There are numerous motivation quotes adorning the walls of sporting changing rooms around the globe. One of the most used is “Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.”
Following the recent test match in Sydney between Australia and New Zealand and as the current Test at the Wanderers in Johannesburg between South Africa and England continues, debate is raging amongst ex professional players as to whether the current crop of fast bowlers are preparing properly. With wickets being taken, and then cancelled out following television replays which have shown that the bowler had in fact delivered a no ball in both Test matches, questions have been asked of the bowlers, the umpires, and technology.
First up these are professional athletes and in today’s game where there is so much time spent preparing for the Test matches there should be no excuse for bowling a no ball. Although there is an argument that because the Test players rarely play for their states, provinces or counties, maybe that is why they do not have their run-ups sorted out.
What is galling to many is that the bowlers today have full time bowling coaches there to guide them. The players of yesteryear did not even have a team coach, let alone a bowling coach, yet still appeared to bowl less no balls.
We are told by some of the mind-numbing ex players in the commentary box that the reason that they are overstepping the mark is because they are not monitored in the nets. Why not? Cricket nets are supposed to be an area where batsmen and bowlers practice. So surely you try things out that you are working on, but your run up and approach should be the same every time? If you are bowling from in front of the line in the nets, that alters the length of your delivery. When you go out into the middle and bowl from 22 yards you are inevitably going to pitch short, as you will bowl the length that you have practised.
There are some coaches who ask the bowlers to bowl from less than the required 22 yards; which is in fact hard to do. As you have adjust your length to suit. The idea behind this exercise is to give the batsman less tie to react. So it is a test for them with a ball coming onto them quicker than normal.
It seems hard to believe, but one individual very close to the game advised that the bowling coach is the one who marks out the bowlers run up, rather than the bowler himself. If this is genuinely the case then it should come as no surprise that the bowlers are no-balling.
The other question that these no balls has raised is why are the umpires on the pitch no longer calling the breach of the laws? Following the reversal of James Pettinson’s dismissal of Glenn Phillips, the TV stations went back and looked at the two overs before, and he bowled four no balls in those twelve balls. All going undetected by the on field umpire.
In the South African Test it was Stuart Broad who thought that he had dismissed Rassie van der Dussen. When they went upstairs to check the validity of the dismissal, once again it was reversed as Broad had delivered a no ball. Former South African bowler Shaun Pollock, in the commentary box claimed that this delivery was one of as many as 12 balls in that session that weren’t called.
Before we had television the on pitch umpires managed to check for no balls and were also able to make in the main well-judged decisions when it came to LBW appeals. So why can the modern day umpires no longer match that level of skill?
It cannot possibly be as some claim that the bowlers today are quicker. Such claims are impossible to believe for those who witnessed the might of the West Indies and Lillee and Thomson in their prime. The approach to the wicket would be of a similar pace, and their delivery stride is also alike if not the same for all fast bowlers.
Is this failure to make a decision simply because there is now too much reliance on television? Is it the fear of being shown to be wrong by television?
What must be frustrating to a team like New Zealand in this instant is how many runs they were deprived of because no balls were not called.
Former Australian fast bowler Brett Lee, who was more than prone to the odd no-ball, has stated that he feels that the video umpire should be monitoring this every ball. This was trialled in the T20 and One-Day International series between India and the West Indies last month. Lee went on to say that alternatively there should be a third umpire on the pitch whose job is purely to monitor no balls. Apparently this is going to be trialled in the Indian Premier League, despite it being believed to be a preposterous suggestion by many avid fans. For over 100 years the umpires on the pitch managed the game and called no balls. Why are they no longer doing that?
In fact in yesteryear many an umpire would warn a bowler that he was getting close to bowling a no ball, as his muscles loosened up, thereby giving him the chance to adjust his run up.
Apart from the umpires there are the rule makers who have to take a look at their part in this shambles.
When a wicket is taken, as in both cases mentioned, and the umpire adjudicates that the batsman is out, the video umpire checks the legality of the decision. The on field “soft decision” is then confirmed or reversed.
Yet if the bowler has been bowling no balls there is now no advantage for the batting side. Under the laws of the game once a no ball is called the batsman has the chance to swing their bat “as neither batsman shall be out under any of the Laws apart from hitting the ball twice, obstructing the field or run out.” If the on field umpire doesn’t call the no ball there is no opportunity to score ‘free’ runs. The law-makers believe that batsman no longer have the time to react, so this is no longer an issue. It is a fair point, most do not have the time to alter their shot, but the true greats did manage to adjust and play the shot with more freedom or gusto.
What is even more baffling is that today if the batsmen complete a run before the catch is taken in the outfield, and then that decision is overturned, the run does not count and the batsmen must return to their respective ends. The ICC rules stating that the batsman “shall not benefit from any runs that may subsequently have accrued from the delivery had the on-field umpire originally called a No ball.” So some could argue the batting team has been penalised twice, once for the no-ball not being called and then for the runs not being credited.
So why is it that umpires are no longer able to do what those who went before them managed for decades?
Is it the intrusion of television that has paralysed them from making decisions? Was it the fact that they were ‘encouraged’ to use the Decision Review System, and now are too reliant on that system. If so let’s do away with them and rely purely on technology. Certainly there would be no need for the square leg umpire, as nearly every run out or stumping is decided on by the DRS, even when it is obvious. The video could also make sure that the batsmen when running do legitimise each run.
The problem, as is the case across all sports now, is that the technology has moved away from what it was intended to do. It was there to eradicate the absolute howler of a decision. There are many players who feel that the current systems take too long, that they affect the flow of the game, ruin the spectator experience, and kill the celebratory moments. If there were to be a vote, which the powers that be would never endorse, it would most likely result in players preferring to go back to the days of old, and accept that some days decisions go your way, some days they don’t.
Clearly this issue needs to be addressed. A good starting point would be to have the bowlers prepare properly and their coaches to earn their wages by monitoring their bowling in the nets.
It is interesting that when one looks back at the bowlers’ statistics the amount of no balls bowled is not featured in their career analysis. This would definitely make interesting reading. There are certain bowlers like Jimmy Anderson, and Glen McGrath before him, whose delivery is like clockwork. It has been worked on to the point whereby their feet repeatedly land in the same place, and as a result both rarely bowled no-balls.
In addition to the bowlers lifting their game, so too is the need for the on field umpires to do the same. Unless they can give an explanation as to why in this second century of Test Cricket why they can no longer judge a no ball, when their predecessors could.
