Stocks in biometric testing facilities have recently been boosted by the ICC’s crackdown on so-called ‘dodgy actions’. Saeed Ajmal has now been added to the list of chucking scalps.
There have been more than half a dozen bowlers, predominantly spinners, who have been forced to submit to testing within the past 10 months.
While ex-international batsman and Kiwi favourite Martin Crowe has come out and lauded the ICC, all but labelling chucking as a plight on the game, there’s a good case to allow bowlers more than the tolerated 15 degrees of bend.
However, to truly help balance the battle between bat and ball, a level of ball tampering should also be introduced. Oh no, not change.
First, a caveat. The changes in the article are suggested only for the shortened version of the game, so to all the purists, please hold your barbs. I am one of you. The fact is, Test cricket has, for the most part, remained unchanged through the years, and as such the battle of willow and leather has stayed balanced, with exclusion to the odd shocking pitch.
Yet in the shortened variations, many innovations have been incorporated to meet the crowd’s demand of boundaries, and increase its attractiveness to the masses. I could only imagine an eight-year-old Shane Warne watching a game of T20 thinking ‘bugger that bowling caper, I want to be on the batting end, dishing it out!’ As such, something needs to give to help ODIs and T20 become more of a contest between slingers and swingers.
More degrees of bend
I’m surprised less cricketers have appeared on Dancing With the Stars. The way some of our batsmen shimmy, step and leap at the crease, even before the ball has been bowled, one would think Sonia Kruger would be all over that.
Unlike bowlers, batsmen are not required to stay within the crease, or even restricted to the same action or technique. Their movements before and during the bowling of the ball are nearly completely discretionary. So why are the bowlers tied by such stringent restrictions? In fact, since helmets were introduced in the late 1970s, batsman have become even more fearless and brash in coming down the wicket to thwart a bowler’s line and length.
It’s true that the invention of the slower ball has hedged batsmen back a bit, but it’s a hard ball to disguise. In limited overs, particularly in T20, batsmen can come to the wicket to the pitch of the ball and pre-empt their shots, knowing that due to bowling with a straight arm there is less pace variation or amount of spin possible.
I’m not suggesting letting players pitch the ball down the wicket, but a relaxation of the current rules would allow bowlers that extra few ounces of pace, or inches of turn. If David Warner can unfurl a switch-hit, why can’t Dale Steyn bend the arm a little more and hurl down a 145-kilometre-per-hour off-break? I would prefer to watch that than the slew of slower trajectory bowlers whose aim is to reduce run rates, not take wickets. Am I alone?
Green light to tampering
I can see this one being really popular. Let bowlers and the fielding team alter the state of the ball during One Day and T20 matches. Ball tampering has always been seen as a heinous atrocity by the fielding side, but let’s take a look at the facts.
Batsmen are allowed to choose the weight of their bat, the location of the sweet spot, the thickness of their edges (which has turned top edges from a gully catch to a six) and even vary the style (see Matthew Hayden’s “Mongoose” bat he debuted in the IPL in 2008).
Meanwhile, bowlers get one ball which can only deteriorate through natural wear and tear. Sounds as fair as a federal budget. To make things worse, there are now two new balls used in ODIs, meaning that ball deterioration is even less and completely nullifying reverse swing in white-ball cricket.
If a fielding side was allowed leeway to additionally rough up one side, or create a more pronounced seam, it would not only give them an added weapon and new tactic to master, but would also see them remain competitive on some of those lifeless pitches we see created for limited overs matches.
Obviously taking a knife on the pitch to cut a chunk out, or warping the ball beyond its spherical nature is too much. But if a player like Shahid Afridi wants to bite into a ball that has been rolling through mud and handled by players and fans alike, I say let him taste leather. It will give the bowler a slightly more customised weapon, and help limit ridiculously premeditated stroke-play.
In the 1980s a good score for a batting side was the 230-240 mark. These days, with fielding restrictions of Powerplays, fearless batting and the use of two new balls in ODIs, batting first on a decent wicket has you eying more than 290 from the first ball.
Batsmen can change stance and grip, but bowlers are unable to do so much as even change the hand their bowling with. So let them bite and scratch the ball, and straighten their arm more during delivery. It will create a more harmonious contest between batsmen and bowlers, not to mention add the same level of creative leeway given to batsman.
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
the ball by ball commentary is good for those of us with no payTV. is Tom from WA different from Tom from Perth?
Trenno
Guest
Crap idea. Takes the skill out of spin bowling and lessens the records of those that bowled fairly. I thought Murili was bad enough, never thought he was bowling fairly. Keep it the way it is or if anything get rid of the 15 degrees rule and bring it back to straight arm. Heck if I can spin a ball both ways with a straight arm anyone can.
octogenarian
Guest
do readers of the Roar really need a ball to ball description from Suneer of ODI between Aust and SA? Is he employed by the Roar. this is a genuine enquiry. Tom from WA is another who has a comment- often painful and inane- bout everything .
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
To give Bowlers more of a chance on shorter forms, fielding restrictions should be reduced - let the bowler play to his own field, not one hampered by restrictions. Rot is all pervasive, and it is the only thing that could occur if ball tampering and chucking is allowed. Right or wrong, Murali's reputation is tarnished with 'chucking'. Clearly, spectators don't like it. I would much rather see more bowling strategies and accurate bowlers in shorter forms than allowing widely, and rightly, illegal actions of the game becoming allowed.
Shouts Chen
Guest
What about Peter Siddle? He was the victim of the tampering scandal.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Come on, those are not fundamental parts of the game, they are gimmicks to get teams to try and hit more boundaries during the overs where players where consolidating the innings and preserving wickets so late in the game they could go the tonk again. The crux of the contest between bat and ball is all about the build up of pressure over a number of overs. Overs not balls. It is not just being able to beat the guy with an out swinger. Go listen to Warnie talk about setting guys up in 4-5 overs. One day cricket still allows for that to happen. T20 does not. That takes away one of the key weapons good bowlers have. It is interesting that you list power plays and to balls but leap straight to allowing cheat instead of just getting rid of those gimmicks. Two balls btw can help the bowlers as well as the batsmen. Power plays are a something I have hated since their inception. As much as I hated the sub rubbish they tried.
Professor Rosseforp
Guest
"The fact is, Test cricket has, for the most part, remained unchanged through the years" -- at least some of the 800 victims of Muralidharan's deliveries might like to disagree with you -- especially the ones whose careers were prematurely ended by a dubious action -- or in the earlier part of his career, a proven breach of the game's laws.
Brains of a bimbo (Atgm)
Guest
Haha this is crazy talk....
Gareth Kidd
Roar Guru
Just read the Fox article. I just can't see this balance in ODI's you believe is there. It's now realistic that you can pinch 10RPO in the final 10-15 overs with wickets in hand. The two new white balls, and powerplays are an example of changes to 'fundamental' rules, because crowds want to see batsmen hit over the top. I know it's extreme, but I'd love to see a trial in ODD. That would either prove me to be bonkers, or give feasibility to the idea.
Gareth Kidd
Roar Guru
Now where would be the fun in that?
Tom from Perth
Roar Rookie
Very well said in the first two paragraphs. Although I don't agree with your last paragraph. I'd like to think that some contest between bat and ball is involved in T20. I watch it for the contest, and there were some pretty good ones in the BBL last year. There's definitely more to it than sixes. Having said that, it is miles behind test and ODIs for me, and I will never enjoy it anywhere near as much.
Tom from Perth
Roar Rookie
:)
Tom from Perth
Roar Rookie
I had to read this twice last night because I thought that the author must be having a laugh!
Rellum
Roar Guru
The depressing thing is that Fox have a story on-line today running the same argument which has prominent ex-players saying just let them play. I don't get why people are so desperate to change things in sport. I am a very progressive person in everything but sport as sport is a simple idea that encapsulates and teaches so many things to do with personal and social growth. Changing the rules just because people perceive a strong batting flavour or a successful player gets banned to the game is not a reason to abandon one the key fundamentals of the game even if it is just for T20. The contest between bat and ball is still balanced in one day cricket as long as the pitch isn't a road. All the arguments to allow chucking don't hold any water for me. It doesn't matter how thick the bats are, they are still the same width and if you move the ball you can still get a nick so modern bats make no difference. The problem is that there is a real lack of skill and quality across the board in international cricket right now with bowling, well in my opinion. DRS is something that has brought an advantage to bowlers, that is usually forgotten. Warnie managed to turn the ball a mile without bending his arm as have countless others over history. We need to get back to teaching players how to play bowl again not changing the rules to suit a few players who don't play within the rules, whether intentionally or not. T20 is not meant to provide a contest between bat and ball btw. It doesn't matter what you do with the tampering with the ball or even letting people chuck, the fact you only really need to bat two over's per partnership means that there is little cost in losing your wicket. People go to watch six's being hit anyway, not for a contest.
Dl2136
Guest
the start of some great ideas here.The 15 degree thing has basically made a mockery of anything 'purists' might have to say about chucking. the horse has bolted and Murali was riding on it. So on that basis these kinds of ideas deserve some consideration. What is the genesis of the rule against chucking? is it the safety of the batsman?If so, and given the advent of helmets etc, bowlers should be able to deliver the ball however they want under a certain speed, say 100km or 120km. Chuck, pitch it, stand on your head, whatever. With the balls for T20 (and maybe one dayers), do what baseball does: bring 100 to each game, and have them all rubbed with mud before they are used. Change to a new one every time it goes over the fence - letting the crowd keep them would be another solid reason for more kids to want to come. Wear on the ball within 20 overs would be pretty neglible anyway. Very easy way to add to the spectacle without impacting the integrity of the balance between bat and ball for short forms
Chui
Guest
Is the "Ha" missing because I'm looking at this on my mobile?
Simon Smale
Roar Guru
I agree with most of these comments, Just because it is hard to bowl people out, doesn't mean you should change the rules to make it easier. Practice and develop swing bowling, or promote leg spin bowling. Or accept that t20 is a batsmen friendly form of the game and see it for what it is, a bit of slap and tickle to get the crowds in... There is a problem with an imbalance between bat and ball at the moment, and it's something that should be looked at (bat technology has improved immeasurably over the last decades, whereas the ball hasn't changed much...) but not by allowing ball tampering... I also agree with Axel, if you allow it in one form of the game, it will creep into others. Just in the same way you see batsmen getting impatient with having to bat out the occasional maiden while seeing off the new ball because in t20 you can have a slog, it would create a gradual erosion of the standards inherent in the game.
Gremlins
Roar Rookie
"... all but labelling chucking as a plight on the game". Do you happen to mean 'blight'? A chucker may find himself in a plight (a state of distress or predicament), but that is not relevant to the conduct of the game and the implementation of the rules.
LexTeeS
Guest
What.... The.... Hell A perfect example of the fact that some ideas are best kept in your head.
Axle an the guru
Guest
Allow it in one form and it will creep into the others. You will end up with specialist chuckers instead of bowlers. Its bad enough the a chucker heads the list of highest test wicket bowlers now,dont want anymore in there.