Ted Dexter Copy for the Cricketer Magasine
Monday 4th September 2000
I like listening to Angus Fraser on the radio. He is an agreeable man with a dry wit and his attitude to the game seems to have preserved a freshness which long service in county cricket sometimes dulls.
It was intriguing to hear him debating the cricket ball issue, especially the notion that all Test cricket should be played with a standard product. Apparently David Lloyd had suggested the machine stitched Kookaburra as the answer with less prominent stitching. This could mean more emphasis on swinging the new ball and a need for spinners if the “old” ball was no help to the “seamers”.
Angus felt that since batsmen were free to take their pick of the world's best bats, bowlers should have the same opportunity to pick the ball they like best. It is entirely logical and I tend to agree. Where he slipped up was saying that bat technology had progressed while the ball was still the same. Wrong!
Cricket balls are definitely not the same. The main difference is that the core of the ball has changed significantly, from strips of cork bound in layer by layer with twine, to a composite lump of cork and latex which constitutes two thirds or more of the overall sphere. The change was made largely in the cause of uniformity from the administrators point of view and was embraced by manufacturers because the process was less labour intensive.
I heard umpires Shepherd and Harper saying that the balls had lasted well in the recent Test series – not surprising when some of the innings have been rather short – but one reason must be that the core of the modern ball remains unchanged for the whole 80 overs, before a new one becomes due. It is self evident that the ball therefore remains harder for longer and gives the faster bowlers a lot more chance of success with the old ball. More broken fingers is another result.
It may even be that the “discovery” of reverse swing was due to this basic change.The cork and twine ball became too soft for the quick men to bother after 30 overs, so the opportunity to experiment with rough sides, smooth sides, wet sides and dry sides and different seam positions barely came along.
Going back to the bowlers’ free choice argument, they are lucky that the authorities have the need to maintain competition between manufacturers to keep the price down. They stipulate as closely as they can what the ball should be like and then test them to ensure that they conform to a standard. But there will always be variations and bowlers will always find the one that feels smallest in the hand and gives the most chance of swing and seam.
All that is fine until five day matches are reduced to two with thousands of dissappointed spectators. Repayment of hundreds of thousands of pounds for unused tickets is something the game can ill afford so it would be simply bad business not to look hard at the ball and the pitches to ensure as far as possible the right balance between bat and ball.
It is just as well that the Oval Test lasted into the fifth day and it was a delight that the West Indians included the leg-spinner Nagamootoo. Without him they would have hardly fared as well as they did because he broke up the key Engand partnerships in both innings, Trescothick in the first and Stewart in the second. Such a long, thrilling match will at least keep the arguments for change of ball or different pitch construction in perspective.
The series overall confirmed some of the eternal truths of Test cricket. That the outcome is usually determined by the best bowling attack and at long last England were able to put three experienced men together, Gough, Caddick and Cork with three hundred or so Test wickets between them. Often enough in recent years we have gone in with raw talent alone and you only have to see what happened to the promising Reon King to know that is not enough. When Craig White suddenly joined the party with a vengeance, there was no doubt where the advantage lay. Obviously Walsh and Ambrose would have been first pick for either side from the start but the support bowling was not enough to sustain the pressure they created.
It was definitely not a series for fancy stroke making, Lara excepted, with major contributions made by Atherton and Vaughan for England, Adams and Sarwan for West Indies, all of them prepared to defend correctly and wait for the scoring opportunities. It was gritty stuff for most of the time but never dull, all culminating in the full house thiller on the fifth day at the Oval.
A final word for Simon Hughes who made a spirited response to my comments two months ago about bowlers and their views on batting techniques.Simon's gentle barb in my direction was that he took time to accept my view of his bowling “because I was a batsman”.
Sorry to do this to you Simon, but the 1969 Playfair career records section tells me that Dexter.E.R took 419 first class wickets at an average of 29.9 – 5 wickets 9 times, 10 wickets twice.
The 1994 edition reveals that Hughes.S.P took 466 wickets at 32.48 – 5 wickets 10 times and 50 wickets in a season twice. I went back to 1969 to check my own season by season tallies to find that the criteria for a mention in the final column used to be 100 wickets, not 50. I did not get a mention.
New Year's day at Sunningdale Golf Club resounded to the hum of good resolutions. No drink for a month ( with occasional lapses allowed ) was a popular choice. Then there was my own determination to keep the head steadier and more behind the ball in the downswing.
Top of the bill was the ageing scratch player who ordered his usual large tot before a twinge of guilt made him switch to mineral water. Only the night before he had embarked on the most stringent of remedies for recent poor form which involved a stone of weight loss, a two month course of lessons in the art of Seniors golf and a commitment to intensive physiotherapy for a stiff neck. In the cold light of day the immediate future looked a trifle bleak!
I found myself wondering whether cricketers are prone to the same kind of good intentions at this time of year. And, if so, what general lines of self-improvement would be the most useful. Obviously there is the whole fitness issue which is mighty important whatever the level of play, but setting yourself more technical goals is no simple matter.
I suppose it would be possible for a batsman to learn a particular stroke like an on-drive if that shot is not in an existing repertoire. Or a course in letting the ball go outside the off-stump would be a good exercise for anyone. The trouble is that serious work on such skills almost certainly needs a bowling machine for some of the time and a couple of competent bowlers to provide variety thereafter. Not everyone has access to such facilities.
Perhaps the first resolution should be to genuinely earmark rather more time for practice than normal during the rest of the winter, stepping it up a gear once the Spring comes round. When the summer is in full swing, then only the most dedicated have the drive and inclination to add practice time to what may be an already arduous day's play. At the highest level, it was Geoffrey Boycott above anyone else I can think of, who regularly found the extra hour or two in every day to bat against all-comers in the nets whether it was early in the morning or late into the evening.
By comparison the golfer has a far easier task. As a much more repetitive game with a still ball to boot, it is merely a question of defining your problems and then working hard to eliminate them. Hitting hundreds of balls is almost essential to reach a high standard even if the amazing Colin Montgomerie is a current exception.
Because of the cricketers difficulties in defining specific problems plus often inadequate practice facilities, I am going to suggest a couple of more general points to consider where some hard concentration in an armchair may be worth many actual hours of hands on activity.
We all know that the best batsmen appear to have more time to play the ball and that the best bowlers have plenty of rhythm, but when did you last hear of cricketers working exclusively on those two key factors. Brian Statham worked at nothing other than his rhythm, for a short time before each day's play and then again the moment he had the new ball in his hand.
When lucky enough to be captaining this wonderful bowler, he would give me bulletins on whether it was feeling right or not quite right or whatever. Unlike some who would be fretting about lack of swing or spin or bounce, all results of their efforts rather than the root cause. It may be that a few home sessions with eyes shut imagining your best bowling action in perfect rhythm would prove more productive than repetitive slogging in the indoor nets.
To find extra time as a batsman may be a little harder, but time spent in studying the problem objectively will not go amiss. It is mostly a matter of believing that there is extra time available and being prepared to take a leap of faith when the actual equations of feet per second and hundredths of seconds tend to disprove any such notion.
One of the most commonly asked questions by young batsmen is how on earth it is possible to play the fastest bowlers when at 90 miles per hour there is only a quarter of a second to actually play the stroke after an even shorter slice of reaction time. It seems impossible until you put it another way. If you say that you have 35 hundredths of a second to play the ball it seems just that bit longer.
There are two essentials in finding extra time. One is to wait for the ball to come to you rather than rushing around trying to get to it. And the other is to have a pre-determined reaction to the kind of ball you most expect. Some of the greatest players may have played each individual ball strictly on merit but for the rest of us, a certain amount of pre-planning is essential.
So shut your eyes and imagine the ball leaving the bowler's hand while you, the batsman, are still simply relaxed and ready. Take that leap of faith which is to believe in your natural reactions and that there will be time enough for them to put you in good position to play the ball when it arrives. If Gary Sobers can stand stock still against Dennis Lillee until the ball is nearly half way down the pitch, then it must be possible for most of us to play the majority of bowlers with time to spare.
Ted Dexter Copy for the Cricketer Magazine June Issue
Development of techniques for limited overs cricket has been going on steadily ever since the first major matches were played under the banner of “The Knock-Out Cup” (sponsored by Gillette) in 1963.
They were 65 0ver matches and the modern player will wonder how on earth there were enough hours in the day to reach a finish. There was ,of course, the famous televised match at Old Trafford in the sixties which went on into the late evening with Jim Laker telling us what was happening in the dark, but that was an exception. Mostly we completed in normal working hours.
The difference is that it is now a ball by ball game rather than over by over. A Captain is not thought to be worth his salt unless he intervenes regularly to reset the field, and if that means walking with due ceremony from slip to the end of the bowler's run-up, then so be it. If a batsman has the temerity to hit a four or six early in an over then it is obligatory to bring the game to a grinding halt while everyone regains their composure.
There were no fielding restrictions except the limitation of two behind square on the leg side but it was not long before circles were drawn and the first 15 over rule came into being. From these artificial impositions came the age of the “ pinch-hitter” with strict instructions to hit the new ball in the air into the open spaces.
But I have moved on too quickly. Individually there was experimentation from both bowlers and batsmen with the one trying to respond to each new move by the other.
“Giving yourself room” by stepping to leg was nothing new, already a feature of run chases in three day championship cricket but the advent of the blockhole ball and the importance of regular changes of pace came along more gradually. Meanwhile the essential agility in ground fielding was leading to longer training sessions and much practice in throwing direct at the stumps.
It was clear enough in the early days that the ball should be pitched up and straight and there is a case for this simple formula to this very day. However, the advent of heavier bats meant that thick inside edges went for twos and threes and pushed the bowling line more to the off-side - hence the sweeper fieldsman on the cover boundary employed by most teams nowadays.
Statistical analysis was perhaps a little slow to get going but it showed soon enough that quality bowling was nothing like the panacea it assumes in Test cricket. With restricted overs it is a fact that wickets are spread pretty evenly amongst the great and the fairly ordinary. Even more surprising is the fairly small differential between the runs per over conceded. The faster bowlers tend to be edged for four on an unlucky day with the slower men containing well for some, but not all of the time.
It was the winning Sri Lankan side that rather confirmed what the figures were suggesting i.e. that the ideal one-day side is made up of eleven batsmen who can all field like Jonti Rhodes and just do the best they can with the ball. Ideally this type of side prefers to bat second and backs itself to get the runs, however large the target.
The latest innovation which only appeared this winter is for the best fast bowlers to mount a full scale attack on the opening batsmen showing scant regard for the more restrictive playing condition regarding short pitched bowling. This tactic is only part of improved awareness of Captaincy which sometimes demands real aggression and quick thinking as opposed to the bad habits of some who kept defensive formulae to the finish, even when defeat was staring them in the face. Shane Warne was seen in a very good light in this respect during the games he captained when Steve Waugh was out of action.
It would be wrong not to mention the reverse sweep, given a rather permanent bad name by the infamous attempt by Mike Gatting in the final against Australia in India.
Less in evidence these days, it remains a powerful weapon in the right hands and it is probably only a matter of time before we see the first of a generation of switch-hitters, equally capable left and right handed. I believe they exist in baseball and there is no doubt that they would have value against the fair number of leg-spinners who are succeeding in tying down the lesser right-handers. How the umpires will deal with switching guard from one over to the next and even from one ball to the next remains to be seen.
Talking of umpires, they have had to move with the times as well, slowly redefining what is and what is not a wide ball, and finding it quite a struggle to achieve consistency between individual umpires and between the various stages of a fluctuating match. What is a wide to one batsman standing still, may not be to another who moves across his stumps and this is only one of a number of anomalies which the experts are trying to sort out in the Laws rewrite which is going on apace behind the scenes at Lord's.
So the shorter game continues to change and develop. On the few occasions when I coach batsmen these days, there is a different session for full scale attack when the only crime is “dot-balls” and getting out is preferable. Those who saw me bat will be relieved to know that I give no instruction on the sweep or indeed its reverse counterpart. Never fancied it myself for fear of getting a top edge into my nose. But if I had had a helmet?
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
