For an even game between bat and ball

Cricket has seen many significant changes over the last 110 years. Some have been marvellous innovations that have heightened the thrill of bat versus ball while others have seriously disturbed the golden balance.

The most significant of the pre-World War I changes was that pitches instead of being “natural” began to be “prepared”. Thus a game that was wickedly and capriciously slanted in favour of bowlers (the bowling averages and figures of Trott, Spofforth and Blythe at the turn of the 20th century bear testimony to this) began to bestow better chances for batsmen. Yet, even on these prepared wickets, great bowlers reaped almost the same rewards; none exemplifying this better than Wilfred Rhodes, the torch bearer for the tribe of spinners.

Many years later, the “covering” of pitches was another great change – less play was lost because of this simple measure and it also ensured that the weather did not provide undue advantage to a bowling side to demolish the batting side on a drying pitch. Covered pitches did swing the game well in favour of batsmen.

Science and technology have obviously been the biggest influence. Except the ball, everything else has undergone such change that Trumper and Ranji will not recognise today’s batsman.

The bat is becoming stronger by the day. Gone are the days of thin handles, linseed oil seasoning; instead we have thick multi-rubbered handles and compressed wood, with such lethal weight distribution that almost the entire bat is a “sweet spot”. It means that a mistimed hit that Trumper or Ranji would have holed out to, now regularly clear the ropes. Pads, inner guards and gloves have all become lighter and batsmen and keepers are much more mobile. If this was not enough, grounds have been becoming smaller. At numerous small venues a 65-yard hit is a six these days where earlier a six would have to clear 75 yards. We have talked extensively of the LBW laws in an earlier article (Inbox May 2009) and till the 1980s the benefit of doubt to batsmen was another factor in favour of the batsmen. Cricket, not so subtly, post World War II, became even more of a batsman’s game.

As the game tilted towards batsmen, the oppressed bowlers found ways and means to restore balance and wrest some rights for themselves. There have been three significant changes that bowlers have succeeded in creating for themselves. The first is of course reverse swing. On benign pitches, because of “ball management” a bowler of speed today confounds well set batsmen. A sense of unpredictability, suspense and balance has been introduced. What Sarfraz Nawaz started, Steyn and Zaheer have converted into fine art. But reverse swing must remind people of bottle caps, strong teeth, finger nails and pockets full of sand.

The other great change is the doosra. What Bosanquet’s googly was to legspin, Saqlain Mushtaq’s doosra is to offspin. Saqlain delivered the ball perfectly legitimately, perhaps because he had a long last stride like a wrist spinner. But after him there have been a slew of off spinners who have been under scrutiny, whether it is a Harbhajan Singh or a Johan Botha. Hauritz and Swann are perhaps two purveyors of offspin who have not yet resorted to the doosra.

And that brings us to the third major change. The laws of the game now allow bowlers with a bent arm. So from an era when the bowler had to really adhere to a “bowling action” today’s bowler is allowed a 15 degree flex of elbow. All the three changes in bowling have actually been thrust on the game because of the manner in which the game is loaded in favour of the batsman. And because the laws of the game do not firmly address these imbalances, the bowlers will find newer ways; the lines between right and wrong will get blurred in an uncontrollable spiral.

Even as the game is grappling with batsmen already having it mostly their way, a couple of things have further loaded the game in favour of batsmen. One is the annoying tendency of batsmen suffering from cramps in the one-day games and having the luxury of a runner. The one-day game is as much about fitness and agility as about talent, technique and temperament. If after a stay of about 35 overs a batsman suffers from cramps, it is a sign of lack of fitness to last the course. To afford him a runner, when he is fully set is a travesty of justice and fairvplay. For this reason we would rate Kapil’s 175 and Viv Richards’ World cup final knock of ’79 higher than Saeed Anwar’s knock against India. Tendulkar, nearly 37 years old, scored 200 on his own legs putting our argument in the best possible perspective.

There is a case for the rules to ban “runners” in one day cricket for cramps and pulled muscles suffered during the course of an innings. We believe that if fatigue, cramps or a muscle pull hampers a batsman’s mobility, that’s part of the game and his fitness level; he cannot ask for assistance and must decide to either bat on with discomfort or retire. Contrast this facility given to batsmen with the rule which prevents bowlers from bowling immediately if they leave the field for an extended period of time to attend to injuries. If batsmen with cramps are allowed runners then bowlers must be allowed to bowl as soon as they return to the field after repairs or rest.

The second unfair advantage that batsmen are employing is the switch-hit. The reverse sweep can be viewed as dexterity because it is played the other way without changing the grip and in that sense clearly legitimate. But when you change your grip, become a left-hander and sweep or slog the bowler through point or covers you are actually cheating the bowler and the field set for you. Allowing a switch hit is akin to bowlers being permitted to change without notice from over the wicket to around the wicket. Perhaps one way of restoring balance with regard to the switch hit, is to declare the batsmen LBW if he is struck on the pads while playing the switch hit to a ball pitched outside the leg-stump and turning in. If the switch hit has come to stay make sure it is balanced by something for the bowler. Do not goad and frustrate the bowlers further.

Cricket in its relentless march will see wonderful innovations as well as unwelcome irreversible changes. The sport is commercialized and the audiences seem to be conditioned more easily to respond in larger numbers to a batting blitzkrieg. And yet the same audiences respond magnificently to tight well-fought matches even if they are not raining fours and sixes. We have enough evidence of this even in Twenty20 let alone Test matches. The challenge for people in charge of the game is to credit the audiences with discernment and ensure that the contest between bat and ball at all times remain even. For balance is what provides harmony to cricket as it does to all things in life.