Rob Steen
Rob Steen Rob SteenRSS FeedFeeds  | Archives
Sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at the University of Brighton

Should we give the doosra a little leeway?

What if spinners were allowed to flex their arms 20 degrees while bowling?

Rob Steen

January 25, 2012

Comments: 60 | Text size: A | A

Saeed Ajmal bowls looking to add to his seven wickets in the first innings, Pakistan v England, 1st Test, Dubai, 3rd day, January 19, 2012
Former players have said the doosra can't be bowled without straightening the elbow significantly, while biomechanics experts have said Ajmal's version of the delivery is kosher © Getty Images
Enlarge
Related Links

One midwinter English Sunday, two arresting sporting headlines - neither, pluckily, having anything whatsoever to do with f**tball. Tucked away in the bottom left corner at the front of the latest Sunday Times sports section, beneath the acres given over to "Kenny Blasts Reds" and "Dalglish threatens clear-out of 'unprofessional' players", lurked "Robinson attacks 'arrogant' England" - the Robinson in question being neither Nottinghamshire's Tim nor Sussex's Mark but Andy, the English-born coach of Scotland's rugby union side. In the top left corner, opposite "Magical Murray - Briton Storms Into Last 16 At The Aussie Open", lurked "Fanning The Flames - Trott Voices New Suspicion Over Pakistan Spinner".

As a snapshot of Blighty's sporting fancies it was nothing if not symbolic. Team games before individual, f**tball before all. As a reflection of the lengths sportsfolk will go to secure an advantage, it was just as telling.

Robinson's "attack" came a fortnight before Scotland meet - you guessed it - England in the opening match of the Six Nations championship, that annual scrap to prove who's the best in Europe but still a distant second on the planet; Trott's "suspicion" during preparations for the second Test against Pakistan. In both instances, not unnaturally, the agitators were smarting from a humbling: Scotland's last encounter with England, in October, had seen them beaten in the World Cup quarter-finals; Trott and England had just been drubbed in Dubai.

Both headlines were broadly accurate; both, as is the way of the media world, masked thin but provocative stories, stories where the headline is the story. Robinson's allegation about the arrogance of those accursed English ruckers was entirely unspecific. He used the word, yes, but resolutely declined to go a zillimetre further. Trott's "suspicion" (which wasn't exactly "new") proved to be little more than a sliver of a scintilla of a hint, albeit a politically correct one: "From what the guys are hearing… and are talking about, we can't make any accusations before the guy has been tested. The ICC have got their job to do and we trust they will be able to do it." Then he covered his tracks a bit more: "There is going to be speculation around his action… [but] it would be foolish for us every time we face him to think he's suspect."

All of which ran somewhat counter to Graeme Swann's assertion in his Saturday morning column for the Sun, to wit: "Some people are talking about [Saeed] Ajmal's action but it's not a topic of conversation in our dressing room." He has tried to bowl a doosra himself, Swann related, but couldn't do so "without bending my elbow". Meanwhile, Andy Flower was adding his ha'pworth: "I've got my own private views and talking about them here and now isn't going to help the situation."

Everyone, in other words, was steering that narrow course between libel action and the inalienable right of sportsfolk to play mind games, however ineptly. Call it the Doosra Dance. Call it the game within the game within the game. Boxing, which has always had one foot in the sham of showbiz, led the way. Stirring the pot has been part and parcel of the pre-match ritual for time almost immemorial, but as the stakes rose, so the press became more brazen; and as radio, television, internet and social media multiplied the megaphones, so the vigour and wattage rose. The philosophy became part Machiavelli, part Malcolm X: get under the opposition's skin by any means necessary. The lawyers quietened things down but the sound of sniping still reverberates. It's in the script.

Greg Chappell characterised this inner-inner game with typical succinctness long ago. On the eve of the final Test of the 1982-83 Ashes series in Sydney, where victory for the outclassed tourists would have kept the urn in English hands, captain Bob Willis, happy to kindle memories of Australia's gobsmacking collapses at Headingley and Edgbaston 18 months earlier, said he would rather Australia bat last, obviously. The riposte from his opposite number was as firm and straight and true as one of Chappell's on-drives: "That's just propaganda."

The difference in Ajmal's case is that Flower, Swann and Trott (and Matt Prior for that matter) had two other factors to contend with as they contemplated airing their views. First, they would be accusing a fellow professional of cheating, still widely considered the most dastardly of sporting crimes, even among those horrified by match-fixing. Second, by questioning Ajmal's action, or even alluding to any dubiousness, they ran the risk of being seen as whingeing Poms, whether of the Northamptonian or southern African variety. They also knew a swift but polite "no comment" would have sufficed. Swann, presumably, has some control over what goes out under his name, so he could have ignored the matter altogether. The Sun's sports editor might not have liked it but he'd have had to lump it. Instead, all three chose to fan the flames behind a veil of respectability, the better to unsettle.

WHICH LEADS US, INEVITABLY, to the bigger question. Not whether all is fair in love, war and ballgames, but whether bending the elbow beyond the permissible 15 degrees might actually be more acceptable in a spinner. To propose this, of course, should in no way be seen as a desire to see a new generation of Tony Locks wreck stumps and wreak havoc with 80mph "faster" balls, prompting victims to surmise - as Doug Insole did so volubly after being castled by the Surrey southpaw - that they could only have been run out.

In June 2009, a batch of eminent Australian spinners, including Shane Warne, Stuart MacGill, Ashley Mallett and the late Terry Jenner, gathered in Brisbane for a grandiloquently dubbed "Spin Summit". All condemned the doosra. "There was unanimous agreement that [it] should not be coached in Australia," wrote Mallett in the Adelaide Review. "I have never seen anyone actually bowl the doosra. It has to be a chuck. Until such time as the ICC declares that all manner of chucking is legal in the game of cricket I refuse to coach the doosra. All at the Spin Summit agreed." Principle was surely the cause; the only other interpretation is that they didn't want their records broken.

A couple of months earlier, by way of context, Ajmal had been reported by the umpires following an ODI against Australia in Dubai. An expert in biomechanics, however, gave his doosra the all-clear, and, so far as we know, the charge has never been repeated. Muttiah Muralitharan and Harbhajan Singh were both reported before the degree of flexibility was justly raised from 10 degrees - on the basis that just about every ball ever recorded on film would otherwise have been illegal - but not thereafter. To my knowledge no official aspersions were ever cast about the doosra wielded so wickedly by its inventor, Saqlain Mushtaq.

 
 
Should the regulations distinguish between spinners and quicks? Given that there is an appreciable gap between the intent and potential physical ramifications of a 95mph "chuck" and a 60mph one, this does not seem unreasonable
 

All of which would suggest: a) half a dozen degrees of flex are indiscernible to the naked eye, and b) there are oodles of people, many of them umpires, who believe not only that it is entirely possible to bowl such a ball legitimately but that it is done so with considerable regularity. In their refusal to coach it (not, one imagines, that they could so without a scary amount of homework, seldom something that comes naturally to retired luminaries), Warne et al are almost certainly doing their heirs a grave disservice.

But let's just say, strictly for the sake of argument, that Ajmal's right arm does stray fractionally beyond that prescribed limit. Should the regulations, in this respect, distinguish between spinners and quicks? Given that there is an appreciable gap between the intent and potential physical ramifications of a 95mph "chuck" and a 60mph one, this does not seem unreasonable. Why not a 15-degree leeway for one and 20 for the other? It was only a few years back, after all, that the ICC deemed such a differential - five degrees for pacemen, ten for twirlers - right and proper. Offspinners, of course, are entitled to raise another point: why, unlike their wrist-flexing brothers-in-arms and charms, should they be denied the right to bowl a wrong'un?

The sentiments of Bernard Bosanquet, proud parent of the wrong'un, ring down the ages with a deafening echo. "Poor old googly!" he lamented in the 1925 Wisden. "It has been subjected to ridicule, abuse, contempt, incredulity, and survived them all. Nowadays one cannot read an article on cricket without finding that any deficiencies […] are attributed to the influence of the googly. If the standard of bowling falls off, it is because too many cricketers devote their time to trying to master it [...] If batsmen display a marked inability to hit the ball on the offside, or anywhere in front of the wicket, and stand in apologetic attitudes before their wicket, it is said that the googly has made it impossible for them to adopt the old aggressive attitude and make the old scoring strokes. But, after all, what is the googly? It is merely a ball with an ordinary break produced by an extra-ordinary method."

So it all boils down, in essence, to the Googly Question: would you prefer the game to remain rigid and obstinate, clinging fast to traditional notions of what is far and unfair, and hence stagnate, or encourage the expansion of horizons? In other words, would we be better off with or without the doosra? You don't have to be a fully qualified Luddite to reply in the negative, but it helps.

Rob Steen is a sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at the University of Brighton

RSS Feeds: Rob Steen

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by   on (January 28, 2012, 20:29 GMT)

Whinge And Whine 101! None of this would have mattered if England had won BUT since they havent... 'Let The Royal Whinging & Whinning Begin'!

Posted by   on (January 28, 2012, 16:11 GMT)

The moral of the story is that the Pakistani Speen Hawks knocked out the english chicks

Posted by RandyOZ on (January 27, 2012, 13:12 GMT)

Haha typical poms, complaining about everything when they are getting belted. Remind me of the past 20 years!

Posted by Philip_Gnana on (January 26, 2012, 22:17 GMT)

Since the implementation of the 15 degree tolerance, which was actually introduced so that the many fast bowlers we flexing their elbow/arms beyond the 10 degree limit, we have not had any monitoring or may be the ICC has not commented. Since the Champions Trophy way back in 2004, more fast bowlers have entered the scene. The flexing issues seem to only surround the spin bowlers, why? Is it not cricket to not let the most important people ie the supporters and followers know of the degrees of flexing of all bowlers? We have a Ranking System for performance. How about a Ranking System for Flexing? Ajmal's arm, we need the scientific analysis and not what the naked sees. We know what happened with Murali, what we saw was not what was actually the case. Isn't it strange that these issues only come in to focus when a team loses and not when they win? Let us put through the fast bowlers to test, shall we? Philip Gnana, Surrey

Posted by VIVz_forearm on (January 26, 2012, 22:07 GMT)

not directed @ the author but I have only this to say for the poms: same old tactic of propaganda....remember reverse swing??? its all hunky dorey to win the ashes with it but when the WWs did it was wrong...same as their football press most of them never point out the real issues of a lack of ability in this case playing spin or generally playing well in the sub-continent...remember the crashing out to the Germans in fifa 2010??? wana play like spain but dont have the players?? fatigue was the issue...long premier league season etc etc etc!!!! give me a break, if we heard you lot, there would be no reverse no doosra no googly!!! no flair!!!!

Posted by   on (January 26, 2012, 20:26 GMT)

I feel sorry for English media and people who are calling Ajmal a "chucker" lol! Grow up! You don't know how to play quality spinners! Accept it or do whatever you can do! You can never become number 1 team! not for too long at least! Its not English team that cries..its the English media that do it.. Best of luck!

Posted by   on (January 26, 2012, 19:44 GMT)

I always enjoy Rob Steen's columns and usually agree with them, I can't agree with this one though. Surely the off-spinner/left-arm orthodox bowler's 'wrong-un' was the seemingly defunct 'floater', or if not that then the arm-ball?

I'm sorry to say it but watching Saeed Ajmal's action in slow motion the angle of his elbow bend looks well over 15 degrees, more like 30 degress or so, but the problem is if an umpire reports him they will be rounded on by Pakistan, and probably face being ostracised by the ICC (see Darrell Hair) and are likely to have their umpiring career severely curtailed. So Ajmal can go on taking wickets with a dodgy action just as Shoaib Akhtar and Murali did, as once they were reported they had already taken too many wickets and become too important to their teams for their boards to let them be banned. Instead the ICC reports small fry like Shabbir Ahmed, Shane Shillingford, Johan Botha and the Jonkman twins from the Netherlands.

Posted by amir68298 on (January 26, 2012, 17:07 GMT)

All this fuss about the doosra.. What we all fail to realize is that it is the inability of the batsman to "read it" rather than "play it". Batsmen are just not good enough to read it out of a bowlers hand. and a particular bowler in this instant. The moment they are able to to do that , they will stop all this whining about it.

Posted by   on (January 26, 2012, 15:52 GMT)

The problem is that the 99% of people playing cricket aren't professional and don't have access to slow-motion cameras, the expert eye of sports scientists, or coaches who can remedy their actions. The effect of the 15 degree law (invisible to the naked eye) being announced from the top is that a generation of kids, particularly spinners without access to proper coaching, have grown up where chucking by 25 degrees plus is accepted. There are entire leagues in North America with two chuckers in each team. Even the adult pace bowlers have seen they can get away with it and no one will do anything about it. You can't have some people bowling and others chucking. It doesn't make for a fair contest.

Posted by JeffG on (January 26, 2012, 15:42 GMT)

@enigma77543 - you completely misunderstood my point. You said that batting averages are higher now due to flat pitches making batting easier. My argument is that batting isn't necessarily easier now - if it was then bowlers would be finding it harder to take wickets - they aren't, they are taking wickets more quickly. The reason why averages are increasing is because batsmen are scoring more quickly. That is surely down to batsmen adapting the techniques they learn for T20 into test cricket. I'm not the only one who thinks this - Ed Smith talks about this very point in one of his recent articles on Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

FeedbackTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Rob SteenClose
Rob Steen Rob Steen is a sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at the University of Brighton, whose books include biographies of Desmond Haynes and David Gower (Cricket Society Literary Award winner) and 500-1 - The Miracle of Headingley '81. His investigation for the Wisden Cricketer, "Whatever Happened to the Black Cricketer?", won the UK section of the 2005 EU Journalism Award "For diversity, against discrimination". His latest book, Floodlights and Touchlines: A History of Spectator Sport, will be published in the summer of 2014

    The cricket tragic who bowled Bradman

Former Australian PM Bob Hawke loved cricket. And he once left the Don speechless with the force of his political convictions

    'The worst thing about being a keeper is stinky hands'

Chris Read talks about how unprepared he was for Tests, and that slower ball from Chris Cairns

    Everybody deserves a second chance?

Switch Hit: Mark Butcher joins our team to discuss the new England coaches, KP, and a potential England XI

    England's Pietersen folly

Martin Crowe: Not getting rid of Kevin Pietersen after the texting saga in 2012 cost them greatly

Fizz, flight and loop

V Ramnarayan: Erapalli Prasanna was a masterful conjurer and perhaps the shrewdest of India's great spin quartet

News | Features Last 7 days

UAE all set to host lavish welcoming party

The controversy surrounding the IPL has done little to deter fans in UAE from flocking the stadiums, as they gear up to watch the Indian stars in action for the first time since 2006

The watch breaker, and Malinga specials

Plays of the day from the IPL match between Kolkata Knight Riders and Mumbai Indians in Abu Dhabi

The world record that nearly wasn't

Twenty years ago this week, Brian Lara became Test cricket's highest scorer, but he almost didn't make it

'Sri Lankan fans embrace the team, not just icon players'

Mahela Jayawardene and Kumar Sangakkara go over their World T20 win, and feel grateful to have fans whose support remains unwavering in victory and defeat

Crunch time for Sehwag and Gambhir

The former Indian openers haven't been shining lately, but the IPL presents an opportunity for them to show their class

News | Features Last 7 days