who is the english player most likely to scratch the ball

[Cabinet96]

I doubt they actually tamper with the ball. They obviously do things that are a bit naughty, such as throwing it in on the bounce, in order to scruff it up, but I'd be very surprised if they actually dug their nails in.

You don't need to really. Reverse swing isn't half as difficult to achieve as people seem to make out. I get it swinging the other way in club games quite a bit if it's a dry day.

 

[Adders]

Lots of criticism of Willis' comments in the media BUT why would an Englishman, working for an English company, accuse an Englishman of cheating in a match played in England and being broadcast to millions of Englishmen?

Because it is Bob Willis. He's built a career on shock factor.

Having said that though I'm not dismissing this out of hand and I agree with flibbertyjibber, if there is any evidence then it needs to be dealt with. Trouble is, say it is Bopara and they can dig up evidence to show he was doing something untoward with the ball then he'll take the fall for something that MUST be a team plan.........not sure that's right.

And the cynic in me is now wondering if that's why Ravi is now on ball shining duty and not Cook.........Bopara is dispensable, Cook isn't.

But, all this speculation is a bit of nonsense until something official is said and some evidence put on the table, right now it's just Bob Willis grabbing some headlines.

 

[hendrix]

I doubt they actually tamper with the ball. They obviously do things that are a bit naughty, such as throwing it in on the bounce, in order to scruff it up, but I'd be very surprised if they actually dug their nails in.

You don't need to really. Reverse swing isn't half as difficult to achieve as people seem to make out. I get it swinging the other way in club games quite a bit if it's a dry day.

yeah this.

It was frikken dry conditions with a practice block.

I strongly dislike how the umpires are also asking the players to keep the ball off the ground when throwing into the wicket.

That is not the place of the umpires.

 

[Adders]

yeah this.

It was frikken dry conditions with a practice block.

I strongly dislike how the umpires are also asking the players to keep the ball off the ground when throwing into the wicket.

That is not the place of the umpires.

Perhaps some of you more knowledgeable folk can explain this to me, cos this is something I've never understood...........

So the theory behind reverse swing is that you want one side of the ball scuffed up while maintaining the shine on the other. Throwing the ball back in on the bounce is done to assist scuffing up the rough side, but when they throw the ball in on the bounce how on earth do they know what side will hit the dirt?? Surely there is just as much chance of damaging the side they are looking after??

Clearly the theory works but it just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[social]

Hate to tell you guys but throwing the ball into the ground on purpose can be construed as ball tampering and the umps have every right to put a stop to it

 

[hendrix]

Hate to tell you guys but throwing the ball into the ground on purpose can be construed as ball tampering and the umps have every right to put a stop to it

obviously if you're just going to be throwing it on the ground then yes, but it sets a pretty dangerous precedent. People throw in on the bounce if they're trying to hit the stumps. That's perfectly legitimate. If there's a byproduct that means the ball gets scuffed up, so be it.

To me it's perfectly reasonable for a fielding team to try to avoid the ground when they're looking to preserve conventional swing, and throw in on the bounce more when they're looking to achieve some reverse with an older ball.

 

[NUFAN]

I voted Cook because I thought he was the designated ball shiner, but if Ravi is doing it - its likely it was him. Obvious joke answer is Broad though, since he's likely to have manicures.

 

[Adders]

Hate to tell you guys but throwing the ball into the ground on purpose can be construed as ball tampering and the umps have every right to put a stop to it

There are so many "grey" areas when it comes to so called ball tampering that I don't see how it is possible to legislate against. You object to the ball coming in on the bounce, but as Hendrix points out, it's done for a reason when having a shy at the stumps. What about a throw in from the boundary (think Monty Panasar) is that supposed to come in on the full every time? Of course sometimes it's done deliberately but who's to say what's OK and what's not??

We'd all agree that the use of bottle tops or Afridi biting the ball are a step too far, but then surely just the mere shining of the ball is artificially manipulating it.......then you've got rubbing saliva onto it (mint induced or otherwise). How on earth can anyone say what's acceptable and what's not when every side is doing some form of it or another.

Reverse swing is a wonderful and fascinating art and the game is better for it, but surely the whole phenomenon only comes about from what some people see as dodgy tactics?? Personally I think the game has been weighted too far towards the batsmen, and if this is something in favour of the bowler then some leniency needs to be given. Just don't know where the line is drawn is all.

 

[Dan]

Perhaps some of you more knowledgeable folk can explain this to me, cos this is something I've never understood...........

So the theory behind reverse swing is that you want one side of the ball scuffed up while maintaining the shine on the other. Throwing the ball back in on the bounce is done to assist scuffing up the rough side, but when they throw the ball in on the bounce how on earth do they know what side will hit the dirt?? Surely there is just as much chance of damaging the side they are looking after??

Clearly the theory works but it just doesn't make sense to me.

What you've outlined there is the conditions for regular swing. Reverse, IIRC, occurs when the rough side of the ball is roughed up so much that it begins to take on the characteristics of the shiny side, and the previously-shiny side is roughed up just enough take on the characteristics of the rough side. Hence it swings towards the shiny side, going the reverse of what you would expect.

So you visually see a rougher side and a shinier side, but in terms of swing, what looks shiny acts as the rough, and what looks rough acts as if its shiny.

I think the scientific explanation is to do with air pockets and pressure as the air flows around the moving ball or something.

 

[Senile Sentry]

What we are also witnessing is an unofficial ICC clampdown on England's habit of throwing the ball into the stumps on the bounce to deliberately roughen up the ball. The technique is entirely legal - and it is adopted by England not just because it can hasten the arrival of reverse swing but because it gets the ball to the stumps faster. You can hardly legislate against that.

David Hopps, taking sucking up to new levels. Ravi Shastri would be proud.

Lots of rumour, but no evidence in ball-tampering claims | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[sachin200]

I am 99% sure England has tampered with the ball because

1. Bob Wills, an English man is accusing them of tampering
2. Ravi Bopara being assigned the "shiner" tells you they actually had a team PLAN to it so even if he gets caught Cook doesn't get punished because of the Ashes coming up

 

[Daemon]

I'm sort of midway between Furball and FJ's views.

If there's proof then they should be dealt with accordingly. I don't think it warrants a ban for an entire Test Series though, what did Afridi get again? That said they should legalize ball tampering that doesn't involve the use of foreign objects. If the umpires feel they've damaged the ball too much in attempting to get reverse swing they can always just get a replacement. Pretty sure it's done heaps at lower levels anyways and banning it outright in international cricket makes little sense.

 

[social]

obviously if you're just going to be throwing it on the ground then yes, but it sets a pretty dangerous precedent. People throw in on the bounce if they're trying to hit the stumps. That's perfectly legitimate. If there's a byproduct that means the ball gets scuffed up, so be it.

To me it's perfectly reasonable for a fielding team to try to avoid the ground when they're looking to preserve conventional swing, and throw in on the bounce more when they're looking to achieve some reverse with an older ball.

Firstly, the last thing that you want to do when trying to hit the stumps is throw on the bounce as it slows up the throw and has the potential to divert the ball's direction

Secondly, it's illegal if sides are doing it to change the condition of the ball

 

[Adders]

David Hopps, taking sucking up to new levels.

I reckon it's a reasonable enough article and the headline is spot on IMO "Lots of rumour, but no hard evidence"

There may very well be something here and I'm certainly not the sort of England fan that thinks our **** don't stink..........but until there is a complaint and some evidence put on the table, all it is rumour.

 

[Senile Sentry]

I reckon it's a reasonable enough article and the headline is spot on IMO "Lots of rumour, but no hard evidence"

There may very well be something here and I'm certainly not the sort of England fan that thinks our **** don't stink..........but until there is a complaint and some evidence put on the table, all it is rumour.

Yes I agree nothing has been formally put in hold, but remember this was not the approach that CI or any media followed in case of Laxman Sivaramakrishnan's appointment to ICC panel. Also it is biased in tone - see the quote below:

The ICC continues to insist that the ball that was changed during England's tie against Sri Lanka was misshapen, but there is confusion over whether the ball could still fit through the gauge. One England official said 'yes', so justifying Cook's anger that the ball had been changed; another England official later said 'no', which thereby supported the view that the ball was misshapen and dampened down gossip about ball tampering.

When umpire Dar checked the ball in the Sri Lanka match, he hid it under a big blue towel so none of the cameras could see what was happening. Cricket has always given the public information it deserves on a need-to-know basis, but such checks need to be made publicly.

Even if the ball didn't go through the gauge, it would not quite prove everything. One respected umpire used to carry around a gauge designed for women's cricket, where the ball is smaller. Whenever he suspected there was ball tampering going on, he would change the ball on the grounds that it had become misshapen and would not go through the gauge.

What is he trying to suggest? Conspiracy on part of Aleem Dar and ICC?

And adding to this is his pseudo-scientific claim that balls thrown full toss travel slower than what thrown one pitch.

In slightly unrelated context, the dude was happily opening his pompous bulletin with the claim, "Sangakkara/Jayawardene and Dilshan never have had their hands on an ICC ODI Trophy". For a person who is the country editor of Cricinfo, that is an absurd miss and worse fact is despite pointing out, he never bothered to fix it.

 

[Daemon]

Yes I agree nothing has been formally put in hold, but remember this was not the approach that CI or any media followed in case of Laxman Sivaramakrishnan's appointment to ICC panel. Also it is biased in tone - see the quote below:

Lol, **** off

What is he trying to suggest? Conspiracy on part of Aleem Dar and ICC?

Yeah, that bit was odd. Seems like they're trying to implicate Dar in all this.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Lol, **** off

Classy.

 

[uvelocity]

Perhaps some of you more knowledgeable folk can explain this to me, cos this is something I've never understood...........

So the theory behind reverse swing is that you want one side of the ball scuffed up while maintaining the shine on the other. Throwing the ball back in on the bounce is done to assist scuffing up the rough side, but when they throw the ball in on the bounce how on earth do they know what side will hit the dirt?? Surely there is just as much chance of damaging the side they are looking after??

Clearly the theory works but it just doesn't make sense to me.

throw the ball side arm addsy with the seam horizontal. also by shining the one side it's enough of a difference even though it hits both sides from time to time. in the first couple of overs you designate a rough side and pity the fool that ****s up and shines the wrong side.

 

[Daemon]

Classy.

Go on posting with that chip on your shoulder, can't wait to see you bunned.

 

[Burgey]

I am 99% sure England has tampered with the ball because

1. Bob Wills, an English man is accusing them of tampering
2. Ravi Bopara being assigned the "shiner" tells you they actually had a team PLAN to it so even if he gets caught Cook doesn't get punished because of the Ashes coming up

Hard to argue with this. There's no underhanded technique the Poms won't stoop to.