why wasim and waqar were accused of ball tempering?

[Anil]

....Utter codswallop....

What the effing ****? did you even read the circumstances c_c posted this in? c_c is not ragging on english seemers out of no ****ing reasons. english media were the first to lay the blame on the pakistani bowlers. He is just saying that if one is guilty of something by association than caddick and co are as guilty as atherton and waqar/wasim/imran as guity as aaqib javed. He used the english example because it frankly is the most popular one around.

you talking to me?

frankly i wasn't taking any sides, just pointing out what i saw(and waqar was clearly using his nails on the ball, there was no doubt about that....)....and i read this thread and c_c does have a point on the guilt by association working both ways or not at all....

 

[Sanz]

Utter codswallop.

Is that the best you could come up with ?

 

[Sanz]

So when TV evidence shows Waqar as scartching the ball, Wasim is miraculously, guilty and some even extend that all the way to Imran.
By the same logic, when the Atherton had his 'dirt in the pocket' incident, Gough,Caddick,et. al are guilty as well and it extends all the way back to Grace.

Flintoff played with Akram at Lancashire. So If Akram can be accused of Ball tampering just because he played with Waqar. Using the same logic Flintoff can be declared guilty of Ball Tampering as well.

Anyways does the name Steve Kirby ring a bell to anyone here ??

 

[Sanz]

So no doubt you'll have proof to back that sort of statement up.

And you have all the proof against Wasim/Waqar, dont you ?

 

[Top_Cat]

I think ball-tampering would be far more common in world-cricket than anyone would like to admit. I remember seeing Kapil Dev picking the seam up against Australia in 1991 and it was so obvious, Ritchie even gave him the "Ohhh, Kapil.......". I've watched Brett Lee do it, I've watched Hansie Cronje do it, I've watched Waqar do it, I've watched Chris Cairns do it etc., etc. on and on it goes.

I've long held the opinion on this forum that ball-tampering is made far too big a deal of and the fact it's made a big deal of lends further proof to the opinion that it's a batsman's game. If England are doing it this series, it's just evened the playing field. They've shown some of the Aussie batsmen (and fans) that their averages flatter them.

Short of using bottle-tops or anything 'artificial', a bowler should be able to do with the ball what he wants. If he can make the ball bend around when bits of seam are falling off it by using fingernails/spit, etc. that's skill, not cheating. It's a calculated risk too because if a bowler is affecting the ball and buggers it up, then it's his fault when the ball stops moving. Plus, having a ball which moves everywhere is useless if you can't bowl it in the right areas so there's still plenty of skill required.

In a lot of Tests, after 20 overs, the ball using traditional means is essentially useless. That means that the batsmen get 60 overs of movement-free batting against fast bowlers (vast generalisation, I know). You want to talk unfair advantages? There's one. There have been many innovations which have helped batsmen over the last 30 years (better willow, designs which make bats lighter but still have plenty of wood, shorter boundaries, etc.).

Name one for fast bowlers.

If anything, fast bowlers have had nothing restrictions placed on them (bouncer rules in Test and ODI cricket, making Mankadding virtually impossible, tightening of LBW rules). You'd have no trouble convincing me that fast bowlers do get an advantage from being able to do more with the ball but in all my years of watching cricket, no-one and I mean no-one has ever been able to show even a little why those advantages are 'unfair'. There's a big distinction between an 'unfair advantage' and an 'advantage'.

 

[social]

If one is to obey the letter of the law, then virtually everyone does it.

As for proof against the English, watch the next test match because you'll see literally dozens of occasions where Tresco polishes the ball after first having licked his fingers which come perilously ( ) close to lips that are smeared with sun-screen.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Do I wear a heap of zinc on my nose because I need protection from the sun???

 

[honestbharani]

yep, and the English media is known to make up all sorts of idiotic stuff when someone is beating their side black and blue. It is very typical of the English and Indian media, especially. I remember the time when Jayasuriya was belting our bowlers all the time (he still does, actually ), there was this story (even in the print media) that Sanath had a spring in his bat that sent the ball far. I was only 11 at the time and I went "Are you crazy? How can a spring in the bat help it hit the ball harder? And how will it fit into a bat?" And everyone said,"Shut up! It is in the media!" I get the same feeling about this "Pakistanis tampered with the ball in 92" reports of the English media.

 

[luckyeddie]

Well this is what exactly my question is? so why is ball swinging so much now without being tampered? and why the media in england not asking the questions they asked wasim and waqar?

There was most DEFINITELY ball-tampering in the 1970's and 80's, and the master of the art was Sarfraz Nawaz. They got away with it because they could - there were virtually no cameras at county games, and the ones available for tests had nothing like the capabilities of the modern ones.

I'm pretty sure that one of the first times suspicions were raised was when Ray Julian was standing in a game and he had cause to examine the ball which had a piece of leather dangling from it. The stitching on the quarter-seam was almost completely out and a triangular piece of leather was sticking out at right-angles. Julian said that the ball "looked as though a dog had chewed it" - which was surprising because it was only 50 overs old at the time.

Sarfraz even claimed to be "The Master" of the art (his words, not mine).

What these entrepreneurs did, though, was to cause a few people to look at WHY a bowling ball swung, and how you could get it to go the other way without having to resort to devious tactics. It transpired that one way was to have one side of the ball extremely rough and chewed, but eventually they twigged that the best way of all was to have one side wet (sweat) and relatively smooth whilst the other remains dry and rough - and this can be done perfectly legally.

The real skill (apart from getting away with using a bottle-top or a coin undetected) is maintaining the correct seam position.

So sorry, your guys were most definitely a bunch of filthy cheats, but they were at least pioneers of a new cricketing science.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

There's a big difference between picking at the ball and using a bottle top, sunscreen or whatever else on it, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not suggesting that bowlers should be permitted to pick the seam at will in full view of the umpires, but the difference between doing that and simply polishing the ball with spit are fairly negligable. Once you introduce a foreign object into the affairs though, it becomes a different issue.

 

[Deja moo]

why not just make it a law for the ball to be tossed to the umpire after it becomes dead ? The bowler could collect it after hes made the walk back.

 

[greg]

why not just make it a law for the ball to be tossed to the umpire after it becomes dead ? The bowler could collect it after hes made the walk back.

70 overs in a day, anyone?

 

[Deja moo]

70 overs in a day, anyone?

so? get some ball boys tennis has em.

 

[magsi23]

yep, and the English media is known to make up all sorts of idiotic stuff when someone is beating their side black and blue. It is very typical of the English and Indian media, especially. I remember the time when Jayasuriya was belting our bowlers all the time (he still does, actually ), there was this story (even in the print media) that Sanath had a spring in his bat that sent the ball far. I was only 11 at the time and I went "Are you crazy? How can a spring in the bat help it hit the ball harder? And how will it fit into a bat?" And everyone said,"Shut up! It is in the media!" I get the same feeling about this "Pakistanis tampered with the ball in 92" reports of the English media.

Very well said

 

[Pedro Delgado]

yep, and the English media is known to make up all sorts of idiotic stuff when someone is beating their side black and blue. It is very typical of the English and Indian media, especially. I remember the time when Jayasuriya was belting our bowlers all the time (he still does, actually ), there was this story (even in the print media) that Sanath had a spring in his bat that sent the ball far. I was only 11 at the time and I went "Are you crazy? How can a spring in the bat help it hit the ball harder? And how will it fit into a bat?" And everyone said,"Shut up! It is in the media!" I get the same feeling about this "Pakistanis tampered with the ball in 92" reports of the English media.

Trust me, if Jones and Fred or anyone of them were found to have been bottle-topping, they'd be crucified in the British press.

See - Atherton.

 

[Sanz]

Trust me, if Jones and Fred or anyone of them were found to have been bottle-topping, they'd be crucified in the British press.

See - Atherton.

Did the British Media find Waqar/Wasim Bottle topping in 1992 ?

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Did the British Media find Waqar/Wasim Bottle topping in 1992 ?

It was Lamb and Beefy as someone else said earlier.

 

[Swervy]

There's a big difference between picking at the ball and using a bottle top, sunscreen or whatever else on it, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not suggesting that bowlers should be permitted to pick the seam at will in full view of the umpires, but the difference between doing that and simply polishing the ball with spit are fairly negligable. Once you introduce a foreign object into the affairs though, it becomes a different issue.

however using spit on a ball is permitted by the laws of the game, whereas picking the seam isnt. Maybe the law is wrong, but whilst it is law then players should expect to be punished for breaking (and more importantly, getting caught breaking) the laws of the game

 

[C_C]

however using spit on a ball is permitted by the laws of the game, whereas picking the seam isnt. Maybe the law is wrong, but whilst it is law then players should expect to be punished for breaking (and more importantly, getting caught breaking) the laws of the game

Agreed.
But your guilty by association thing is hogwash.
If that is true, then entire indian team are ball tamperers due to Rahul Dravid's lozenge incident, entire OZ team are dopers due to Warney's doping , etc. etc.
Not to mention, in a court of law, it is rather easy to prove instances of players in the post 60s era tampering with the ball by illegal means- most of the games ( both FC and Tests) in the last 30-35 years have been recorded in tv and you can find solitary instances akin to Dravid's lozenge or Younis's picking the seam incidents for almost every single player.

 

[Pratters]

i have seen video clippings of waqar clearly scratching the ball....i am told there is footage of aquib javed doing it as well...dunno about akram though...

Then why is it said there is no conclusive evidence of tampering or othewise then?