There is an easy solution to the problem of cricket teams constantly requesting a ball change – get rid of that option.
If the ball gets scuffed up or a bit out of shape, bad luck. Get back to the top of your mark and do your best.
It’s funny how no fielding team ever requests a ball change amid a flurry of wickets.
But when modern teams can’t get any movement in the air or off the seam, they run to the umpire like Oliver Twist asking for more, making out like they can’t possibly continue unless the ball is changed.
We get the rigamarole of the umpire producing their circular ring device and if the ball can’t fit through it, then it’s supposedly in need of replacing.
If a ball gets whacked out of the ground and can’t be found, by all means give the fielding team a replacement ball.
But if a batter launches the ball into the crowd and it comes back scuffed up, the problem is not the six-stitcher but the person projecting it 22 yards down the pitch.
England profited from the controversial ball change 37 overs into Australia’s second innings run-chase at The Oval.
After cruising to 0-135, the Aussie batters started nicking off at regular intervals when the significantly shinier version was somehow chosen from the box of replacement options after the original ball was dinged up when Mark Wood struck Usman Khawaja in the helmet.
It’s not the first time a fielding side has benefited from this tactic and it won’t be the last but it was certainly one of the most noticeable as far as the difference between the two Dukes balls.
As is its unwritten policy, the ICC issued a statement not worth the paper it was written on in response to the dramas at The Oval.
“The ICC does not comment on the decisions taken by umpires in matches. We can, however, confirm that all balls are pre-selected before the start of every match and when the situation calls for it, the match officials choose the ball that is closest to the condition of the ball that is being replaced.”
How to say nothing in 54 words.
All that basically tells us is a different wording of Law 4.5 – Ball lost or becoming unfit for play: “If, during play, the ball cannot be found or recovered or the umpires agree that it has become unfit for play through normal use, the umpires shall replace it with a ball which has had wear comparable with that which the previous ball had received before the need for its replacement. When the ball is replaced, the umpire shall inform the batters and the fielding captain.”
Marnus Labuschagne copped an on-field spray from Ben Stokes during the fourth Test after demanding an inspection of the ball when it was replaced during his crucial century in the second innings which saved Australia’s skin before the rain washed away England’s chances of victory.
“They weren’t happy that I wanted to have a look at the ball,” he said. “I just wanted to have a look at the ball because, in this country it’s pretty clear if you look at the ball once you know what it’s going to do. I looked at the ball once and I was like ‘Well this is going to swing’, and I threw it back.
“They were obviously not very happy, but I said it to Ben out there. ‘Why do you want to have a look at the ball?’ he asked me, and I said, ‘To see if it’s going to swing’. Jimmy Anderson went first ball he bowled to me, big in-swinger.”
There are two ways of looking at this debate – if you’re the bowling side, you don’t have to let the batter have a look at the six-stitcher before you send down the first delivery of the innings so why should you do it if it’s replaced.
But if you’re the batting side and the ball is replaced, you would feel entitled to have a look at the replacement, as Labuschagne said, so you know what’s coming.
Ben Stokes talks with umpire Joel Wilson after he requested the ball to be changed at The Oval. (Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
If the “spirit of cricket” is indeed alive and well, the batter should be allowed to have a look if a ball is replaced because as we saw by the events of The Oval, it can look and behave very differently once the umpires put their hands into the lucky dip to choose a new one.
At least at the start of the innings there’s no real mystery to the batter about the 163 grams of leather that will be hurled in your direction.
If the ICC removed the option for fielding teams to get a replacement ball or make it much harder for them to do so, it would encourage them to get through their overs quicker, which is definitely needed after both teams in the Ashes dawdled through at roughly 12 overs an hour for the most part.
Manage, strategise & dominate. Download Wicket Cricket Manager today!
Perhaps the second new ball can be brought forward too so that it’s available earlier than 80 overs into the innings.
Both teams were sanctioned large chunks of their match fees and had points deducted from the World Test Championship tally but it’s unlikely to make any difference to the modern player’s penchant for taking as much time as possible between deliveries and overs.
The best left-field option that’s come up for the ongoing problem of slow over rates is to fine the umpires if the teams don’t get through enough in the allotted time.
It’d possibly be harsh to financially dock the officials who get paid a helluva lot less than the players but it would ensure they don’t let the teams dilly-dally constantly, which robs the spectators of seeing the full 90 overs of play that they paid to see.
>Cricket News
%20(3).jpeg)
0 Comments