• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

England and ball-tampering?

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
I stand corrected

Edit: But am I really barking up the wrong tree? Surely if you use saliva to moisten and weight one side of the ball, as all teams including Australia do, and if sugary saliva has a greater effect than non-sugary saliva, then the dividing line between a Murray Mint and a Jelly Baby becomes a pretty thin one, doesn't it?
To me, personally, its a pretty huge non-issue. Guys like having something to chew on so that their mouths don't get too dry, hence chewing gum, etc. etc.

I don't know too many guys who'll have a couple of mints whilst out on the ground for enjoyment, although that could well be different in a cooler climate. My interpretation of the whole thing was that the mints, and the fact that it were a certain brand used, were used for the sole purpose of putting on the ball. Again, I reiterate, personally I have no issue with that. Generally lollies are supplied for a bit of glucose, something to chew on, and any effects are secondary.

I'm the "ball captain" fairly often during games at my club, and I'll have some lollies and that at drinks just to get some saliva happening on a hot day. This is just my personal experience, and generally that of who I've come across.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Thats another perspective I guess. But countering his views with a better argument is better than asking him plainly to stfu right?
Not necessarily. Sometimes you shouldn't speak not because your opinion isn't valid but because it's not your place. As in this instance. Or when giving a speech at a funeral - you may have quite reasonably believed that the old bugger wasn't the great guy that everyone's making him out to be, but keeping your opinions to yourself may well be the more appropriate course to take.

That said, if an argument to counter AB's views with were needed, it is this: what Broad did (which is what he was whining about) was not ball tampering.
 

Shri

Mr. Glass
Not necessarily. Sometimes you shouldn't speak not because your opinion isn't valid but because it's not your place. As in this instance. Or when giving a speech at a funeral - you may have quite reasonably believed that the old bugger wasn't the great guy that everyone's making him out to be, but keeping your opinions to yourself may well be the more appropriate course to take.

That said, if an argument to counter AB's views with were needed, it is this: what Broad did (which is what he was whining about) was not ball tampering.
Fair enough.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
To me, personally, its a pretty huge non-issue. Guys like having something to chew on so that their mouths don't get too dry, hence chewing gum, etc. etc.

I don't know too many guys who'll have a couple of mints whilst out on the ground for enjoyment, although that could well be different in a cooler climate. My interpretation of the whole thing was that the mints, and the fact that it were a certain brand used, were used for the sole purpose of putting on the ball. Again, I reiterate, personally I have no issue with that. Generally lollies are supplied for a bit of glucose, something to chew on, and any effects are secondary.

I'm the "ball captain" fairly often during games at my club, and I'll have some lollies and that at drinks just to get some saliva happening on a hot day. This is just my personal experience, and generally that of who I've come across.
"Sole purpose" vs "secondary effects" is a difficult line to draw. As for the flavour or brand of the sweet, I find it hard to believe that any importance can really attach to that.

Anyhow we're not in disagreement as to whether murray mints are particularly objectionable. Some of your countrymen here (and some of whom I hold in high esteem) do seem determined to bleat on about it though...
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
With tongue at least partially in cheek however.

Although we often get a pretty big bite. Guilty consciences I guess. ;)

Can't help but wonder however what the reaction would be if it were a young Pakistani bowler observed doing either of these two actions...
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
At least AB said that there should be an official complaint made, at least in his opinion. Its not like he's hiding behind ifs and buts.
No, fair enough, I suppose. More in the remit of Messers Arthur & Smith (paragons of fair play, both) who first voiced the concerns in public to make an official complaint.

As I said, Jimmy's efforts don't look very good and there could well be a case to be made, but playing the whole sordid little episode out in public thru yer meedja looks a bit like gamesmanship to me.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Had to have a giggle at the idea of AB's words coming from Ponting's mouth. Server at CW would be down if he described Broad's actions as "a little naughty".
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
South Africa could've done with some ball-tampering. Lessons to be learnt for Smith and co.
 

Top