Mark Nicholas
Mark Nicholas Mark NicholasRSS FeedFeeds  | Archives
Former Hampshire batsman; host of Channel 9's cricket coverage

A little ball-tampering will do cricket good

What's wrong with letting people help get the ball to swing, if they're doing it using natural resources?

Mark Nicholas

October 31, 2013

Comments: 42 | Text size: A | A

Andrew Flintoff eats a sweet during an interruption, England v India, 2nd ODI, Bristol, August 24, 2007
Lozenges? Bring them on © Getty Images
Enlarge

While the national team competes against Pakistan in the Middle East, attention at home turned to an impressive gathering in Johannesburg that recognised and celebrated the achievements of Mark Boucher. The freak eye injury 16 months ago that ended Boucher's career before time has been well documented, and the tribute paid to him last night at the Sandton Sun Hotel was warm and went long into the night. The money raised from a glittering dinner was given to Save the Rhino, a cause that Boucher passionately supports. Increasingly cricketers use their pulling power for needs other than their own, which is a welcome change from the brief period when well rewarded international players transferred the income from testimonial events to their own accounts.

Boucher was among the first to tweet a message of sympathy and respect after the desperately sad news that 32-year-old South African wicketkeeper-batsman Darryn Randall had died from the impact of a cricket ball to his head in a club match in the Eastern Cape last weekend. Doubtless, Boucher has also reflected on his relative fortune at surviving a dangerous cricket accident and his tweet went on to urge others to live their life to the full. Because you just never know.

Though Boucher was the centre of attention at dinner, the shock and nature of Randall's tragedy received a lot of air time. The other subject on everyone's lips was the ridiculous stand-off between Haroon Lorgat, the recently appointed chief executive of Cricket South Africa, and the BCCI, over India's tour to South Africa next month. Historically there is no love lost on either side. Lorgat's time as CEO of the ICC was littered with clashes with the Indians - not least on the subject of the DRS, in which Lorgat unconditionally believes but which N Srinivasan and others vehemently oppose.

Now Lorgat has been stood down from the part of his job that involves dealing with India or the ICC (quite a chunk of it gone then), and is also defending himself from allegations relating to Beckergate. Rumour has it that CSA responded to Indian concern about Lorgat's pending appointment by telling the BCCI that it was not their business to tell CSA who to appoint. To which the BCCI replied: we are not telling you who to appoint. We are telling you who not to appoint.

India were due to play three Tests, seven 50-over games and a couple of T20s, a schedule that has been vastly reduced since Lorgat's move into the South African hot seat, and the realisation that amongst those Tests was No. 200 - the final curtain, as it turns out - for Sachin Tendulkar. We will come to that obstacle in a moment.

Given India's immensely powerful position in world cricket, many South Africans pre-empted the appointment of Lorgat as unwise. Better to massage the great Indian ego than take it on, in other words. Frankly, everyone pays lip service to the BCCI, whether they like to admit it or not. Money talks and India has it spilling from every pore. India are one-day world champions, a top-three Test team, and must-see T20 outfit. They are led by the incomparable MS Dhoni, cricket's most charismatic face. All of which makes them a hit at the box office. There is a price to pay for their appearance, which is as it should be, but commitments should be honoured not reneged upon.

South Africa mourns for the New Year Test in Cape Town, a much-loved tradition that will not take place because of India's refusal to accept the original tour schedule. Instead, the BCCI hurriedly convened two Test matches at home against West Indies and will go to New Zealand in the New Year. South Africa get to fill the little window in between, small beer for the No. 1-ranked team in the world.

The game is about the players and those who pay to watch them, not the administrators. It is scandalous that Cape Town has lost the match and that South African cricket will lose a great deal of money because of it. The job of administration is to act as a conduit between the product, which is the game in whatever format, and its audience. The boardroom is not a place for self-interest, though you would barely believe it in cricket's hugely political marketplace.

South Africa may feel India still owes them after the IPL bail out four years ago. During that period the South African public wrapped its arms around an Indian tournament, while the South African administrators moved mountains to accommodate the complicated needs and responsibilities of the event. Grounds were clean of advertising and sponsorship, and corporate facilities were turned over to Indian guests. The thank you for that is a kick in the teeth now.

Mostly Indian cricket gets it right. The global game feeds from its table in many essential ways. But the duty to a wider responsibility, to the pastoral care that comes with ownership, is too often brushed aside. Surely CSA and the BCCI could have found a way to play three Test matches between the No. 1- and No. 3-ranked teams in the world. After all, England have five Tests at home against India next summer. Can it really be that there is no New Year Test in South Africa because of the spat between the BCCI and Lorgat, and if it is so, how feeble and irresponsible is that? South Africa's sponsors, TV networks and general public deserved better, and India only needed to stay another ten days to provide it.

Back to Tendulkar. It seems right that he should say goodbye to the game in front of his own people. The period in which he has played for his country has coincided with vast changes in its landscape. He has ridden these and the expectation that follows them with astonishing dignity. The quality of his play is less relevant in this particular argument but only the heartless would vote against a final Tendulkar innings being played for, and in front of, the people to whom he means so much. The South African public understood the Tendulkar reason, even if they found it hard to stomach. The stand-off between Lorgat and the BCCI has got them choking into their Castle Lager.

****

 
 
Give them a ball, say to the captain, it is yours for 80 overs to do with as you like but don't expect us to change that ball unless it's clear it came out of the box a funny shape or that the concrete in the stands did the damage
 

Was Faf du Plessis really not attempting to unfairly manipulate the ball? Of course he was. The footage is clear enough; he was ripping the thing down his zipper. The South Africans must have made a killer defence for one so hard-bitten as David Boon, the match referee, to go easy. Fifty percent of Faf's match fee? What a result. Captains have been suspended for less. Indeed, a Test match at The Oval was abandoned for less: and by less we mean there was no such compelling proof then as there was in Dubai the other day. The Pakistanis have every right to feel a bit aggrieved. Had this been them, hell would have been unleashed. As it was that dreadful day at The Oval in August 2006.

We should not play down the impact of a tampered ball. Rather we should consider celebrating it. I know, I'm flying a kite here but hang on a minute. Two recent columns in these pages by Ian Chappell and V Ramnarayan eloquently highlighted the challenges the game faces as bats get more powerful and boundaries become shorter. The poor old bowler has very little left in his favour, while the game continues to allow batsmen all they desire and bowlers next to nothing.

It cannot be too complicated to limit the weight of the bat, the depth of its face and the density of its wood. Moisture content may be hard to regulate against but not size, surely. Equally, why is there not a minimum boundary distance for international cricket? Seventy yards, say, to start the debate. If a ground cannot sustain the necessary boundaries, it cannot be suitable for the best and strongest players.

Cricket's history has numerous examples of legislation against bowlers. But always the game has managed to rebalance itself. For example, this happened with throwing and the 15-degree tolerance in a bent elbow; as it has happened with spinners who lost something from uniform pitches but gained something from the DRS.

The swinging ball is one of cricket's greatest attractions. Bowlers have more ways in which to take wickets; batsmen are encouraged into a wider range of strokeplay by the required fulller length, and more fielders are thus brought into play.

To make the ball swing after the shine has worn off, you have to work on it. The time-honoured tradition is of saliva helping to polish one side, but of course, the seam-pickers and sun-block users, sweet- and lozenge spreaders and half-seam lifters have always been there, hidden away in the closet. Allow them out, I proffer. Legalise tampering by natural resource. Outlaw outside agents - bottle tops, stones, coins, pen-knives, zips and the like - but allow that mix of sweat and sun-cream, that raised seam and that torn leather to be at the fielding side's behest. Give them a ball, say to the captain, it is yours for 80 overs to do with as you like but don't expect us to change that ball unless it's clear it came out of the box a funny shape or that the concrete in the stands did the damage.

And even with that massive change in the laws, Faf would be on the wrong side of them!

Mark Nicholas, the former Hampshire captain, presents the cricket on Channel 9 in Australia and Channel 5 in the UK

RSS Feeds: Mark Nicholas

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by   on (November 2, 2013, 5:54 GMT)

this is going to further complicate things. lets run things the old fashioned way.

Posted by SarfBD on (November 1, 2013, 20:23 GMT)

I disagree because there is no certain limit of 'little bit'. If you allow those so called natural resources then the game might depend on who used the most efficient substance. A coach's laptop may contain the chemical composition of these materials, their proper use or, in most hilarious case, we might find a 'tempering expert' in the team. Come on! Let the game live in the proper way. All we need to go back to the old days. Allow polishing the ball only with saliva and sweat. Proper dimension of field, one new ball, no field restriction, no or maximum 15 overs powerpaly at the beginning of the innings like before, good pitches; these are needed. Glory day of ODI didn't have those silly rule. And, for god's sake, don't mess with test. Do what ever you want with t20.

Posted by CricketChat on (November 1, 2013, 15:07 GMT)

The main reason bowlers resorting to deliberate tampering is due to unhelpful pitches. The solution is to make the pitches that give both bowlers and batsmen equal chance to succeed and ensure a good contest. Intentional ball tampering should be disallowed. In baseball, the moment a foul ball hits the ground, it is immediately changed, even if it was used for a single throw.

Posted by shillingsworth on (November 1, 2013, 14:30 GMT)

@bohurupi - The idea has been around for years because it's a good one and as such it's always worth restating. There really is nothing more to see here.

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (November 1, 2013, 13:19 GMT)

@TheOnlyEmperor, the current bat standards to not take into account modern tehniques, while overall weight is the same, the density of the wood has increased, if you compared Boycott/Gavaskars bats with those of KP/SRT you would see big difference.

In regards to the ball there are 3 standard balls, Duke (England), SG (India), and Kookuburra (Aus), each one has its own peculiarites, the only similarity is its overall wieght.

Posted by roarster on (November 1, 2013, 10:29 GMT)

I can only assume that the manufacturers of the offending britches had been instructed to put zips on the pocket as no cricket clothing designer would think it a good idea otherwise. I'm thinking that a zipper on a cricket slack would be rather uncomfortable to dive/slide/land on (particularly for such an exuberant fielding side who relish chucking themselves about). The only benefit, I can imagine of a zip on the pocket of your whites would be that which Faf exercised.

Posted by VB_Says on (November 1, 2013, 9:41 GMT)

I am surprised with this article's basic argument. Firstly, Mark agrees that using any means other than saliva & sweat to work on the ball is "tampering". And then he says it is ok to do it. Well that is ridiculous!!! I would rather agree to do away with limited legal bouncers rule and also give little margin for on-side wides. I agree with Mark to set a minimum boundary distance norm. The 80-over new ball rule can also be modified to favor bowlers. This would ensure a fair & interesting contest between batsmen and bowlers.

Posted by Unomaas on (November 1, 2013, 9:24 GMT)

And yet, if you compare the amount of result orientated test matches in the last decade, you would find that its higher than ever before. You'll also notice that the last 20 years has seen the greatest amount of innovation when it comes to bowling.

Want to make bowlers more competitive? Implement laws to make cricket pitches bowler centric with substantial fines leveled at groundsmen/cricket boards that produce roads (as seen in the recent India series).

Comments have now been closed for this article

FeedbackTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Mark NicholasClose
Mark Nicholas A prolific and stylish middle-order batsman for Hampshire, Mark Nicholas was unlucky never to have played for England, but after captaining his county to four major trophies he made his reputation as a presenter, commentator and columnist. Named the UK Sports Presenter of the Year in 2001 and 2005 by the Royal Television Society, he has commentated all over the world, from the World Cup in the West Indies to the Indian Premier League. He now hosts the cricket coverage for Channel 9 in Australia and Channel 5 in England.

    Have India missed the boat?

Martin Crowe: They made a wrong move by refusing to pick Ashwin; Kohli and Pujara have not come good; and Jadeja has only flattered to deceive

    'Ajmal calls me the running offspinner'

Scott Styris talks about being a globetrotting cricketer, the ugliest cricket kit, and his slow one-day hundred

    An all-round ODI giant

Numbers Game: Few players can boast the sort of numbers that Jacques Kallis achieved in ODIs

    Is being bowled out by Moeen embarrassing?

Polite Enquiries: Is Rahane India's Misbah? Should Rohit be dropped? Jarrod Kimber and George Dobell discuss

India's bowling weakness outside the subcontinent

Kartikeya Date: Without good-quality third and fourth bowlers, India will continue to struggle outside the subcontinent

News | Features Last 7 days

The woeful world of Pankaj Singh

Pankaj Singh greeted his most expensive analysis in Test history with the words 'That is cricket'. It was admirable acceptance from an impressive man of a record he did not deserve

Anderson England's guilty pleasure

There is an uncomfortable recognition that the beauty of James Anderson's cricket comes with a professionalism that has been taken to the limits but weak umpiring has to share the blame

Ugly runs but still they swoon

Alastair Cook did not bat like a leading man but the crowd applauded him for simply not failing

Boycott floored by an Indian trundler

When Eknath Solkar got under the skin of Geoff Boycott, leading to a three-year self-imposed exile from Test cricket

Worst keepers, and honours at Lord's

Also, most keeping dismissals on debut, seven-for at HQ, and youngest ODI centurions

News | Features Last 7 days
Sponsored Links

Why not you? Read and learn how!