View Full Version : Allow ball tampering - yea or nay?
In the wake of Shahid 'BallBiter' Afridi's latest efforts, the calls for allowing ball-tampering to be allowed have surfaced again. Not new - plenty of players (mostly bowlers) have raised the possibility to re-address the balance between bat and ball.
It's interesting how the two most fundamental pieces of equipment in the game - the bat and the ball - are treated. The ball is supplied by the organisers and is not to be modified in any way (except for some polishing) - but players can bring any piece of hardware they want for a bat provided it is the right size and made of wood. As a result, bat technology has improvedd out of sight over time - Bradman's bats look laughable today. Soon, we'll probably have laser-guided, isotope-treated weapons capable of launching the ball as a smart bomb.
What the authorities should have done, of course, was define bat rules as tightly as the ball - but now they've let it go, they can't stop it - the bat manufacturers contribute too much in advertising and sponsorship to restrict them. Not just a cricket problem - tennis and golf are arguably far worse.
However, if you allow ball tampering, who knows where that will stop? Special acid-etched patterns to create swing? Super slick polishes (breath mints perhaps) to allow the ball to skid on much faster? Maybe make the ball whistle as it flies to put the batsman off? Maybe just soften the ball so much it comes off the bat like a rice pudding?
King Elvis
2 Feb 2010, 08:08
I'm a traditionalist when it comes to most aspects of cricket, but I actually think this discussion has some merit.
The biggest issue, which you've already mentioned, is if you did allow ball tampering, how do you then control it? Can they scratch it up with their fingernails? Can they scuff it up on the spikes of their shoes? Rub Powerade into one side to coat it in sugar? How much can they pick the seam?
I definitely think something needs to be done to redress the dominance of the bat over the ball these days - but can you allow ball tampering and somehow insure it's not excessive?
damochandler
2 Feb 2010, 08:13
i really don't know too be honest. this is a massively grey area.
Ball tampering is cheating and should never be allowed. In days gone by teams may have been able to get away with it, but with television coverage these days it is virtually impossible.
I definitely think something needs to be done to redress the dominance of the bat over the ball these days
Plenty of other ways to achieve the same result, starting with pitch preparation.
Hell, if you want to get inventive then allow teams a new ball every 50 overs, or leave it at 80 overs but allow a new ball at each end. If conditions suit reverse swing or spin then teams can decline the new ball, but if a not then a shiny new aggot sooner would definitely help the bowling team.
Allowing cheating is not the way forward... what is next, allowing quicks to take steroids?
if we included it into the laws of the game then it wouldn't be cheating would it.
I just think pitches need to be less bat friendly
Re pitch preparation - just last month an ODI between Sri Lanka and India was abandoned because the pitch was unfit. Sri Lanka was 5/83 at the time - that's not an 'unfit' pitch - that's just a collapse.
No one died, two batsmen got hit on the body. The keeper conceded no byes.
But the pitch wasn't a batting paradise - hence unfit.
King Elvis
2 Feb 2010, 09:03
Allowing cheating is not the way forward... what is next, allowing quicks to take steroids?
Asif that would happen ;)
And yea, you're right - having pitches which offer more to the bowlers is probably the best way to tackle it.
damochandler
2 Feb 2010, 09:37
a bit of grass on the pitch is fine for tests. but odis i think they have to stick with the flat pitches for entertainment value. when ever there is a flat pitch for odis bowlers aren't always disadvantaged.
they should have a look at the way the gabba prepares pitches and go by what they do when the preoare a pitch for tests. there is always plenty in it for a day or 2 and it's always been a great pitch to bat on and it does turn a bit
Introduce 5 over, ball tampering power plays. That should spice things up a bit:p
The Falcon Strike
2 Feb 2010, 10:19
For starters - for such blatant cheating - he should have got 8 matches (based on previous form)
Secondly - cricket has been a great contest for years - whilst the bats are getting better - it means higher run scoring and actually producing more results.
Lastly - the SCG pitch was just about perfect. Juice on Day 1 for the quicks, flattened out to be good batting days 2 and 3.
Started breaking up a little from day 4
If curators stopped producing 2nd day wickets for day 1 - we'd be laughing. however - the problem was we used to have 3 day tests and that cost too much revenue.
Stokes-Selwood-Prismall
2 Feb 2010, 10:31
Think it is a ridiculous idea. As people have mentioned where would it stop?
My only question is what is the problem with the way things are now?
We have far less drawn test matches than we ever have, which means we are seeing more wickets fall than ever before and seeing more big hits than ever before.
This is a spectator sport, fans are flocking to the 20/20 big bash games and filling stadiums to see the bats dominance over the ball. Cricket Australia would be loopy to allow a change in the status quo.
Re pitch preparation - just last month an ODI between Sri Lanka and India was abandoned because the pitch was unfit. Sri Lanka was 5/83 at the time - that's not an 'unfit' pitch - that's just a collapse.
No one died, two batsmen got hit on the body. The keeper conceded no byes.
But the pitch wasn't a batting paradise - hence unfit.
No idea the specifics of this particular incident, but in general if the ball is regularly breaking through the surface it can be very dangerous and grounds to suspend play.
Remember playing a game on a sticky wicket where a lot of balls were leaving a sizable divot and bounce for those ball was insanely steep. I was hit on the clavicle playing forward to a ball that should not have hit higher than my knee roll (at worst). Was very lucky it didn't hit me in the throat and extremely glad when I got out a few overs later.
A couple of years later I had the displeasure of facing Denis Hickey bowling 150km/h thunderbolts on a flat Albert Ground pitch... the same bloke on that sticky wicket would have been deadly, literally.
We have far less drawn test matches than we ever have, which means we are seeing more wickets fall than ever before and seeing more big hits than ever before.
IMO this is caused by the increased scoring rates in test cricket, thus teams getting longer periods of time to bowl teams out.
There is also a larger disparity between international teams these days, thus many more one sided contests.
The Falcon Strike
2 Feb 2010, 11:37
Re pitch preparation - just last month an ODI between Sri Lanka and India was abandoned because the pitch was unfit. Sri Lanka was 5/83 at the time - that's not an 'unfit' pitch - that's just a collapse.
No one died, two batsmen got hit on the body. The keeper conceded no byes.
But the pitch wasn't a batting paradise - hence unfit.
That pitch was a disgrace - a ball landed on a good length and ended up going over the head of 2nd slip without going anywhere near the batsman
that pitch was completely unfit for cricket.
Belnakor
2 Feb 2010, 12:11
That pitch was a disgrace - a ball landed on a good length and ended up going over the head of 2nd slip without going anywhere near the batsman
that pitch was completely unfit for cricket.
bingo.
There was a patch of grass just short of a good length that was causing balls to rear up and nearly take the batsman's head off. Then the next delivery would shoot along the ground. It was blatantly unsafe, just like the pitch in the Eng v WI game about 10 years ago when the test was called off.
Cooldude
2 Feb 2010, 13:22
Batsmen have flatter pitches prepared for them and they have bigger bats, so why can't bowlers do certain things to the ball as they want just to even up the contest?
All the batsmen who cry like babies over something happening to the ball can just shove it. Bowlers should be able to have some degree of autonomy to changing the condition of hte ball
Yeah, another vote here to fix the pitches before you start messing with the ball.
The move towards preparing lifeless, roadlike pitches in most countries (particularly over the last decade) has done more to damage the competitive balance than any amount of batting technology.
The Falcon Strike
2 Feb 2010, 14:13
Batsmen have flatter pitches prepared for them and they have bigger bats, so why can't bowlers do certain things to the ball as they want just to even up the contest?
All the batsmen who cry like babies over something happening to the ball can just shove it. Bowlers should be able to have some degree of autonomy to changing the condition of hte ball
They do already - they use saliva, they shine it, they ditch it into the pitch to scuff it up.
If a bowler can alter the shape of a ball - why not a batsman come out with a 4-foot wide bat
This is probably the most interesting topic in the sport today.
First and foremost is the fact that the game is completely in the batsmans favour today and will continue to remain that way unless the ICC chooses to do something about it.
Based on the above is the fact that almost all the innovations have come in this area be it bat technology or restriction of bouncers or shorter boundaries or power plays etc you name it and the result is in favour of batsmen.
By corollary the game has become more and more difficult for the bowlers, this has made even great bowlers seem mortal, only very few exceptions like Warne have been able to command respect universally, even a McGrath got hit around in ODI's etc (imagine a glided four to third man- not happening in a test and almost certainly never happened to say a Lillie or a Holding).
Therefore in this scenario I think it would be good if the ICC did one of the following, come out clean about what is chucking and what is not (according to me Lasith Malinga, Murali, Harbhajan etc need to checked and re checked time and time again because their actions are strange to say the least) and secondly ICC should permit the bowlers to "make the ball" with only natural implements like finger nails, probably teeth?? and maybe dirt on the ground but no other external implements should be allowed.
Either the above or remove all restrictions from bowling bouncers, introduce less stringent rules for wides and rule LBW as long as the ball is hitting the stumps.
Do something but give bowlers a fair chance and don't let them go through a career which offers them mainly a reward of debilitating injury and not much else.
Level_Headed
2 Feb 2010, 15:47
I don't support ball tampering as it will be very hard to decide on what is and is not allowed. The balance is too far in favour of the batsmen for sure. Pitches need to be looked at but that again will be hard to control.
My memory is a little scratchy but doesn't a two piece ball swing more than the four piece? If so maybe use two piece-rs instead. There may be some issue with retaining shape...
Belnakor
2 Feb 2010, 15:59
they should play with a "swing king" ball, you'd see balls swinging like 3 foot in the air.
Crimson King
2 Feb 2010, 16:05
We've all heard the stories of this sort of behaviour for years, from John Lever rubbing Vaseline into the ball to the recent claim that Bopara was digging his nails into the ball. Whose to say, it isn't already happenning through various other ways (not quite as obvious as the Afridi way but you know what I mean)? That said, I've never thought it should be legalised because then it would be difficult to draw a line as discussed previously in this thread.
Stokes-Selwood-Prismall
2 Feb 2010, 16:08
IMO this is caused by the increased scoring rates in test cricket, thus teams getting longer periods of time to bowl teams out.
There is also a larger disparity between international teams these days, thus many more one sided contests.
Hardly debunks my point though. Why do you think the scoring rate has increased? Because bat technology has advanced and ball tampering has been eradicated, giving players the confidence to play more aggressive strokes and prod at almost every ball for quick 1s and 2s.
In all sports there are powerhouse international teams and it is possible for the minnows to occasionally win. Cricket is no different.
We do not need to change the rules of the game just to please bowlers because it potentially could lead to sides being bowled out a lot quicker and shortening matches. Which would only lead to potential lost revenue.
Adelaide Hawk
2 Feb 2010, 16:10
if we included it into the laws of the game then it wouldn't be cheating would it.
You mean, like allowing Murali's chucking?
Nankervis brothers
2 Feb 2010, 16:11
Nay to Ball tampering.
I can understand the argument 'for' among some bowlers and ex-bowlers. I mean, the lot of the contemporary bowler is pretty poor. Batter friendly pitches (roads really), shortened boundaries, massively improved bat technology, etc. Todays bowler has none of these concessions or advancements at their disposal.
Yet ball tampering isn't the answer to even up the score. Where would it end? Would it be ok for bowlers to pick (or attempt to bite!) divots out of the ball? Rub a little metho on one side during drinks? Come on! These things aren't the same as polishing the ball - which is maintaining the ball, not tampering with it.
Even up the score by developing a limited standard on bat technology, demanding 'fair' pitches from curators, and possibly reconsidering shortened boundaries.
Why do you think the scoring rate has increased? Because bat technology has advanced and ball tampering has been eradicated, giving players the confidence to play more aggressive strokes and prod at almost every ball for quick 1s and 2s.
I don't think that's the correct answer to the question you posed, though. As I said earlier, I'd wager the changing nature of pitches has had a lot more to do with increased scoring rates than advances in bat technology.
Encouraging the preparation of better pitches that allow more competition between bat and ball would do a lot more for the game than mucking around with ball tampering rules. Look at the SCG Test this year, or the 2009 Ashes series. Pitches that offered something for both sides resulting in great matches.
Why do you think the scoring rate has increased? Because bat technology has advanced and ball tampering has been eradicated, giving players the confidence to play more aggressive strokes and prod at almost every ball for quick 1s and 2s.
Very little to do with ball tampering actually.
Covered pitches, flatter pitches, MUCH better bats, boundaries being brought in, faster outfields, limited short pitched balls per over, extensive ODI experience and recently T20.
The amount of one day cricket (ODI / T20) played has definitely led to batsmen having a more aggressive mindset and for lack of a better term "better slogging technique". It also damages bowling technique IMO, where the main objective is not line and length but big variations designed to limit runs.
The ODI bowlers who get the most wickets are those most difficult to slog, which has absolutely nothing to do with test bowling. The attributes that make someone a very good ODI bowler can lead them to being very ordinary test bowlers... which in the end helps test batsmen.
Most batsmen these days cannot handle a swinging or seaming ball and their defensive technique is much worse than the previous generation. Kallis probably the best defensive batsman in the world, his hundred on a green wicket during the latest England test series was not quick, but it was a masterful display of batting.
King Elvis
2 Feb 2010, 16:42
they should play with a "swing king" ball, you'd see balls swinging like 3 foot in the air.
Taped us tennis balls for the Day/Night Tests?
they should play with a "swing king" ball, you'd see balls swinging like 3 foot in the air.
Now you are talking... double the seam height and cover one side of the ball with three layers of leather instead of one.
Call it the Kookaburra Boomerang.
:)
The Falcon Strike
2 Feb 2010, 16:55
Now you are talking... double the seam height and cover one side of the ball with three layers of leather instead of one.
Call it the Kookaburra Boomerang.
:)
Kookerang
If you heard or saw Pakistans reaction you can tell they have been doing it for years an years not as blatantly and desperately as afridi did but smaller things like picking at seam etc.
And it was no big deal to them just a big joke, they didnt care 1 bit.
Only way to stop it is for the ICC to get some balls an bring out harsher penalties for anyone caught, oh no Afridi misses 2 hit n giggle games big deal.
The ICC allow chuckers already so if they get enough complaints from pakistan saying all teams do it they will allow more blatant ball tampering aswell.
DeadlyAkkuret
3 Feb 2010, 00:23
While I agree most changes/technology today gives an advantage to batsmen, the bowler still gets to run in ball after ball and have another go at the batsman.
Once a batsman is out he doesn't get another chance until the next innings, so I'd rather have the bat dominate over the ball.
I was going to start a thread on the topic too by posting the following:
Given the recent Afridi incident I gave some thought to current rules and tampering. Particularly in ODIs. Recent rules changes and the manner in which pitches are prepared are all geared towards empowering the batsmen. Bowlers aer often left forgotten. I understand that boundaries and big hits are one of the drawcards for ODIs, but satuation reduces their impact. With shorter boundaries, restricted bowling "zones" and fielding positions... we are now seeing more and more 4s/6s. With little contest between bat and ball these "big hits" are loosing their value in terms of entertainment.
IMO nothing is better then a tight contest between bat and ball. Dot balls, swing and misses, a build up of competitive tension... then when a bowler or batsman finally gets "1 up": by taking a wicket or by launching one over the fence... there is true excitment and release from the crowd. IMO the ICC should build rules (or remove them) to promote a Bat v Ball contest.
They should relax the "tampering" rules. Let bowlers do as they wish with the ball with the only restrictions:
a) fielding players can only carry limited things on field (gum, lollies etc)... no "tools", bottle caps etc.
b) a fielding team can't request a ball change.
c) a batting team can request a ball change on grounds of bad visability (ie white ball loses colour). Which the umpires decide on... similar to current situation.
d) umpires have the right to change the ball if they deem it is not performing reasonably (ie not bouncing through to the batsman).
Bowling team then know tampering also may reduce it's effectiveness or there is a greater change of a ball replacement (by batsmen or umpires) and therefore loose all "work"/tampering they've put into it.
Teams already "tamper" with the ball... spitting and shining one side or "letting" the other side rough up. Why try to set in place specific rules for CAN DOs and CAN NOTs. Let all teams and bowlers work the ball how they wish... and as long as it is functional it is ok. This brings some advantage back to the bowlers.
On the other side is the batting team. Technically they are allowed to 'tamper' with the pitch. They mark out their lines (some of those crease markings are like canyons... yes I know they don't come into play)... and they also wander down the pitch: sweep offer debris, knock down bumps and create a smooth surface to help the ball 'come on' nicely. This is aslo tampering, but acceptable.
King Elvis
3 Feb 2010, 09:02
If you heard or saw Pakistans reaction you can tell they have been doing it for years an years not as blatantly and desperately as afridi did but smaller things like picking at seam etc.
And it was no big deal to them just a big joke, they didnt care 1 bit.
Only way to stop it is for the ICC to get some balls an bring out harsher penalties for anyone caught, oh no Afridi misses 2 hit n giggle games big deal.
The ICC allow chuckers already so if they get enough complaints from pakistan saying all teams do it they will allow more blatant ball tampering aswell.
Problem with this is that the bulk of the ICC are concerned with their own income, their own ego or their own political influence - very few of them see to actually care about Cricket as a whole.
Belnakor
3 Feb 2010, 10:46
the ICC can't change the laws of test cricket, the MCC does, which is for the best. If the ICC were in charge you'd probably have trampolines on the field by now.
the ICC can't change the laws of test cricket, the MCC does, which is for the best. If the ICC were in charge you'd probably have trampolines on the field by now.
Hmmmm......Cheerleaders on trampolines:thumbsu:
there are actually two options here, as i mentioned in an earlier post, they ideal way is to legalise natural tampering by means of body parts, saliva, sweat etc or the other option is that fines and punishments for these offences should not be wimpish like the one given for this incident.
the best deterrent would be to have something like a football red-card where in the guy misses this and a similar next or a couple of games, therefore you mess up in ODI's and get a 5 ODI ban not two T-20's etc or even better get banned for all formats for a month etc.
These are the only ways in which players that today are super rich will even consider the consequences else most would be very happy to get away with a couple of games lost because there is so much of it anyway...
Belnakor
3 Feb 2010, 13:45
sweat and saliva are already allowed so long as it is applied to the ball by hand.
King Elvis
3 Feb 2010, 14:58
sweat and saliva are already allowed so long as it is applied to the ball by hand.
What about semen?
What about semen?
Sailors are not excluded from the rules.
Yea.
You can shine the ball, why can't you scruff it?
How to control it? No foreign substances (ie you can't bring anything out with you on the field) to be used on the ball.
You can shine the ball, why can't you scruff it?
Because fielding sides would scuff the ball from the outset to give absolute maximum swing from the start of the innings.
Slow deterioration, and the changing tactics that come with the gradually changing ball is one of the best things about Test cricket. Allowing teams to accelerate that process will just make the game worse, not better.
Because fielding sides would scuff the ball from the outset to give absolute maximum swing from the start of the innings.
You make that sound like a bad thing.
Slow deterioration, and the changing tactics that come with the gradually changing ball is one of the best things about Test cricket. Allowing teams to accelerate that process will just make the game worse, not better.
Allowing teams to tamper with the ball, increasing the likelihood of swing sounds very good to me. I like it much better than tactics such as "it's the 70th over, bring on the part-timers so we can rest the seamers".
You make that sound like a bad thing.
Allowing teams to tamper with the ball, increasing the likelihood of swing sounds very good to me. I like it much better than tactics such as "it's the 70th over, bring on the part-timers so we can rest the seamers".
May as well just play with a Swing King ball then, like someone else suggested. Personally I like the slow transition the ball makes over its 80 over life - from hard seaming rock, to swinging ball, to reversing and spinning. It requires versatility and complex tactics from the fielding side.
If we're going to fix the balance between bat and ball, I'd rather it not be at the expense of one of the unique aspects of the game that provides it with a lot of subtley and depth. The idea of a ball that changes its nature over the life of the game is unique amongst all sports, I'd rather not diminish that.
May as well just play with a Swing King ball then, like someone else suggested. Personally I like the slow transition the ball makes over its 80 over life - from hard seaming rock, to swinging ball, to reversing and spinning. It requires versatility and complex tactics from the fielding side.
If we're going to fix the balance between bat and ball, I'd rather it not be at the expense of one of the unique aspects of the game that provides it with a lot of subtley and depth. The idea of a ball that changes its nature over the life of the game is unique amongst all sports, I'd rather not diminish that.
Ball tampering wouldn't require some form of tactics? What about how to tamper with the ball? When to tamper with the ball? Should they tamper with the ball?
Ball tampering would - imo - allow even more tactics to take place. For one no longer will teams be expected to play a spinner just because the ball spins later on (more to do with the pitch than the ball anyway), they could play what they think their best bowling line-up is, instead of their best spinner plus their best seamers.
And surely the whole thing behind ball tampering is that they are 'changing' the ball? Already fieldsmen 'change' the ball via shining....
Shining is slowing the natural deterioration, scuffing it is accelerating it. You'd end up with bowlers scuffing the shit out of one side of the ball from the first over so they can rip the swing really early, and the ball would fall apart much quicker. Consequently it would likely result in the rules also needing to be changed to allow the new ball to be taken earlier than 80 overs.
The more ability you give to the bowling side to alter the ball, the less natural variation in the conditions you're going to have during the game. Players will be changing the ball to suit their tactics rather than their tactics to suit the ball, which IMO makes for a more boring game.
Shining is slowing the natural deterioration, scuffing it is accelerating it. You'd end up with bowlers scuffing the shit out of one side of the ball from the first over so they can rip the swing really early
We already have the situlation of fieldsmen shining the shit of one side of the ball from early-on (ftr I don't believe teams would start tampering with the ball straight away, and they could easily be laws put in place to prevent tampering with the ball in the first so-and-so overs of the game anyway) so they can get reverse swing. So really not much is changing is it?
,and the ball would fall apart much quicker. Consequently it would likely result in the rules also needing to be changed to allow the new ball to be taken earlier than 80 overs.
Don't really care about that tbh. Batsmen can change their bats whenever they want...Of course they wouldn't get a new ball, they'd get a ball that is of a similar age to the out-going ball. Probably aiding the batting team. Which of course goes back to the tactics I was talking about. "How much should we tamper with the ball?"
The more ability you give to the bowling side to alter the ball, the less natural variation in the conditions you're going to have during the game. Players will be changing the ball to suit their tactics rather than their tactics to suit the ball, which IMO makes for a more boring game.
Well I disagree it makes the game more boring. Ball-tampering to me would make the game more exciting. Tactics have almost never been changed due to the ball, they have been changed because of the pitch, because of the weather, because of the opposition team etc.
Like I said, there's a massive difference between slowing the deterioration of the ball and accelerating it. And if you think that the condition of the ball doesn't affect a bowling team's tactics... well, I take it you've never bowled or captained.
I really think this is an ill-conceived idea. Ask any bowler and they will tell you that the issue with bat/ball imbalance is the current state of international pitches, not the ball.
Solve the actual problem, don't mess with something that's worked fine for decades.
davey_magik
3 Feb 2010, 16:58
I'd allow it.
For those who say make pitches more bowler friendly, that has been a problem for years and the curators have still done nothing about it.
Nothing will change but that is just my opinion.
Like I said, there's a massive difference between slowing the deterioration of the ball and accelerating it.
I don't really think there's a big difference tbh. A difference yeah, but not a major one.
And if you think that the condition of the ball doesn't affect a bowling team's tactics... well, I take it you've never bowled or captained.
It affects tactics, particularly in OD's. But I don't think these tactics are so big that we should use them as a basis to contiune to ban many forms of ball tampering.
I really think this is an ill-conceived idea. Ask any bowler and they will tell you that the issue with bat/ball imbalance is the current state of international pitches, not the ball.
They will also point out how much the equipment batsmen use have changed over time compared to the ball and how this has helped create the imbalance there is today.
Solve the actual problem, don't mess with something that's worked fine for decades.
The actual problem is very hard to solve. The cricket boards want their monnies, so they've got no problem with how the game plans out, as long as it lasts 5 days.
how bout we keep it a true battle between bat an ball.
Not turn it into who knows how to alter the ball to get best results.
The impact of batting technology is pretty insignificant compared to the impact of meek pitches, at least in the unlimited overs game.
And at the end of the day, that's the root of the problem. Change anything else you like; if the balance starts to swing back towards the bowlers then we'll just be served up flatter and flatter wickets in response. Nothing will change until pitch preparation starts to be regulated more closely.
could there also be a dearth of quality fast bowlers contributing to the bat-dominance vs. ball? i understand that something like pitches could influence how good a bowler may appear, and their stats, but it's something to consider.
1990crow
3 Feb 2010, 19:22
My opinion on this is that we actually need ball tampering in Australia at the moment. The pitches are flat, but most of all, the red kookaburra isnt swinging like it was three years ago. As a fast bowler, i've definitely noticed a reduction in the amount myself and others bowlers are swinging the ball. I used to swing the ball about close to a foor three years ago and it has at least halved since then. I wouldn't be for cutting up the ball or anything but instead, maybe the ICC could under umpire supervision after every three or four overs, get some kind of spray onto one side of the ball to help it shine. Some of you may say it'll waste time but, we'll have shorter games than we are currently having due to more nicks and LBW's. I'm sure Ben Hilfenhous would be for this! On that note, I think that the more wickets in the day we see makes for more entertaining cricket than say 330 runs and three wickets. Lets bring it back to 250 runs and 6-7 wickets, that'd bring the crows in. Then we'd see how good those batsmen are when the ball is actually moving!:p
Because fielding sides would scuff the ball from the outset to give absolute maximum swing from the start of the innings.
Actually used to be allowed and did happen.
In the 50s-60s the West Indies had Ramadhin and Valentine - they'd bowl for hours. Every now and then, the West Indies would take the new ball, see if there was any swing for a couple of overs - if not, rub the shine off on the ground and give it back to the spinners.
Of course, now with the reverse swing, one-sided stuff happening - who knows what they could do?
Wish Wellingtons
3 Feb 2010, 22:50
I find it hilarious nowadays how the commentators are always complaining about bowlers not being able to swing the ball anymore.
They are forgetting the raised seams and bottle tops the Pakistanis used to swing the bowl like a dunny door in a hurricane.