« August 2009 | | October 2009 »

September 23, 2009

The art of swing

Posted by Cricinfo - on 09/23/2009 in Bowling

	Wait until that thing grows older © Getty Images

Reverse-swing has emerged as a key weapon in a fast bowler’s repertoire, and has grown in prominence with the advent of the limited-overs game. The likes of Brett Lee, Umar Gul and Lasith Malinga have used the art to be lethally effective in the death overs. But what is reverse-swing, how did it evolve and, more generally, what makes the ball move around in the air? SM Arsalan Arif Khan from Pakistan offers a guide to swing bowling.

Many times in international matches we hear commentators use term “reverse swing” through the end of an innings. But most of the people don’t know what it is, except for grasping the fact that the ball somehow tends to reverse in a certain way when it gets old. Reverse swing is essentially an art. It is generally applied when the ball is old and rough with the help of extreme pace, even moderate sometimes (if executed properly), and get it to work lethally.

But before a bowler can think of reverse-swing, he must first go through the basic procedure of tracing his steps toward the root of swing, as the ability to swing is an art in itself.

What is Swing?

When a ball is released from the wrist, it habitually moves in the air and bounces directly proportional, or sometimes vice versa, towards or away from a batsman when a pace bowler is in operation. Swing merely consists of aerodynamics, which I’ll come to later.

It is a known fact that most fast bowlers strive for this sort of variation because it is a serious cause for concern for batsmen. Imagine yourself driving on a lane and encountering a vehicle moving to the left, but suddenly in full speed it decides to move in your direction. The judgment and reflexes then, of you as a batsmen or a natural human being, rely on your instinct; sometimes you survive the variation, sometimes you don’t. Batsmen gradually become accustomed to playing general swing, which is easier to judge and also gets predictable. Such swing is likely to occur in the first ten or 15 overs of a match when the ball is still hard.

However, recently, with the game constantly evolving, new-ball bowlers have discovered a way of swinging the older ball, especially when it’s dusty and scruffy. The movement, in this case, makes it more difficult for the batsmen to judge. But to attain it, there are a number of factors to consider.

The Role of the Cricket Ball

If you see a lot of cricket, or play in clubs, you will realize that fielders continuously shine the ball with their trousers or towels. The cricket ball has two sides across the seam. When players shine the ball, they deliberately leave one side rough while adding glossy sparkle to the other. The rubbing helps one side of the ball smoothen while the opposite is deliberately left to deteriorate through routine wear and tear. This is where aerodynamics come in, because the dual surface enhances a change in rhythm of flight from the bowler’s wrist to the batsman. The aerodynamics mean that the shiny side is prone to travel quicker through the air while the rough side works as a break pushing the ball in its direction.

The Seam Position

The stitching you notice around the cricket ball is called a seam. The seam acts like a helm for fast bowlers. All fast bowlers grip the seam vertically, with the middle and index fingers on either side, with the ball resting in the third finger and thumb. The idea of enhancing your swing is to hold the seam as straight as possible: The straighter the seam is at the point of delivering the ball, the greater the chance to swing it. And if the ball is old with one side shiny, the chances of variation will increase.

What are inswing and outswing?

Most bowlers get confused here. To move a ball in a typical fashion away from a left-handed batsman, the rougher side of the ball will be facing leftwards at point of release: notice the seam should be darting toward second slip. And it is understandably the other way round for an inswinging delivery; the rough side should be on right at point of release and the seam should be darting at an imaginary leg slip.

What is reverse-swing?

Once the ball turns older and more tattered, it will instigate a movement in the opposite route to where it would originally swing, disregarding the change in the bowler’s grip. For example, with the grip for an outswinger, the ball will move towards the batsman in the air while an inswinger will move away from the bat. Such variations usually occur very late after the ball is released, therefore it is extremely difficult for batsmen to judge the deviation in split seconds. Batsmen usually pick the changes in direction while in the air to confront the issue. It is not easy to execute revere swing, as they say bowlers need to be pace it at a minimum of 80 mph or above. Former Pakistan international Sarfraz Nawaz is known to have founded reverse swing during the late 1970s, and he passed his knowledge on to Imran Khan.

Mechanics

There have been plenty of theories about why, but here's the simplest explanation from former England bowling coach Troy Cooley: “Reverse swing is all to do with the deterioration of the ball and the seam position in flight. As the ball becomes rougher, it will take on a different characteristic as it deteriorates. So if you present the ball as an outswinger, the ball has deteriorated so much on the rough side that it takes on the characteristics of the shiny side. Which means a natural outswinger will become an inswinger and conversely, an inswinger into an outswinger."

How does it work?

Considering the fact that reverse swing generally occurs after 40 overs, it is tailor-made for the older ball. However, some of the England bowlers were able to reverse-swing the ball within 20 overs during the 2005 Ashes; Brett Lee managed it in 30 overs at Adelaide. But how can they manage to do this so early in the innings?

One reason could be the ball. In England, Test balls are manufactured by Dukes, while in Australia and parts of the sub-continent the Kookaburra brand is usually used. Like footballs, each manufacturer’s cricket balls are different. Some have more pronounced seams while others deteriorate slower, all of which have an influence on how the ball will move in the air.

Another theory is how some players are able to rough the ball up faster than other teams. In England's some years back, Steve Harmison and Andrew Flintoff both banged the ball hard into the pitch. Their fielders often threw the ball back to wicket-keeper Geraint Jones on the bounce from the outfield, all of which contribute to the deterioration of the ball. Regardless of all this, batsmen the world over know what to expect when the ball starts to get older.

Comments (31)

September 12, 2009

Ten tips for improving England's ODI chances

Posted by Cricinfo - on 09/12/2009 in English cricket

England's ODI debacle against Australia shows where they stand in the shorter version of the game. Here's a look at ten ways in which they could improve their chances.

From Ben J. Tanner, United Kingdom

1. Wield the Axe: I'm not suggesting a return to the late-80s/early-90s revolving door selection policy, which saw Graeme Hick get dropped more often than a Monty Panesar catch. But, if someone has not proven themselves to be up to the job, bin them.

2. Shuffle the Pack: Try new talent out. Rather than repeatedly going back to Owais Shah and Tim Bresnan, see who else is out there. The only real way to find out if they sink or swim is to chuck them in the deep end. Rather than watching the same old has-beens fail time-and-again, why not watch a noob fail instead? You never know, he might not!

3. Get Them In Young: India do it; Pakistan do it all the time; the Windies are often forced to do it; Aussies have been known to do it; even the guys on our level, like New Zealand do it - just look at Dan Vettori. The most left-field and yet most successful one-day pick in the last decade for England was Jimmy Anderson, off the back of half-a-dozen Lancashire appearances and some U-19 cricket. And he was immediately a demon (and continued to be so). Of course, this is difficult when you’re waiting for your best players to actually qualify for England in the first place, but that’s another issue. For the time being, get Chris Woakes and Dawid Malan in the team - an after the Lord Mayor’s show one-day series against the Aussies is the ideal time.

4. Biff It, Don’t tap it! “Whack it!” is the slogan of a well-known fruit-shaped chocolate product, but it could equally be applied to England’s top order. We don’t, at present, have someone who can hit the ball a very long way from a good length, striking fear into the hearts of opposition bowlers and rousing the love of the crowd. Freddie and KP are the obvious exceptions, but (a) they’re never fit and (b) they always bat too low. Get them in at No. 1, start the innings at 7-an-over in the first Powerplay and the opposition are on the back foot from ball one. Look at the likes of Dilshan and Jayasuriya, Afridi, Ryder and McCullum, Sehwag, even David Warner.

5. Don’t Get Rid of Domestic 50-Over Cricket If you’re not playing it regularly, how do you expect to get good at it. That said, how often do England players actually play for their counties anyway?

6. Play Domestic 50-Over cricket on Uncovered Pitches: This has the effect of: encouraging young bowlers, spinners in particular (of whom there are not enough); weeding out the men from the boys when it comes to batting (no more flat-track bullies); challenging the captaincy nous of the prime candidates, as it adds an extra dimension to their game-planning, suggesting who might have the vision to think outside the box in international games.

7. Don’t Conform: At first glance, England look like they follow this instruction rather too well already. They don’t have a power-hitter; they employ dibbly-dobblers for at least 40 overs every innings; from 2010, they won’t practice the game they play most often. The list goes on. But what I really mean is: think outside the box, when you’re on the field. Try different field placings. Get the keeper to stand up to the seamers (see my next point). Don’t play into the opposition’s hands by being wholly one-dimensional and predictable. Find players like Sohail Tanvir who bowl of the wrong foot, or slinger-Malinga, or mystery spinner Ajantha Mendis, who doesn’t “wheelie-bin” down six stock balls per over; Philip Hughes whose stance is a little too open; Shiv Chanderpaul even more so.

8. Pick James Foster: For goodness sake. He’s the most tidy gloveman around. Probably in the world. He can stand up to all of the seamers, except perhaps for Anderson, and put extra pressure on all those big-hitters who like to dance up and down the track. And he can bat very nicely too, thank you very much. Do you not remember the World Twenty20 tournament - he was pretty much the only positive to be drawn from the whole competition, from an England perspective.

9. Pick Dimi Mascarenhas: I know this is one of my bug-bears. But I’ve got to say it again. The man is an excellent one-day cricketer. He has played in the IPL. He has led a cup-winning side for Hampshire. He, like KP, has learnt a lot from Warney. He hit Yuvraj for five sixes in the last over of an ODI; his economy rate is excellent (4.24 in domestic cricket, as against Broad’s 5.12); he fields well; he’s a character (which England as a unit seem to lack).

10.Put the Football Away: Seriously, guys. We don’t see David Beckham warming up for a World Cup qualifier in Zagreb by chucking down a few doosras to Rio Ferdinand in the nets. It’s just a constant source of ridicule and injury, and I was pleased to see the comments from Andrew Strauss on Cricinfo that suggest this might be a thing of the past.

Comments (50)

It's the pitches, stupid!

Posted by Cricinfo - on 09/12/2009 in Pitches

From Akash Kaware, India

So, finally efforts are being made to make to ‘rejuvenate’ Test cricket. The ECB have proposed a day-night Test against Bangladesh next year, and the Bangladesh board has agreed. If the ICC approves, we might actually see pink balls and coloured clothing in this most traditional form of the game soon. The intentions of the authorities are certainly noble, but to borrow Greg Chappell’s expression, they’re trying to put a band-aid on cancer!

Firstly, why conduct such experiments straightaway in Tests? Shouldn’t they be tried out in first-class cricket first? I remember the Ranji Trophy final played under lights some years ago. None of the players involved had kind words about the experiment and it was dumped soon. However that was nearly 10 years ago, so the time might be ripe to give it another go. The more important question however is, is it really going to help?

The low attendances at Test matches around the world (except England and Australia) has more to do with the quality of cricket than anything else! And the quality of cricket is a direct result of the quality of pitches on which it is played. I understand that in a world where television revenue runs the game, it is inadvisable for pitches to be a minefield and have Test matches end in three days, but do they have to go to the other extreme and be so flat that planes can take off from them after the day’s play is over? (The fact that more matches are still producing results is attributable to the monumental ineptitude of some teams more than anything else!)

Whatever happened to pitches that provided movement on day one, were best for batting on days two and three, and offered turn and uneven bounce on days four and five, all the while providing enough assistance to bowlers who were willing to bend their backs and allow batsmen to play their shots? Or, to cut that lengthy sentence short, where have all the sporting pitches gone?

The pitches in Australia were once fast and bouncy, South Africa the same along with swing, England and New Zealand were a swing bowler’s haven, the subcontinent was known for its turning tracks. Even within countries, different grounds had their own kinds of pitches. The Gabba and WACA were frighteningly fast, Adelaide was a batsman’s paradise, Sydney was a turner, Melbourne was sporting, Headingley was a serious examination of a batsman’s technique and so on. But in the last couple of years, the pitches seem to have become standardised. They all look the same! Worse, they all look like the ones used in the recent England-West Indies series in the Caribbean, where bowlers were nothing more than high-quality cannon fodder. We have turned a product whose USP was the variety it offered into a commodity and we’re now asking ourselves why the sales are down.

Rather than making cosmetic changes and hoping that they work miracles, it would be better to reinvigorate Test matches by making it an even contest between bat and ball. If some Test matches don’t see the light of the fifth day, so be it. If the cricket produced on the four days is good, isn’t it heaps better than a five-day snooze fest which no one bothers to turn up for anyway? If an even contest brings people to the stadiums and gets TV ratings up, isn’t it worth it to risk an occasional three or four-day Test match? Provide the crowd a poor contest, and it hardly matters whether you provide it at night or in the day! They will still do what they are doing now. Stay away!

The bottom line is, the boards have let their financial concerns take precedence over everything else. I know it’s easier said than done, but there is a simple solution to making the Test matches more appealing. Just improve the quality of pitches, and therefore the cricket, and the other issues, including the financial ones will take care of themselves.

Comments (11)

September 8, 2009

The not so 'glorious' 90s

Posted by Cricinfo - on 09/08/2009 in Cricket through the decades

If anything, the current scenario is incredibly exciting: as I write, the gap between No.1 and No.4 on the ICC test rankings is a mere 6 points, which means we're potentially looking at a situation where the No.1 position changing hands regularly- possibly every series - over the next few years. Never since the late 70s (well before most of the readers here were even born) has the field been so open. Never has there been a situation where 4-5 teams find themselves with the opportunity to making the No.1 position theirs.

The quality of cricket may be lower, but the competition is better today and the number of draws (despite the dead pitches) is at its lowest in decades. Admittedly the contest between bat and ball is ludicrously lop-sided. Even so, Test cricket today is in my opinion (contrary to popular perception) in far better health than it was a dozen years ago. Whereas we had 3-4 sides (India included) competing for the bottom slot back then, we have an equal number fighting for the top now. In short: Test cricket is in unchartered waters now.

Comments (45)

Rethinking the referral system

Posted by Cricinfo - on 09/08/2009 in Umpiring

From Gopal Rangachary, India

Now that the Ashes are over, the post-mortems have begun. Shots have been fired at Ricky Ponting, Andrew Hilditch, the Oval groundsman and not least the standard of umpiring in this series. By any measure, it was embarrassing. Rudi Koertzen and Asad Rauf were poor, Billy Doctrove average, and Billy Bowden had a good series at the business end of the pitch , after a first ball shocker at Leeds, but seems to have missed several wickets off no-balls.

The umpiring incompetence has spurred a familiar debate- the use of technology. Sometimes that debate seems as polarized as a Michael Moore v Dick Cheney debate on healthcare. The supporters of technology fumed when Marcus North got a shocker at The Oval, while the opponents like Michael Holding made dark predictions of two-day tests if Hawkeye was adopted as the gold standard.

Having watched the referral system on trial during the India v Sri Lanka and West Indies v England Test series, I was mighty relieved to hear that the Ashes wouldn’t be subject to that experiment. That's a curious response, isn’t it? I am a strong believer in getting the decisions right. Consider this - Jonathan Trott appeared to be caught-behind off the first ball of the third day. The ball actually clipped his pad - clear on the replay- and Asad Rauf made a good decision. He could have easily missed that - and instead of contacting travel agents to plan his South African homecoming, Trott could have joined Alan Wells as the answer to a cricket trivia contest for cricket tragics (as players who played their only Test at The Oval ).

Rewind to the first Test between India and Sri Lanka at the SSC in Colombo- Virender Sehwag offers no shot to a ball from Muttiah Muralitharan that seems to have clearly pitched outside leg stump. Sri Lanka call for the review. Ian Bishop says: “That’s pitched outside the leg stump. Not Out will be the verdict". Lo and behold, we get the animations, and the graphics. Suddenly to the disbelief of all of us watching, we are informed that 10% of the ball was line with the leg stump. Out was the verdict.

Forward to Jamaica. Tony Hill gives Ramnaresh Sarwan out lbw, Sarwan calls for the review – replays indicate that it probably struck him high, Daryl Harper reverses the decision, Hawkeye then indicates the ball would have hit the top of leg stump. No wonder I was relieved we wouldn’t have this comedy being enacted in the Ashes.

The other side of the coin though, was when KP was given out to a ball pitching two feet outside the leg stump in he fourth Test between the teams in Barbados – a dreadful decision from Russell Tiffin. Even Harper got that one right by reversing it. So, you needed the Tiffins and the Asoka De Silvas to vindicate the referral system.

A decent referral system needs to address the following. Firstly, adjudicate only on the clear errors, and not on the marginal ones. Secondly, avoid the time lost gazing at the screen and the "tactical reviews"- where Monty Panesar asks for a referral for a stone cold lbw simply because the team has a referral left. The way to go about it, though I suspect the ICC isn’t waiting with bated breath, is this. Firstly, eliminate Hawkeye in its entirety. Get rid of the animations, the "mat", the random data - " ball pitched 2.5 feet in front of the crease" – etc. Don’t use Snicko and don’t use Hot Spot. If a decision cannot be clearly seen to be wrong on normal slow-motion replay, it doesn’t deserve to be reversed. Each of the Ashes stinkers- Michael Hussey and Ricky Ponting at Lords, Ravi Bopara at Leeds, Marcus North and Stuart Clark at The Oval , Ian Bell’s not outs at Edgbaston, Shane Watson's lbw not given at The Oval , Billy Bowden's non-decision on the first ball at Leeds - would have evidently been reversed on a simple slow motion replay. We didn’t need any of the complicated, obfuscating technology. This would ensure that only the more clear-cut wrong decisions would be reversed, and that the third umpire would have access really to the same faculties that the on-field umpires and, most importantly, the players have. The players don’t have a mat showing where the leg stump is, why should the third umpire? Cricket is not 100m racing, archery or shooting. It shouldn’t be a game of millimetres.

Also, forget the three referrals each innings per team. Let every team be allowed six referrals (unsuccessful) per match. They could use them when they bat or bowl, and in any innings. Also, the number of unsuccessful appeals should be tallied against the captains and an appropriate penalty system introduced. These measures (even just the first, and forget the one dealing with the captains) would reduce the number of frivolous or tactical references.

Some commentators talk about their discomfort with players referring decisions, and they would rather have the umpires make the call. That would be disastrous, and I would imagine we may have every serious appeal being referred. The problem is compounded with the predictive aspect of Hawk Eye. At the Oval , we occasionally saw batsmen kick away balls turning in, two feet away from the off stump. Each time it happened, the commentators would mutter: “The Umpire would be guessing. He can’t give that out.” With Hawkeye - if it shows the ball brushing the outside of off, the umpire, with the referral system in place, will be obliged to. Is that really good for the game?

Comments (8)

September 3, 2009

Settlers and sons

Posted by Cricinfo - on 09/03/2009 in Ashes

From Imran Coomaraswamy United Kingdom
A response to Peter Roebuck’s “No time for back-slapping”.

	Andrew Strauss, Kevin Pietersen and Andy Flower - none born in England © Getty Images

I’m a regular follower of Peter Roebuck’s columns for Cricinfo and the Sydney Morning Herald. The former Somerset captain is certainly one of the most eloquent and thought-provoking cricket writers around today. His most recent opinion piece for Cricinfo, however, a warning to English cricket that it’s "no time for back-slapping," strikes me as faintly ridiculous, and some of the comments in it regarding English-born Asian cricketers I find really rather disconcerting.

The Sydney-based Roebuck has long maintained that Aussie dominance in the Ashes is a fitting reflection of the contrast between (what he perceives to be) the vibrant and competitive "prevailing culture" in his adopted home and a chronic national malaise back in the old country. It seems the Australian team’s sudden fall from grace has upset his worldview. Convinced that "English culture" still lacks "vim and vigour," he looks elsewhere for an explanation for England’s recent success.

Its Ashes team was not entirely a product of English cricket, or indeed the country at large. Four of the top six batsmen were born in South Africa and raised within its traditions. The coach comes from Zimbabwe, two of the players come from the local Asian communities, and two Irishmen have fought their way into the one-day party. It’s hard to deny that Kevin Pietersen and Johnathan Trott learnt their cricket in South Africa, but including Andrew Strauss (who has lived in England since the age of six) and Matt Prior (who has represented Sussex from Under-12 level upwards) on that list is frankly comical.

What is less humorous, however, is Roebuck’s reference to English-born Asians Ravi Bopara and Monty Panesar. In what way is either of these two ‘not entirely a product of English cricket, or indeed the country at large?’ The implication here is that players from local Asian communities are somehow not really English. In fact, Roebuck goes on to articulate this opinion explicitly: “At present, counties have roughly 119 foreign-born players on their books, and that does not include Irishmen (14), Welshmen or Scots. Obviously the 23 locally born Asian players have been omitted. Of course they are a separate category.”

Why should locally born Asians even enter into this discussion? In this context, why are they a “separate category” rather than simply locals? Roebuck is on very dangerous ground here, as in the not so distant past, there have been a number of highly controversial public debates on the “Englishness” of black and Asian cricketers representing England, notably the racially charged Henderson affair in 1995. In this case Roebuck makes clear that he celebrates the success of these cricketers, but feels it disguises the fact that “Anglo-Saxon England is underperforming.” (Which Ashes series was he watching? In the one I just saw, Bopara and Panesar underperformed and were dropped.)

He notes that the rise of the locally born Asians in county cricket “says a lot about them and English society, all of it favourable.” His remarks about them in this article say a lot about him, not all of it so favourable.

It can hardly be convincingly argued that the England cricket team is a product of the system or the national will. To the contrary it consists in no small part of settlers and sons. And it's the same in county cricket. Whatever Roebuck might mean by “the national will,” I find it rather offensive that he regards recent immigrants and their children as being at odds with or excluded from it. There is also no small amount of irony in the fact that these comments are being made by someone who is one of the five million current residents of Australia who were born outside that country’s shores.

Roebuck regards the Ashes as both a Test series and a test of the relative merits of the protagonists’ cricketing systems and wider cultures. The essence of his argument in this piece is that while deserving of its victory, Strauss’s team was not really English, and hence the real England does not deserve bragging rights over Australia - the former is still morally bankrupt, while the latter “remains intact.”

That sporting success is a direct measure of national self-worth is questionable to say the least. As for the notion of “prevailing culture,” one appalled Cricinfo reader (krumb) has rightly condemned his description of England today as an “absurd caricature that bares [sic] absolutely no relation to a deep and complex society.” I might add that for all its faults, this society is a great deal more inclusive than Roebuck’s comments betray him to be.

Other Cricinfo readers have been quick to comment that elsewhere in the same piece, Roebuck manages to make ill-informed statements about the origins of Yorkshire and Geordie dialects, the history of black professional footballers in England, the previous captains of the Indian cricket team and the composition of Surrey’s playing staff. He also sounds a familiar refrain about strong fast bowlers from the mines and classical batsmen from public schools, portraying these as English cricket’s now sadly exhausted seams of cricketing talent, rather than manifestations of a class divide and stereotypes that ought to be eradicated.

Amid all this, it must be said that Roebuck makes some very valid points. There is clearly a need to examine whether the success of the likes of Pietersen and Trott is masking a lack of up-and-coming home-grown talent. The jury is still out on whether the various academies and specialist coaches are having an impact. Conflicts of interest in the selection process and the media must be resolved sooner rather than later. The England team is still ranked fifth in the world, and the ECB would indeed do well to avoid back-slapping in favour of further soul-searching.

At this point, I should also make clear that I do not believe Peter Roebuck to be a racist. I have read enough of his writings on cricketers of all backgrounds to be convinced otherwise. However, if he intends not to “belittle diversity,” he really ought to reconsider a number of his comments in this piece, and revise his perceptions of English national identity. Finally, I can understand that Surrey’s recent need to sign wicketkeeper Steve Davies from Worcestershire might give someone cause to question the county’s own youth system (though as the 23-year-old is a product of the National Academy and England Under-19s, I wouldn’t myself see this a symptom of English cricket’s ill-health).

On the other hand, that Roebuck apparently interprets the fact that “two Afghan refugees open the bowling for their Under-16s” as further evidence of Surrey cricket’s decline is pretty shocking. I should note here that I have no proof other than Roebuck’s word that there are any “Afghan refugees” in Surrey’s Emerging Players Program. What I do know, however, is that they do not have an Under-16 team. Aman Shinwari has opened the bowling for both Surrey Under-15s and Under-17s. From his name, I would guess that he is of Pashtun origin. On the Surrey website, he names James Anderson as his favourite player, and states that his aspiration is to play cricket for England. I sincerely hope that no one ever tells him his success is an indication that Surrey cricket has “run out of gas.”

Comments (54)