richard]

I don't think either contributes more than the other though.

You say you have to take 20 wickets to win a match. - Bowling
But you also have to defend your 20 wickets better than the opposition. - Batting

Yes, a good bowling attack is vital to winning matches. But at the end of the day everyone has to bat, and the point of the game is, when all is said and done, you score more than the other team.

But scoring more than the opposition is useless if you don't take 20 wickets. Batsmen's contribution to a victory only comes into the equation once bowlers have made theirs; bowlers alone can give a chance of victory; batsmen can merely either take or fail to take that chance.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I think bowlers are more important than batsmen not because either category can make a side win more than they lose against a side with both good batsmen and bowlers (obviously either will do against a side with bad bowlers and bad batsmen), but because the injection of good bowlers can make more of a difference than the injection of good batsmen can.

Of course. If you have poor bowling and poor batting, an injection of bowling is probably going to make you marginally more competitive, but you're still going to lose more often than not. An injection of batting (given that all cricket is essentially limited overs - 450, 50, 20) can make a team competitive insomuch as it can push for a draw more often than before. Neither is ideal. And no team is going to be a good one without a balance of quality.

 

[Burgey]

As I've said in the past, I don't actually have a problem with ball tampering. As long as you're not using foreign substances or implements on the ball, I think anything should go - ie using saliva or sweat is fine, using vaseline is not, gouging the ball with your fingernails or teeth is fine, using razors or bottle tops isn't.

Teams are allowed to shine the ball using saliva, I don't see why there's a distinction between shining one side of the ball and scuffing the other side.

Absolutely.. I think it should be legalized.. Batsmen get away with hell lot of stuff.. As long as no foreign object is used, why should it matter if you spit a bit and keep the shine or if you bite a bit and rough it up?

But that's a separate question entirely. It is the rule, and you're entitled to play to it.

Sweat mixed with suncream, like sugar-enhanced saliva, is in theory illegal, but in practice that is completely impossible to police. Thus anyone with a brain will do it and ensure they're not penalised.
I've said before that the ball-"tampering" law is a ridiculous one, as is the high-horse some get on over the whole issue.

As to does everyone do it, I've absolutely no doubt everyone did do it in the days when TV cameras were less intrusive and that many still do it at levels below international where they remain less intrusive. I imagine there is probably less of it now at Test and ODI level than ever (not zero of course, and you'd be a fool to think every instance of "tampering" is picked-up however many cameras there are) but that'd probably only be a pretty recent thing (last ~20 years) TBH.

This from the bloke who says batsmen should walk?