Channel 4 Test match coverage has given us a number of innovations. Some of them seem a little contrived, but the superimposition of the red strip down the pitch and the “ghosting” of the pads to show the stumps behind, has brought real benefits in the understanding of the L.B.W. Law. If nothing else, the commentators have been forced to articulate it's subtleties rather better than previously.
So now we are all experts. Or are we? Let me set you a simple test. A batsman goes to sweep and is hit full toss on the front leg. The point of impact is between wicket and wicket (not a very good case for the red strip treatment which really only shows where the ball pitches) and the general line of the ball suggests that it will go on to hit the stumps. Out or not out?
Your immediate response is likely to be a request for further information. If the ball is going to hit the stumps on the full then it is almost certainly out. But if it is going to hit the pitch first, does it matter who has actually bowled the ball? If the bowler is Shane Warne on a turning pitch, the chances of it spinning past the off stump are pretty high. If it is a gentle arm ball from an English off-spinner on a flat track then the raised finger is more likely.
In this case we may feel that the umpire should not be in the business of making assumptions about what the ball may or may not do after the ball has hit the pad. And yet that is exactly what he is required to do for every single L.B.W. decision he ever gives. About the only certain thing about L.B.W. is that is always a matter of opinion and never a matter of fact.
There is a further oddity about the full toss conundrum. When a group of “experts” were posed the question recently, almost without exception we all thought that it was traditionally given out while the umpires in our midst were more circumspect. Looking at the Law as it stands there is no “requirement” to give it out and it is a particular case where it may be right to give umpires more direction.
The much more difficult and prevalent problem is for the umpire to decide whether a stroke has been made at the ball or just a pretence. There is one method used where the bat is brought down on the line of the ball but remains behind the pad. The other is the batsman deliberately playing outside the line of the ball while his only intention is to pad the ball away. Sometimes we all feel that continued subterfuge of this kind should earn a dismissive finger from the umpire, but the Law does not allow for irritation or cumulative evidence.
What has emerged from discussions on this point is that there is no attempt in the Law to define what is a “stroke” and what is not. First-class umpires who have mostly played the game tell me that they are well aware of which is which but still have difficulty in being sure of the ball hitting the stumps since the “non-shot” device is almost always used with the pad well forward outside the off-stump. For the benefit of the week-end umpire of limited experience, it may be that the Law could actually say that hiding the bat behind the pad is not considered a stroke.
The late Bob Wyatt, stalwart England Captain in the thirties, remained adamant all his life that the first major change in the Law was fatally flawed. This was when the ball was first allowed to pitch outside the off-stump, even though the point of impact still had to be between wicket and wicket. He always claimed that a better solution would have been to simply widen the target (probably a fourth stump).
A “solution” was considered necessary to stop a few cautious players who became expert at judging the pitch of the ball and padded away anything outside the “red” strip. What the Law changers failed to appreciate was the extent to which bowling methods would change once the requirement to pitch between wicket and wicket was removed. The front-on fast bowler charging through the crease was a new phenomenon culminating in the greatest exponent Malcolm Marshall. Derek Underwood was another who gained great advantage by being able to bowl from wide with this new chance of getting an L.B.W. decision in his favour.
There has been talk recently of doing away with all the frills and simply making Leg-Before-Wicket as simple as those three little words. If it is going to hit, then you are out, mate! But the thought of what is currently thoroughly defensive bowling, such as Tufnell in his over-the-wicket, into the rough mode against right-handers becoming a full scale attacking method, is a bit too much for purists to bear.
Apart from going back to the original Law with four stumps which is certainly worth some trial matches to see how it works, I have always harboured an idea of giving the batsman two L.B.W chances rather than one. At least it would be spectator friendly, saving the frustration of going to see a great player perform only for the umpire to send him on his way with apparently precious little evidence.
If the batsman had two chances, he could scarcely complain at unfairness. And the umpire could reasonably be rather more harsh on those batsmen who are over keen on using their pads for survival.
When the first whispers and rumours about match fixing were voiced in dark corners,
I simply refused to believe my ears, treating every allegation with the disdain that I thought they deserved. First of all the mechanics of underperforming as a team seemed to contain far too many uncertainties, totally at odds with what the serious gambler needs. Easier surely to fix a tennis or boxing match with only one intentional loser to pay, and only one to settle with in case of a double cross.
Even now, having accepted with heavy heart that the game has been dragged into the gutter by a few unprincipled players, if you read Mihir Bose in your Wisden Almanack , you may agree with me that neither the cricketers involved nor their gambler counterparts really seemed to know what they were doing. It was as if they were playing some sort of silly game, blissfully unaware of the damage done. Forgive them, for they know not what they do. How horribly apt is that biblical reference in this context.
It is human nature to tear down those things that are most revered – and some might say that reverence for cricket is overdone, out of proportion –all about just another ball game like baseball or hockey. I happen to think otherwise. The facts about cricket and how it all works are pretty clear even if some people still find it all a bit of a mystery. But there remain those who know all the facts, think they understand and yet still totally miss the point.
Let me tell you what I think sets cricket apart.
One. It is not a contact sport, but it remains physically demanding and essentially dangerous.
Two.It is a team game but one in which personal performance is highlighted – also there is a requirement for every player to take personal responsibility. You cannot complain in cricket that nobody passed you the ball. You are often enough on your own.
Three. There is such variation in accomplishment from one day to the next. 200 for mike atherton one day and zero the next. 7 wickets fo Gough and then nothing. It takes a stout heart to deal.with such swings of the pendulum. Nobody tells Tiger Woods for instance that he must go stew back in the clubhouse for a couple of days just because he played one bad shot.
Four. The major games last long enough to deny individuals the luxury of pretending to be what they are not. Cricketers personalities are fully revealed on the field of play.
Ian Botham, the wild spirit, Geoff Boycott, the curmudgeonly Yorkshireman and proud of it, the cash register mind of the late Sir Donald Bradman, the carefree genius of Dennis Compton and so to the delightful Muttiah Muraltharan, a man who was apparently born to the game and the business of bowling a cricket ball.
No wonder the game has a literature beyond compare. There is this great edifice of the games history, carved more deeply by some more than others but solid – something permanent against which every generation can test itself. And then along comes one group of thoughtless dunderheads who virtually aim a canon at the middle of it, apparently not caring a jot if it all comes tumbling down. Well, if it is not in ruins, there are certainly some gaping wounds to be healed – and the question is how?
Match fixing is of course not the only assault on the game. There is orchestrated cheating on a scale never encountered before. It is cheating, plain and simple but the perpetrators simply shrug and say it is the way of the world.
Resist the temptation to cheat your way through life is the very message which cricket was designed to bring home to young and old alike. Accept bad luck – and wrong decisions when they come along. Rejoice when the wheel comes round again and it is your turn to profit from a bit of good fortune.
So what is the way out of this unholy mess? For once I am wholly in tune with one aspect of Mr Blair's policy style of government on the hoof. If you seek a reduction in major crime, get rid of minor criminal activity first. Clean up the graffiti in an area and there will be less muggings as people gain respect for their surroundings and then for each other. So we clean up what goes on on the field first and the off-field misbehaviour will more likely wither and die.
Looking around me there is precious little to be immediately optimistic about. Sir Paul Condon seems to be offering no more than a historical record and a few suggestions on policing to minimise the incidence of this scourge. In the same way as fire and brimstone from the pulpit did precious little to modify human frailty , you can forget about the effect of dire threats or getting people to sign pledges of honesty.
We administrators must, I think, adopt a more evangelical approach. We must paint a picture of a new dawn, a resumption of innocence, if you like, which may grab the imagination of a few young players and then spread around when others see how much fun they are having.
It is hard to get the image of the late Colin Cowdrey out of my mind when I start thinking along those lines. Colin saw clearly the importance of those five little words “The Spirit of the Game” tucked away for so many years in Law 42 “Fair and Unfair Play” and set the process in motion whereby that “SPIRIT” has now been defined and brought forward as a preamble to the Laws much like Etiquette in golf. It is our responsibility now – and particularly mine at MCC – to make sure that every young cricketer gets to know the wording of the spirit of cricket by heart. At Colin's magnificent memorial service in the abbey, there were three youhg captains in the procession. To my shame, none of them had even read the words. They all received a copy personally from me. This, on a hugely expanded scale is a fruitful avenue, to be pursued in concert with the ECB and can only benefit the game.
Looking around further for inspiration , imagine my surprise when I came across it in, of all places, Southern California, a land with more eccentrics per square yard than even, may I make so bold, an MCC AGM. Of all places in the world, can you believe it, they have a National Sportsmanship Day… God Bless those thousands of oddballs, because they talk about “ a day to celebrate the intrinsic value of sport as a source of inspiration”.
They go on to ask simple questions about what is fair as opposed to unfair. Its easy they say. Just look at the rules- Laws- and ask whether any questionable tactic demonstrates a skill the game was designed to measure. Was cricket designed to Test which group of fielders can clap their hands louder than the other teams ? answer –no- so don’t do it.
Finally these definitive words There is no victory without honour. Now if every international cricketer had that logo on his shirt rather than the name of a mobile phone or fast food outlet, then we would be starting to win hearts and minds. Any multi- millionaire with a yen to do good in the world could do worse than to buy and decorate Test Team shirts with such a poignant message
ted dexter copy for the cricketer magazine
3rd november 2000
I received a news release recently from the International Cricket Council headlined “ ICC commits to ongoing fight against cricket corruption”, a statement of intent which had all the impact of a cotton wool ball bowled at a brick wall. “ICC suspends three nations from international cricket for three years” – or “ Seventeen Test cricketers banned for life” would have knocked one or two bricks out of the wall at least.
More earth shattering revelations were to come. “The Pakistan Board intends to pursue a policy of no tolerance to corruption.” Which suggests that prior to the recent ICC meetings in Nairobi, there was a possibility that a blind eye had been turned to certain misconduct in that part of the world. I am amazed that Pakistan could have approved the text of a release with such negative implications.
On a more positive note, it was the first time that I became fully aware of a formal Anti-Corruption Unit under Sir Paul Condon and the existence of individual investigating processes in each affiliated country.
Turn the page, however, and matters seem to descend into pure farce with the reqirement for every Tom, Dick and Harry involved with international cricket – including groundsmen – to sign “honesty” declarations with a pro-forma players’ form attached. It is rather like one of those old-fashioned immigration forms where you were asked whether you had ever been involved in subversive activities for the overthrow of the state.
Is any player seriously going to have a sudden change of heart and admit to match fixing just because he is faced with a new scrap of paper to sign?
Every existing player contract contains a clause binding him to observe the Code of Conduct which already theatens disciplinary action for everything from dissent to drug taking and includes a detailed list of offences involving cricket gambling of any kind. To add a further layer of bureaucracy is surely pure window dressing.
And so to the mention of Alec Stewart's name within the Indian Government enquiry into cricket related misconduct. Some have dignified these mentions with the word “allegations”, but since they emanate from a self confessed criminal corrupter, an Indian bookmaker acting unlawfully in the first place, it is totally irresponsible and odious to do so. If ever there was a need to remember the old maxim of “innocent until proven guilty”, it is now in relation to Stewart. It also strikes me as a total overreaction for a posse of anti-corruption officers to rush over to India in the light of such a totally unsubstantiated linking of the Stewart name to the very serious offences admitted by other individuals.
There is just one more small point of probably academic interest only.
I see that the relevant Appendix to the ICC Code of Conduct dealing with gambling starts with the words “ at any time after the 1st July 1993”. The England Tour to India finished in March 1993.
My off-the-cuff recollection of the 1992/1993 tour to India was of England performing so poorly that there was no possibility of a bet of any kind. We lost all three Tests by such margins that under-performance by one or two of the Indian batsmen would scarcely have made any difference. It is quite scary to note that our two spinners, Tufnell and Emburey took their grand total of 6 wickets in the series at an average of 69 and 72 respectively.
However the 6 match series of one-day internationals was well contested with England and India winning 3 matches each. I have looked at the analyses of each game, not to see what Stewart did or did not do, but to see whether there was any pattern which suggested anything unusual and my conclusion is one of total inconclusiveness. Perhaps that is where the so-called glorious uncertainties of cricket play into the hands of unscrupulous gamblers. 0 one day and 100 the next is commonplace without any help from ideas of match-fixing.
Going back to the ICC release, I was dissappointed to see that the penalties imposed on Herschelle Gibbs and Henry Williams were confirmed. As young players early in their careers, it must have put them on the spot in an unprecedented way to be instructed to underperform by their Captain, Hansie Cronje. Such was the general high level of respect for Cronje before his fall from grace, it was virtually impossible for such juniors to blow the whistle.When I first played under Peter May, his word was law as far as I was concerned and I am sure I would have done whatever he told me to do. It would have been a nice way of emphasising the crucial role of cricket captains in the conduct of the game if those penalties had been suspended by ICC.
It warms my heart just a little to finish by talking actual cricket. Watching the first one-day international in Pakistan, my heart was in my mouth when Hick started to take a swing at Saqlain's very first ball. He was clearly nowhere near the pitch of the ball but miraculously there was a meaty connection and the ball sailed away for six. It was a defining moment which heralded a famous victory just as much as the wonderful clean hitting by Flintoff.
Only a few days later, exactly the same scenario emerged in the Final. Saqlain to Hick, a mighty swing and victory to Saqlain on this occasion. Now who could have bet on that.
A golfing friend admitted to me the other day that he had never been to Lord's. What rather shocked me was the matter of fact tone, as though a visit to the Mecca of cricketers worldwide was simply an optional extra. What can you say in the face of such indifference? Better to say nothing perhaps and hope that he comes to realise the error of his ways before too long.
To me the place is more of a second home, starting with a Test match outing from preparatory school. Sitting on the grass below the Mound Stand, we small boys were able to ask Denis Compton for his autograph when a wicket fell. “Not now lads” was the answer but he still made our day with a little chat about the game. Next time it was Alec Bedser bowling to Don Bradman with a ring of close fielders known in those days as the “Leg Trap”. Hutton dropped one and caught another. Or did he?
Childhood memories can be vivid enough but they can also be wildly inaccurate. Not so long ago I returned to the first proper school cricket pitch I played on, only to find that it was hardly larger than a couple of tennis courts. No wonder my first six seemed such a mighty hit at the time. So it was reassuring to check my facts with the great Sir Alec some fifty years after the event and to have my recollection instantly confirmed. “He should have caught the first one” was the typical bowler's response.
Along came representative schools matches, university matches, Bank holiday matches, (Middlesex v Sussex), Gentlemen v Players, M.C.C v Tourists and finally the first of a few Tests. There are too many memorable moments to start recounting them here but there was always the same tingle up the spine just walking in at the Grace gate and even more so when walking through the Long Room and out onto the pitch. Rather like hitting the drive off the first on the Old Course at St Andrew's. The ghosts of players from down the ages are never far away.
Apart from the abiding sense of history, I have to admit that Lord's was not my absolute favourite ground to play on. There was the sideways slope to contend with and the “ridge” at the Nursery End where one ball would fly and the next keep low. Also, in keeping with most grounds at the time, there was no sightscreen in front of the pavilion. Seeing the ball as it emerged from a mixture of red brick, reflecting windows and a sea of panama hats was not always easy.
It was at our insistence as players after one particularly lively pitch that “Gubby” Allen, who virtually ran the place in those days, was persuaded to survey the playing area properly. Though he was loath to embrace the “ridge” theory at the time, our concerns did seem to bear fruit over a period and with all of the playing area now re-laid, and a sliding sight-screen to boot, there is much that the modern batsman can thank us for.
Since then, of course the ground has become hardly recognisable with the demise of the original Tavern and then the Warner Stand arising in place of the original few rows of seats and shed roof in the North-West corner. More recently the enlarged Compton and Edrich stands, the partly Getty-funded Mound stand with its fairground tented look and the massive new Grand Stand give the ground a whole new stature, with the modernistic NatWest Media Centre providing an extraordinary, yet challenging contrast to the unchanging facade of the great pavilion at the other end.
It would be a comfort for the Members and the administrators of M.C.C., amongst whom I now sit, to pat ourselves on the back and view the brand new aspect of the ground as a job well done. Just pay off the debt incurred and turn our thoughts to watching great games at our leisure for the foreseeable future. But as we all know, modern life is not like that – if indeed it ever was.
My experience is that our overall expectations of what life should offer are always on the increase. For instance, to quote my other sport, the playing standards of golf courses have improved immeasurably as have the clubhouse facilities, shower rooms etc. I was lucky enough to attend the 150th anniversary celebrations at Prestwick Golf Club last week where literally hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent to give it a five-star feeling of comfort inside, even when the wind and rain outside still has its way of reminding players that not all of life has changed.
Lord's Cricket Ground, always in the forefront of the nation's cricketing affairs, deserves nothing less than the same approach. Nobody wants to see this great ground go the way of Wembley, which, despite its history and unique atmosphere, failed to move with the times and was gradually overtaken by events.
The pavilion itself is a key part of the heritage and needs as full a face-lift as funds will allow. The playing area, despite the most sophisticated covering arrangements, remains vulnerable to the least downpour, because it is made of solid London clay. Keeping it playable is extremely labour intensive, even with the technological help of the weird and wonderful hover cover, and it is a level of manpower which it is only realistic to provide for the very big occasions. Modern re-surfacing methods are now available which would ensure that any rain was immediately sucked under, rather being allowed to run over the top with inevitable ponding. There is much to do.
With an increasing number of major matches, time out for pitch preparation grows accordingly. Sadly, it means that demands from the whole world of recreational cricket to have their one day of a lifetime playing at Lord's cannot often be met. An attractive solution lies with the introduction of drop-in pitches, prepared at the Nursery end or even off-site altogether. Already pioneered successfully in Australia and New Zealand, our otherwise unreliable climate can be depended upon to present a few problems that will need to be overcome. But the prospect of more cricket at ‘headquarters’ means that this is an innovation that we simply cannot ignore.
Finally there is the matter of floodlighting. For all their popular appeal, there will be a continuing debate about the future of day-night matches as long as sides batting second seem virtually friendless when it comes to predicting the outcome. However, there seem to be no such doubts - certainly not in the corridors and committee rooms of the ICC - about the merits of additional lighting being used to avoid the players trooping off on a gloomy day in the middle of an exciting Test. Every avenue should be explored to make this a possibility.
All of this is not news to the 18,000 members who are committed to the idea of maintaining Lord's as the very best of grounds as well as being the most prestigious. They may be not quite so enthusiastic about the financial implications where an increase in subscriptions is very much on the cards! Whatever that increase may be, there is little doubt that in terms of comparative value for money, M.C.C membership is still to the forefront. Season tickets to modest football clubs cost more whilst plain fitness emporiums and social clubs, let alone golf clubs are in another league altogether.
I just hope that my long association with Lord's will continue in such a way that I can continue to be genuinely proud of the way it changes with the times. It is not only the fabric of the place that is changing for the better. The whole idea of the private club with a public role is being re-visited with a number of pure cricketing initiatives on hand - on umpiring and the Spirit of the Game, for example - which can only benefit cricket both here at home and world-wide. If everyone can take a leap of faith, I believe they will live to enjoy the fruits of their actions with M.C.C. and Lord's at the head of affairs as never before.
[Agreed by Tony Dodemaide: 17.1.2002]
[Amendments from Roger Knight incorporated: 31.1 2002]
“The Cricket committee is responsible for the main ground at Lord's and all matters relating to the Laws of the game. It drives the policy of the Club, in all of its cricket activities - playing, coaching and supporting the game”.
The Cricket committee believes that 2001 will prove to have been a pivotal year for Lord's, and the Club. At the Special General Meeting, Members approved subscription increases that will enable MCC to press ahead with three major ground improvement projects. As indicated in the President's Statement, each of these initiatives is important and, taken together, they are also extremely ambitious. They present us with an unique opportunity to ensure that, in future, Lord's can combine its undoubted historic appeal with genuinely state-of-the-art sporting facilities.
The Cricket committee undertook much important preparatory work in advance of September's SGM. In particular, it considered evidence, from a wide variety of sources, on the re-laying of sporting surfaces, the use of portable cricket pitches, and the relative merits of different types of floodlighting. In addition, it contributed to the preparation of the documentation (including the special memorandum) that was sent to Members, to ensure that everyone was fully informed about the MCC Committee's proposals and their merits from a cricket-playing perspective.
Since September, the committee has continued to take a close interest in all three projects. It has been pleased by the amount of progress that has been made. For example, the first metal trays, in which drop-in pitches will be developed, initially on a trial basis, arrived in England (from Australia) in December. Similarly, plans for the re-laying of the outfield have proceeded well. As a result, the Cricket committee believes that the existing outfield should be removed as soon as possible, starting in September 2002, and is confident that its replacement will provide a high-quality playing surface from the outset of the 2003 season. (The famous Lord's ‘slope’ will, of course, be unaffected). As far as floodlighting is concerned, the committee continues to examine all the available evidence about the likely costs, benefits and practicality of installing floodlights at Lord's.
In due course, these ground improvement projects should help to increase the quality and quantity of cricket that Lord's can offer. For instance, the new outfield will reduce the amount of play lost after rain, while portable pitches should cut the number of days which have to be reserved for pitch preparation before major matches. This will not only increase the amount of cricket that MCC Members can watch, but it should enhance the prospect of Playing Members being able to demonstrate their skills at ‘headquarters’.
Indeed, the Club's key achievements in 2001 included the organisation of a match between MCC North East and MCC London North. The chance to play at Lord's was greatly appreciated by the twenty-two participants, whose selection reflected the strength of their commitment to Club's Out Match programme. Moreover, the game, which was a great success, marked the start of a cycle which will enable a team representing each of the twelve MCC regions to play at Lord's on a regular basis.
Other notable matches included MCC's encounter with the Australians, at Arundel Park. However, high-profile fixtures remain less important than the Club's overall playing programme which, in 2001, continued to prove its worth. Its value was vividly demonstrated by the results of a questionnaire sent to schools which play MCC sides. The vast majority of respondents were extremely positive about these matches and their effectiveness in cricket development terms. Looking further afield, the tours undertaken by MCC teams were equally productive and further enhanced MCC's worldwide reputation.
In total, our teams played almost 500 matches in 2001 - consolidating MCC's position as the most active cricket-playing club in the world. The Cricket committee was pleased to note that three groups enjoyed particularly successful seasons. First, MCC's Young Cricketers broke record after record, with the best summer (particularly from a batting perspective) in their history. Second, the end-of-season games played by the Cross Arrows Cricket Club featured some outstanding individual performances, including Kevin Sedgbeer's undefeated 226 against Adastrians C.C. - the highest score in the Cross Arrows’ 121 year history. Finally, MCC's women's teams had their most active season so far. It included their first tour, to the Netherlands, in July. The committee congratulates them on their achievements, and looks forward to our women's teams assuming an increasingly important role in the Club's playing programme in 2002 and beyond.
Our congratulations must also go to Mick Hunt, the Head Groundsman, and his colleagues, whose pitches continued to earn good marks from umpires. In 2001, pitch markings remained at their previously high levels in respect of the four-day games played at Lord's, while umpires rated its one-day pitches more highly than in 2000 - helped by the successful re-introduction of the most recently re-laid surfaces.
Other improvements included the creation of a gymnasium in the MCC Indoor School, which further enhanced the facilities available for cricketers’ use at Lord's - as noted by, for example, the touring Australians. However, 2001 included some disappointments, too. Security concerns resulted in the scheduled tour of Israel being postponed (but replaced by a trip to Portugal), while our hopes of developing a multi-faceted regional centre, in partnership with a club in Castleford, proved to be too ambitious and will not be pursued.
While such developments were unfortunate, the Cricket committee believes that they should not detract from one of the most active and successful years in MCC's history - and one which will prove pivotal to its future.
