Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
What about if everyone realises the importance of it and this makes sure there's always someone in the team who does?
Everyone's on an even footing then.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Allan Donald - 'Legalise ball tampering'
- Thread starter DIRK-NANNES
- Start date
Everyone's on an even footing then.
Pigeon
Banned
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Can see the headlines now:
Freddie still haunting Australia
Freddie still haunting Australia
Streetwise
Banned
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Pigeon
Banned
Manee
Cricketer Of The Year
Wrote an article for another site about the issue. It is by no means a great article but hopefully worth a read.
Just say yes to ball tampering
The great South African fast bowler, Allan Donald, suggested, last week, that bowlers be allowed to “prepare” the ball to help rebalance cricket which favours the batsmen now, perhaps more than ever before. Donald’s claims that cricket is shifting more and more towards a batsman’s game are not without merit – lifeless pitches have severely dented the aspect of fear attached to a genuinely quick bowler and dismissals appear increasingly due to batsman error than ever before, as witnessed in the Lords Test where several Australian batsmen were dismissed playing the pull and hook shots.
Donald spoke to Cricinfo, noting that fast bowlers are becoming a “dying breed…on these flatter wickets” but accepted the futility of his request: "That quite simply would never happen," he said.
However, the taboo related to “ball tampering” may be misplaced; Donald recalled an incident of a former fast bowler picking the leather off the ball recorded live on television to which no punishment followed. Moreover, he cited the England bowling attack throwing the balls into the ground in order to rough up one side of the ball. Although unfounded accusations and subtle instances of manipulating the condition of the ball may not seem drastic nor show a widespread contempt of the laws, they show how such an extension of the laws to allow roughing up of the ball, just as laws currently allow shining of the ball, would not be a massive leap into the unknown.
Richard Hadlee suggested in the mid 1990s to allow ball tampering insofar as the bowlers and fielders using no artificial assistance such as a bottle cap but rather a finger nail or the dirt on the ground. I would heartily agree with such a policy – swing bowling is one of the great arts to watch and allowing bowlers to roughen one side to complement the current shining of the ball would, by no mean, undermine the art but more so make it more evident for both a spectator and a batsman to appreciate.
Of course, the ideal solution to the lifelessness of pitches would be to combat directly with more bowler friendly surfaces but as Test curators seek to have pitches play for five days and OD and T20 matches have six and ten run per over rates, there would appear to be an air of futility over the cry for better playing surfaces. The ICC has neither the control nor the manpower to enforce a policy of more sporting wickets but by expanding the laws over so-called ‘ball tampering’, they can help redress the balance of bat and ball which is horribly out of sorts in the modern day.
Drawing a line between the realistic and absurd is crucial here and I think Hadlee did so with admirable simplicity for a policy which can only seek to improve the spectator nature of cricket as well as the "dying breed of fast bowlers" as Donald would put it.
Just say yes to ball tampering
The great South African fast bowler, Allan Donald, suggested, last week, that bowlers be allowed to “prepare” the ball to help rebalance cricket which favours the batsmen now, perhaps more than ever before. Donald’s claims that cricket is shifting more and more towards a batsman’s game are not without merit – lifeless pitches have severely dented the aspect of fear attached to a genuinely quick bowler and dismissals appear increasingly due to batsman error than ever before, as witnessed in the Lords Test where several Australian batsmen were dismissed playing the pull and hook shots.
Donald spoke to Cricinfo, noting that fast bowlers are becoming a “dying breed…on these flatter wickets” but accepted the futility of his request: "That quite simply would never happen," he said.
However, the taboo related to “ball tampering” may be misplaced; Donald recalled an incident of a former fast bowler picking the leather off the ball recorded live on television to which no punishment followed. Moreover, he cited the England bowling attack throwing the balls into the ground in order to rough up one side of the ball. Although unfounded accusations and subtle instances of manipulating the condition of the ball may not seem drastic nor show a widespread contempt of the laws, they show how such an extension of the laws to allow roughing up of the ball, just as laws currently allow shining of the ball, would not be a massive leap into the unknown.
Richard Hadlee suggested in the mid 1990s to allow ball tampering insofar as the bowlers and fielders using no artificial assistance such as a bottle cap but rather a finger nail or the dirt on the ground. I would heartily agree with such a policy – swing bowling is one of the great arts to watch and allowing bowlers to roughen one side to complement the current shining of the ball would, by no mean, undermine the art but more so make it more evident for both a spectator and a batsman to appreciate.
Of course, the ideal solution to the lifelessness of pitches would be to combat directly with more bowler friendly surfaces but as Test curators seek to have pitches play for five days and OD and T20 matches have six and ten run per over rates, there would appear to be an air of futility over the cry for better playing surfaces. The ICC has neither the control nor the manpower to enforce a policy of more sporting wickets but by expanding the laws over so-called ‘ball tampering’, they can help redress the balance of bat and ball which is horribly out of sorts in the modern day.
Drawing a line between the realistic and absurd is crucial here and I think Hadlee did so with admirable simplicity for a policy which can only seek to improve the spectator nature of cricket as well as the "dying breed of fast bowlers" as Donald would put it.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
So long as everyone else has the option to do likewise, where's the problem?England will come up with a 12th man who has funny looking fingernails.
Majin
International Debutant
Would prefer to see a return of uncovered pitches, personally. Have always wanted to see how the ball reacted and what it was like playing on uncovered pitches that had been rained on was like. Not necessarily every single pitch in the world, but 1-2 uncovered pitches in a 5 match series would make things a lot more interesting imho. Balances things out in the bowlers favour a bit more, would test the batsmen to the limit as well. Shame it'll never happen. 
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Uncovered pitches - if it rains (obviously if it doesn't there's not much difference) - is essentially simply a means for taking the seamer out of the equation. If you allow the seamer to bowl on a wicket with any significant rain damage it's very dangerous to batsmen. Ergo, you have to allow the run-up and follow-through to be wettened as well, so the seamers cannot keep their feet. This brings fingerspinners massively into the game.
Not that I'm against there being more in wickets for fingerspinners, because in most places outside the subcontinent (and currently even plenty within) there's precious little in almost all Test pitches for them. But I hate the idea of the seamer being taken out of the game completely.
I just want to see more green and more really dry decks. And ideally less rain interference.
Not that I'm against there being more in wickets for fingerspinners, because in most places outside the subcontinent (and currently even plenty within) there's precious little in almost all Test pitches for them. But I hate the idea of the seamer being taken out of the game completely.
I just want to see more green and more really dry decks. And ideally less rain interference.
Majin
International Debutant
Interesting, why exactly does it make it so dangerous to batsmen? I would have assumed that a wet pitch would kill the pace and bounce of a ball, unless you were referring to a pitch that had been consistently rained on but had had a few days to dry out before a game. And was that also the process they used back when the pitches were uncovered anyway or what?
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
In the days of permanently uncovered wickets - ie, when no covering was standard practice - the only area that was ever covered was the bowler's landing area, where the stumps were inserted. No covers on the pitch, rest of square, bowler's follow-through, run-ups, or anywhere else. This meant that seamers could not operate on such surfaces, because they could not keep a footing.
However, in 1987 (or it may possibly have been 1986), an experiment was made with returning to uncovered pitches - this time, however, they did indeed cover the run-up and follow-through area. Apparently, many batsmen had several thoroughly nasty experiences that summer, and the idea was abandoned.
A wet pitch would indeed kill the pace and bounce. A wet pitch offers nothing to any bowler. It's a drying pitch that becomes extremely bowler-friendly, because a small crust forms on the top. This becomes even more exaggerated when you get bright sun immediately after the rain and the drying happens quickly - then you can get an out-and-out "sticky", which can be very nasty indeed.
On a drying pitch, both seamers and spinners can get the ball to pop through the top, and obviously spinners get far more grip, meaning only minimal sidespin is required to get decent turn. However, until the run-up and follow-through is completely dried, seamers cannot bowl properly.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
A sticky-dog wicket in England is perfectly playable (give or take Derek Underwood) and many batsman who played on them would say it sharpened their skills. A sticky in Australia, presumably because of difference in climate and soil, is for a short period of time impossible to bat on.
There was a famous Test Match in the Bradman era where the bowlers were sent out to bat first in the hope of the pitch drying out for when the batsman came in. England declared at 70 odd for 9 and Australia were reduced to 90 odd for 5 but by the time Bradman came out at number 7 the wicket had dried out and he made a double century in a total of over 500.
There was a famous Test Match in the Bradman era where the bowlers were sent out to bat first in the hope of the pitch drying out for when the batsman came in. England declared at 70 odd for 9 and Australia were reduced to 90 odd for 5 but by the time Bradman came out at number 7 the wicket had dried out and he made a double century in a total of over 500.
Mahindinho
State Vice-Captain
Surely detailed videos of the bowlers actually represent far more of an advantage for the batsmen?
Cricket by its nature is an uneven game -- the batsmen are reactive, reacting to what the bowlers deliver to them. You can argue that a good batsman can force the field to change, etc. but he still has to play every ball on its merits. If the batsmen knows what he's going to face, and therefore what he's got to react to, I think it gives him more of an advantage than the bowler knowing that, e.g. he's fond of the hook.
Anyway, that's a bit of a tangent. By and large, I see Donald's point, and agree that tampering with natural substances should be allowed.
Alternatively, how about allowing tampering (nails, dust, saliva) but also having some sort of multi-ball arrangement? For example, a side is allowed one ball every n overs, BUT is allowed to keep the old one and re-use it if they want. That would allow a well-captained side to maintain two or three balls -- one for their spinner and the other for a fast bowler. They could also delay, for example, the third ball until the conditions are right.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
It's a big advantage for both bowlers and batsmen, if they use the thing well.