Ball or No Ball? Fair or Unfair?….. Logical or Illogical?

I found this video link posted on one of the cricket forums that i visit. It has Michael Holding holding forth, with video evidence and all, on bowling actions. He compares Shoaib Akthar and R. P. Singh.

Holding seems to be suggesting there that theres a kink in the Shoaib action, even accounting for the hyperextension. The problem with throwing, as explained so vividly by Colin Cowdrey in his autobiography, is that while the bowled delivery comes out of an arc, the thrown delivery seems to come out of a muzzle. Hence, the batsman facing the thrown delivery does not have the arc of the arm from which he can follow the initial line of the ball, that he would ordinarily have when facing the normal, legal delivery. This i believe, is where Michael Holding’s front on angle is significant.

Law 24(2) and Law 24 (Note a) of the 1980 Laws of Cricket relates to ‘no ball’. Note a describes when a delivery is deemed to have been thrown:

“(a) Definition of a Throw A ball shall be deemed to have been thrown if, in the opinion of either Umpire, the process of straightening the bowling arm, whether it be partial or complete, takes place during that part of the delivery swing which directly precedes the ball leaving the hand. This definition shall not debar a Bowler from the use of the wrist in the delivery swing. “

In the 2000 Laws of Cricket Law 24 has now been modified, so that Law 24(3) now defines the legal delivery. The laws now states the following:

“A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler’s arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.”

Note that while the earlier Law explicitly described what was not legal, the revised law states what is legal. In the earlier law, a delivery was deemed to be legal, while in the new law, anything which does not comply with 24(3) is deemed to be illegal. Further, the ICC also has caveats for the amount of straightening in its bowling review . The second question gives the feeble explanation for the 15 degree angle by suggesting that the intention of the law is to ensure that there is no visible straightening of the elbow.

This is clearly not the case. If we accept that in order to propel anything, you flex one or more out of your shoulder, your elbow, your wrist or your finger joints. The purpose of the bowling law, preventing the straightening of the elbow, suggests that the elbow may not be used. That is how bowling is distinguished from the throw. Hence the common cricketing adage of the “smooth” action. The problem lies with the flexing of the elbow, and not with the natural bending that occurs due to hyperextension in some cases, and simple air resistence in others. The existence of the elbow joint and the existence of air resistence, suggests that there will be some element of bending/straightening when the arm is turned over.

The 1980 law, clearly implies that “straightening” as a deliberate action is not acceptable. The law does seem to take into account inadvertant straightening as described above.

The front on view with Shoaib and with some other bowlers who have been under review is therefore significant.

By defining the “legal delivery”, the ICC has made it difficult for itself to carry out its review process. The obvious argument which can be made by any bowler who has been reported earlier, is that before reporting him again, the ICC should explain how his new action was different from the one for which he was reported the first time. In the earlier case, when the illegal delivery or throw was defined, such an argument could not have been made.

So the ICC hiding behind complexity, and biomechanics and technology to explain away the bowling law fiasco is a bit dubious. There are some fundamental logical inconsistencies with the bowling review process which have nothing to do with technology. There also appears to me to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the bowling law and its purpose on the part of the reviewers of the bowling law.

The only thing the ICC has achieved by this, is to undermine the authority of umpires even further. It shows all the classical characteristics of an action borne out of a lack of trust, and an action designed to dilute authority. International Umpires deserve neither.

Harsha Bhogle on the Indian Team selection for the Nagpur Test

Harsha Bhogle who is one of the few cricket writers whos columns i follow regularly, confirms, clarifies and presents his opinion on the selection for the Nagpur Test. His comments on the pace quartet present a firm opinion on the “Away Dilemma“. He also offers a perspective on the Ganguly selection and suggests that it is time to stop belittling Ganguly, and instead celebrate his achievements.

Bhogle’s writing is always fair and he has this agreeable tendency of always wanting to give the selectors and the players and the administrators the benefit of the doubt, something which is missing in a lot of the cricket press.

The comings and goings in the English squad – with Trescothick leaving for home for personal reasons, Alistair Cook, Owais Shah and Jimmy Anderson being called up – coupled with injuries to Michael Vaughan and Kevin Pietersen, are obviously not the most auspicious beginning to this Test series. Hopefully, England will find XI fit men that they can put on the field for the first test.

On the 1963-64 tour to India, England were so beset by illness and injury, that they had to call up Colin Cowdrey from England for one of the Tests, and had members of the press box on stand by to make up the numbers in the field if required!

English tours to India are always eventful, and the English players seem to be unwilling tourists to the subcontinent. Hopefully England will stay healthy and happy from here on, and we can have a terrific Test series.

Came across this terrific Curtly Ambrose video on google video. I also found this video of his famous 7/1 spell at Perth.

The beauty of the Away Test series….

The big story (and typically the Indian press has missed it) of this English touring team is the presence on Monty Panesar, a 23 year old sikh left arm spin bowler, in the English touring party. This is a selection that would be exceptional in normal circumstance, it is even more circumstances, given that

There is an interesting situation that has come up here. The English success in the Ashes series was in my opinion, the result of a successful fast bowling team. Four fast bowlers, each different in his own way, combined to build sustained pressure in the face of which the Australian batting machine was first rattled, then gradually contained, and finally mastered, to the extent that even after a trademark double century opening stand in the Oval Test from Langer and Hayden, Australia conceded a first innings lead in a sub 400 first innings.

To play 2 spinners, would be to disrupt this bowling combination. The quality of the spinners available to England is besides the point here. Should India prepare turning tracks, and i suspect they will, should England play two spinners, and leave out either Jones, Harmison or Hoggard, or stick with their Ashes winning bowling combination?

Successful bowling combinations are hard to come by, and once you have them, they can be lethal. The West Indies were dominant because they had 4 fast bowlers. Later on, they had only two – Walsh and Ambrose, and didnt win as much.

Australia have NEVER lost a Test series when theyve had Warne and McGrath playing all live Tests in a series, except in India in 2001, and that required a once in a lifetime, miracle rescue effort from Laxman and Dravid after India followed on. Australia have lost test series and test matches, when only one out of Warne and McGrath have been available.

So England are faced with an interesting dilemma ahead of the Nagpur Test. India have no such problems. Their bowling attack is threadbare, apart from Anil Kumble, and the only problem they will face, is to decide whether to play 4 bowlers, or 5.

In the English dilemma lies the very essence of an Away Test series.

Ganguly, Tendulkar, Laxman and Dravid

Thanks everyone for your comments. I inadvertantly deleted Om’s comment, thankfully i still have it on my email. I need to figure out how i managed to delete in on the blog, because i dont know how it happened.

These have been the senior pros in the batting for a long time now. One of them has now been dropped in favour of a younger batsman (Kaif or Raina.. Kaif will probably get his chance first, given his sterling batting at the business end of the Ranji Trophy).

Ganguly for a long time during his captaincy, made the Test squad, purely because he was the captain. As a batsman alone, he didnt do well enough to command a place in the side – given his overall average of 35.50. Be it the pressures of captaincy, or be it the fact that he was found out against the short ball, or be it the fact that the alarming drop in his fitness affected his batting as well, Ganguly the batsman was not delivering. Gangulys career batting as captain, over a period of 5 years, over 49 Test matches (not 10 or 15), shows that he has a batting average of 37.70.

If you dig deeper, it makes for even more abysmal reading. Except for England, against whom he averages 46.55, thanks to one good tour there in 2002 (which was his best batting year as captain), his averages against the other major Test teams are as follows:

Australia 9 Tests 29.93
New Zealand 3 Tests 30.80
Pakistan 4 Tests 20.80
South Africa 5 Tests 37.40
Sri Lanka 3 Tests 33.20
West Indies 8 Tests 37.20

His averages against Bangladesh – 81 in 3 Tests, and Zimbabwe 44.7 in 8 Tests have propped up his batting average to about 35.50.

Add to this the fact that Ganguly didnot play in 2 of the Border-Gavaskar Tests against Australia in 2004, and also missed two of the Tests in Pakistan in 2004 (and Shoaib Akthar broke down at Pindi after bowling one ball at him), and given his historical problem against short pitched bowling (he got out to that same involuntary pull shot in Karachi as well), you might argue if you wanted to, that his average might have been worse.

Compare that with Tendulkar – and you find that apart from a bad 2005, Tendulkars batting form has been consistently phenomenal, despite the fact that he has been beset by injury. The same is the case with VVS Laxman. If you ignore the Karachi Test, Laxman has made 2 Test hundreds this season.

So Ganguly has not been dropped based on just his performance in the Pakistan tour. This is obviously exactly the sort of long term judgement which the selectors are appointed make. That is why they are selectors, and you and I are laymen.

Kaif has been the fringe player, and the selectors and the management obviously believe in his ability. What he offers in the field is exceptional, and what he can offer with the bat was evident in the series against Australia in 2o04. Kaifs has been a story of limited opportunity. His position in the ODI side means that he is never able to play a long innings, and his place in the Test team has been such that he has never been able to play a series of Test matches.

Besides, if Playing Ganguly means Rahul Dravid having to open the batting to accomodate him (Ganguly wanting to open the batting is all well and good, but the team management obviously dont think hes well equipped for the job), then obviously it disrupts the whole batting order.

The comparison between Ganguly on the one hand and Laxman and Tendulkar on the other is obviously not valid, because the other two have been consistently brilliant Test batsmen for India for a long period of time. Ganguly has consistently been the passenger in the Test batting line up, as the stats show.

I think the selectors have made a good choice. I hope they dont have to select Ganguly again (and the selection of Raina suggests that they wont) in the Test team, unless Ganguly forces their hand by sheer weight of runs.

The selection of Sehwag, Jaffer, Laxman, Dravid, Tendulkar, Kaif and Raina suggests that Saurav Ganguly is not longer considered amongst the best 7-8 batsmen in India. Gambhir would join the list when the openers are being consider. And Yuvraj would be a certainty in the Test squad once he is fit. As of now, Kaif and Raina come before Ganguly in the selectors opinion, and i have no quarrel with that.

Sincere apologies to Nasser Hussein…..

Ganguly dropped for Nagpur Test – Cricinfo.com
Ganguly not picked for First Test – Rediff.com
Ganguly shown the door, two new faces in – Indiatimes
Ganguly out of India squad for First Test against England – Indian Express Cricket
India signal end of Saurav Ganguly’s Test career – Indian Express
Ganguly dropped from India Test squad – Reuters
Ganguly left out for First test against England – Hindustan Times
Goodbye Ganguly as India selectors vote for youth – Reuters

Nasser Hussein suggested to Michael Vaughan that he ought to do everything possible to win in India, on and off the field, and that included being creative in his use of the Sourav Ganguly issue.

Theres so much that can be said about this team selection. For the first time in living memory, India have selected four fast bowlers for a Home test match. These are four fast bowlers apart from a fifth fast bowler who just took 5/59, including Flintoff, Strauss and Jones, to bowl England out for 238 in their first innings of their tour game at Baroda. India have picked Wasim Jaffer ahead of Gautam Gambhir in the Test team. Mohammad Kaif is now certain to play in the Nagpur Test. The Rahul Dravid opening idea is likely to be discontinued, inspite of 2 Test hundreds in three Tests in Pakistan by the captain. Piyush Chawla has being selected, possibly as an understudy to Anil Kumble. Murali Kartik has been overlooked in favour of a second leg spinner. There has been a clear shift in the selectors opinion here. Zaheer Khan is no longer the first choice paceman for India in Test Cricket. Agarkar, who at best made it to the side as third seamer recently, has also been ignored. The two fast bowling slots in the national side are up for grabs. Irfan Pathan is basically being played as a all rounder now – runs are expected from him as well.

In cricketing terms, theres nothing significant about dropping Sourav Ganguly. Hes been out of the national ODI squad, and has been dropped from the Test team earlier this season. He hasnt distinguished himself with the bat or in the field in any of the test matches he has played, even though he did bat quite well at Karachi, without the runs expected from a specialist Test bat to show for it.

There are so many points of discussion with this selection. It ought to have been a reporters dream. Yet, all we see are questions about Sourav Ganguly. No wonder the national selectors at one point declined to hold press conference or even press briefings about team selections in the recent past. And then we point fingers at public protest about the Ganguly selection issue.

If the press does not inform and educate the public, especially when opportunities like these present themselves, then we ought to expect no better than effigy burning, hot oil and black paint being thrown at sportsmens homes, footwear being used to garland sportsmen, and other such things borne out of jingoism and ignorance. To call all this passion, is to do disservice to the truly passionate cricket fans.

Let the discourse be about the cricket, and not about egoes. Otherwise, Nasser Hussein wins every time.

Should i include Bangladesh in my rankings?

I have resisted from including Bangladesh in my rankings so far, due to their relative infancy as an ODI team. But with Bangladesh beating India, Australia and Sri Lanka in the space of 24 months now, im seriously wondering whether they ought to be included. I didnt want to have them as a new side, languishing consistently at the bottom of the rankings, but now things are different.

In the next version, i probably will include Bangladesh.

SA v Aus, parallels with the recent India v Pak series

In my book (read my ratings), this is the blue ribbon event of the test match calender. Such has been the Australian dominance however, that the ribbon has now lost its lustre.

This time however, with the absence of Glenn McGrath from the ODI series, and his possible absence from the test series, there is the prospect of an evenly matched Test series. The South Africans seem to agree.

The interesting parallel between this series and the recently concluded India v Pakistan series in Pakistan, is the parallel between the type of attacks available to either side, and the presence of one express pace bowler in the series. India showed that it was quality seam and swing bowling which hurt them more than the express pace of Shoaib. Andre Nel’s call for seaming wickets, to negate Shane Warne, may just have the added advantage of helping South Africa take 20 Australian wickets considerably cheaply. Whether the pace bowler – seaming wickets hypothesis will hold true, given the fundamentally quicker nature of South African wickets as compared to Pakistan remains open to debate.

But if seaming tracks are prepared, then the contest ought to be between Tait, Kasprowicz, Bracken on the one hand, and Pollock, Nel and Ntini on the other. Lee may not be able to deliver the length required on seaming tracks consistently enough to hurt the batting – as Shoaib discovered.

This is also the greatest compliment that could have been paid to Warne and McGrath, the former being singled out and negated by the nature of the wickets, and the others absence being presented as a “real opportunity” for the South Africans to win.

South Africa stand to gain by this series even if they draw it, having lost the earlier series in South Africa 2-1. Australia can’t realistically expect to jump too much higher in the rating from this series. 2-0 or 3-0 will improve their current rating. A 1-0 result with resounding dominance in the other two tests, even if just short of victory may just help them as well.

The stillness of expectation…

Theres no cricket for ten days, apart from games in New Zealand, and Sri Lanka, where West Indies and Bangladesh are touring. The English tourists are in India, and had a gentle warm up against a CCI Presidents eleven at the beautiful Brabourne stadium in Bombay.

Brabourne offers the cricket viewer the choice of sitting right behind the bowlers arm and watching the action from the north stand. I remember watching Glenn McGrath, Jason Gillespie and Shane Warne bowl here in 2001, when Australia played their tour opener against Ranji champions Bombay. It was quite mesmerising. McGrath was bowling from the North Stand end, and watching him deliver from close to the wicket, never ever drifting on to the batsmans pad was quite an experience. The great Shane Warne snaffled 7 wickets in the 2nd innings in the game, as the Bombay batsmen, in the absence of Sachin Tendulkar faltered in their quest for quick runs before setting up a declaration. Australia were in trouble on the last afternoon in that game, with McGrath and Steve Waugh left to save the day for them. Typically, they did so in style, with the great Waugh hitting a couple of bowlers out of the attack in the process.

The Wankhede, Bombay’s regular Test venue since 1974-75, when it heralded a new era for cricket in Bombay, and confirmed the emergence of what was to become the greatest team in the world. Gordon Greenidge, Viv Richards and Andy Roberts all made their debuts in that series, with the great Lance Gibbs, the first spin bowler to take 300 Test wickets, playing his last last match in India. He took 7/98 at the Wankhede, including 3 batsmen clean bowled. After India had fought back in stirring fashion from a 2-0 deficit, on the back of the brilliant Gundappa Vishwanath and the Indian spin attack, Clive Lloyd made a powerpacked 242 not out, to quash all hopes of series victory for India, before Gibbs and Vanburn Holder bowled India out twice on a flat wicket. This great West Indies team, cast in the Indian winter of 2004-05, and forged in the heat of the Australian summer of 1975-76, went on to dominate World cricket for the next two decades.

Wankhede has been a result wicket in this decade, with India winning two and losing two here. The Australians won their 16th consecutive test match here in 2001, and then lost in 2 dramatic days in 2004. South Africa beat the pre-Ganguly India here in 2000, while the West Indies came to Bombay and lost by an innings in 2002.

England will come to Bombay for their final Test match, with the series well and truly alive (i hope), and hopefully the Wankhede stage will be lit up by the exploits of Flintoffs and the Tendulkars. Flintoff has much to live up to in Bombay. His predecessor in the England team – Ian Botham, single handedly beat India in 1980. He took 6/58 and 7/48 with the ball, and in between made 114 in an English first innings of 294 to help England demolish India by 10 wickets on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee of the BCCI.

And so I wait, before the English storm erupts (and it will be some storm, with the most complete pace attack in the world today).

Ratings Update – India in Pakistan 2006, VB Series

India went to Pakistan defending their Test and ODI series victories there in 2004. In the Test matches, they lost 1-0 and in the ODI’s they won 4-1. In the Test matches. In the ODI’s however, India at the beginning of this series had lost 4 of their last 5 games against Pakistan. They have turned that around to a 4-1 result in their favour.

Elsewhere, Australia won the VB series, coming back from a 1-0 deficit to win the last 2 finals against Sri Lanka. South Africa came away from Australia having lost 5 of their 8 games, 2 against the Sri Lankans and 3 against the Australians. New Zealand won their first game against West Indies to start their series of home fixtures against New Zealand.

In recent Test Match results, India lost 1-0 in Pakistan, a reversal of a 2-1 victory for them in the corresponding series 2 years ago. South Africa lost 2-0 in a 3 Test series Australia, an improvement over their 3-0 whitewash in 2001-02.

The updated Test and ODI Rankings as of 19th February are as follows:

Test Match Rankings
Australia 0.632
South Africa 0.535
Pakistan 0.534
England 0.521
India 0.491
New Zealand 0.452
Sri Lanka 0.449
West Indies 0.373

ODI Rankings
Australia 0.640
South Africa 0.579
New Zealand 0.563
India 0.548
Sri Lanka 0.479
England 0.467
Pakistan 0.461
West Indies 0.441
Zimbabwe 0.321