Reverse Swing

Just when you thought everyone was getting the hang of this reverse and contrast swing business, another term is thrown into the mix by Pakistan Coach Bob Woolmer – CONVERSE SWING.

He says:

Interestingly enough, we are now seeing the emergence of a new skill called ‘converse swing’. This is when bowlers are able to swing it conventionally one delivery and yet with the same grip and ball shape, reverse it the next, thereby making it difficult for the batsmen to pick which way the ball was going. The Australians suffered at Old Trafford when Simon Jones exploited this brilliantly.

Hmm not wishing be overly cynical but it sounds suspiciously like “sending the ball down and seeing what happens.” Troy Cooley talked about this earlier in the year, mentioning the optimum vertical seam position – often called contrast swing.
Interestingly he goes on to bring up the subject of the mints again:

We noticed it happen on this tour as well and theorists suggest that using sugar mixed with saliva (say sucking a boiled sweet or mint) encourages the shine on a ball and allows it to swing either way with only the slightest grip changes. The fact that there can be a new bowling innovation is tremendous for the game and I only hope new regulations to ban the sucking of sweets on the field are not introduced now.

He doesn’t exactly say that England were using boiled sweets or mints in last year’s Ashes to achieve reverse swing but I think we are left to draw only one conclusion. Or of course, it could be another layer of defence in the Pakistan ball-tampering charge: “everyone’s at it so why pick on the Pakistan team.”

I’m with Bob on this one – it’s too much of a batsman’s game as it is, and reverse swing is another weapon on the bowlers’ armoury. It makes it a more interesting game – let’s keep the confectionery on the field.

It’s extraordinary how Darrell Hair’s offer to go for $500,000 has moved into the public domain. Apparently Speed released Hair’s email to the Pakistan Cricket Board on the advice of the ICC lawyers, who said it was relevant to Inzamam-ul-Haq’s disciplinary hearing, and it was subsequently released to the media in case it was then leaked.

I can’t really see how something that happened 2 days after the events of Sunday can be considered to be relevant to the disciplinary hearing, so I’m left wondering as to why Hair’s email was released?

Speed stressed that Hair’s offer was made in the interest of the game but he also said:

“I have said to him that he is not sacked, he is not suspended, and he has not been charged.

“I also said to him that I didn’t guarantee that each of those three positions would be maintained indefinitely.”

Somewhow you feel that the tide has now completely turned against Darell Hair.

Bob Woolmer has called for the ball-tampering law to be scrapped.

“I’d allow bowlers to use anything that naturally appears on the cricket field,” said Woolmer. “They could rub the ball on the ground, pick the seam, scratch it with their nails – anything that allows the ball to move off the seam to make it less of a batsman’s game.”

He says it’s what goes on and has gone on for years and it’s time the MCC brought the rules into line with accepted practice.

As the media waters lap around the England- Pakistan ball-tampering story a couple of interesting objects are washed up on the shore, both of them courtesy of former county bowlers turned journalists.

First from Simon Hughes, practically a step by step how to tamper the ball guide with helpful pictures, although you will need a decent length of fingernail if you’re trying this at home. It operates as a pop-up so you have to follow the link of the page – Simon Hughes: Officials scratching heads

Then it’s the turn of Mike Selvey with what seems to be a throwaway comment at the end of his article :

If, however, it was established that England had indeed prompted the umpires’ investigation, it would throw back Anglo-Pakistan relations by a decade. It might further draw comment on whether they themselves were speaking from the high moral ground when it was their mastery of reverse swing, often as early as the 30th over of an innings, which helped win the Ashes and drew admiration. Suggestions that this was aided by the use of sugar-infused saliva from sweets has not been proved, but it is a wonder that a number of England players still have their own teeth.

At Inzamam-ul-Haq’s disciplinary hearing he will face charges of bringing the game into disrepute and overseeing ball-tampering. So it’s a case of what happens next.

He ’s likely to be found guilty on bringing the game into disrepute – if you don’t come out to play at the appointed time then it’s a clear-cut case that you’re in the wrong – and he’s hardly likely to be let off with a warning. Bob Woolmer has suggested that if Inzaman is suspended then the rest of the tour is at risk, as some of the other players will support their captain by refusing to play. I don’t think Woolmer is indulging in brinkmanship here – the Pakistanis are a closely bonded team, and they will back their skipper come what may.

If the rest of the tour is cancelled then Pakistan will be fined, and it could lead to a period of international cricketing isolation – a situation that nobody in the cricket world wants.

The mitigating factor with all of this is wrapped up in the other charge – that of ball tampering where things are less clear-cut. The nature of the charge “overseeing ball tampering” suggests that it was carried out by different individuals – and we’ll have to wait for Friday for more details about what was actually done to the ball. My guess is not that much – I don’t know, it could even be less than what goes on in the average county game? The Pakistani’s are adamant they have done nothing untoward and no TV evidence has been found. It’s much more difficult to make the charge of ball-tampering stick, and to prove that the changes were made by the team rather than natural wear and tear. If the umpires have some solid evidence that ball tampering took place then of course it’s a different story but we’ll have to wait for Friday for that.

So in the circumstances, Inzaman is going to be found guilty on one charge at least – a one-match or two-match suspension on the disrepute charge is enough of a punishment and he should tell his team they’ve got to go out there and play the one-day series for him. He’s got to take the rap for the no-show on the field. The important thing is to get the teams playing cricket again, and the sooner this happens the better. Oh, and Daryll Hair shouldn’t umpire again in a match involving Pakistan. The previous run-ins between him and the Pakistanis provided a troublesome context for what happened in the afternoon session on Sunday.

There have been plenty of people giving their slant on what happened in the Pakistan – England forfeited test match at the Oval – umpires, cricket writers, former players have all given their views. The person I would like to see inteviewed is Daryll Hair and the first question I would like him to answer is:

What did you see to justify the ball-tampering charge and the run-penalty? Nothing seems to have been picked up on camera so is Hair claiming that he saw someone do something or was he just suspicious? His reputation as an umpire stands or falls on his ability to answer that question satisfactorily. If he can’t give the evidence for his decision, then it’s clear he acted rashly rather than acting firmly to uphold the rules, and his position and future as an umpire is untenable.

The second question I would ask Hair and his fellow-umpire Billy Doctrove was why they didn’t allow the match to be re-started when everyone saw it a a sensible way out of the impasse? Technically Pakistan had forfeited the match but it was obvious that their own board had eventually persuaded them to go out there, in an effort to get the game going. But once again Hair and Doctrove decided to uphold the rules as they saw them rather than consider the wider good of the game and the needs of the spectators.

I doubt if these questions will be fully answered in the next few days and it looks like we’ll have to wait for Hair’s autobiography before we get the full story.

Steve James again, but this time in the Guardian, writing about the absence of reverse swing this summer. It’s all down to the absence of the key practitioners, Simon Jones and Flintoff, and Shoaib Akhtar and Rana Naved-ul-Hasan for Pakistan He does point out that Simon Jones was actually using contrast rather than reverse against the Aussies last summer, on account of the upright seam.

Steve James writes about how much English players are making from county and test cricket – the basic he’s talking about rather than with all the add-on endorsements.  He feels it’s “bloody good now” compared to his £23,500 in 1997 but what struck me was the disparity.  Someone was only on a salary of £3,900 – that’s right a 4-figure sum – while some of the Surrey stars are on £100,000 plus. At 23 the recommended wage is £15,000 which surprised me. Full of some interesting nuggets.

Following on from his successful county debut for Yorkshire 18 year-old Adil Rashid showed what he can do at under-19 level for England.

Against India under -19s he scored 114 in the first innings, including 3 sixes, going in at number 6. Then with his leg spin he took 8-157 in 43 overs on the Taunton wicket. That’s a pretty significant all-round performance at any level, but I guess it will be the legspin that  attracts the interest.

Michael Hussey doesn’t think reverse swing will be a significant factor in the next round of the Ashes – in a nutshell: different balls and conditions. BUT:

Despite the prediction, Hussey, who was playing county cricket as Australia lost the series, said the batsmen were spending more time countering the often confusing tactic in the nets. “In the past, I don’t think too much notice was given to reverse-swing,” he said. “So the bowlers probably got the jump on the batsmen a little bit by really working on it and using it as a weapon. Now, hopefully, the batters can fight back by becoming better players of reverse-swing.”

So they’re just covering themselves then.