• 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.

the dirty cheats were always dirty cheats before the dirty cheat test

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
Would you agree with the assessment that a non-zero proportion of the Brylcreem on Fred Trueman's hair (and that of many other bowlers) made it onto the ball?
Definitely! .... and stories that Keith Miller was sponsored by Brylcreem may have involved more than Nugget's hair!
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sorry, points 2-4 are so strong for him that I forgot.
mah average rig at best. Just a skinny dude

Without going into the nationalistic crap that this usually boils down to, is it like the umpires and the cricket community itself views attempts to keep the shine on the ball as less of an offence than attempts to rough up the ball to get it to reverse? If you look at the incidents that had the worst stigma associated to them, its usually Athers dirt in pocket, the bottle top of Pak fast bowlers' pockets, and now the sandpaper saga. The jelly beans and murray mints, whatever they were, and Faf's mints to saliva to ball are not taken that seriously, I feel.

It maybe because reverse swing offers a significantly greater advantage to the bowling side but still, I would say if I can keep the shine on the ball longer in a place like England, its just as effective as reverse swing elsewhere.
Absolutely. Especially interesting given that it's pretty clear that the mints/lollies shining the ball actually tends work a lot better than artificially roughing it up.
 

NotMcKenzie

International Debutant
Wouldn't surprise if that's partly because shining the ball easier to conceal and easier to do without messing it up. Polishing with saliva is accepted without mints, but one might get the wrong side trying to throw the ball into the ground and using an object (bottle top, sandpaper) on the ball may be harder to do in a manner that's not suspicious
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
mah average rig at best. Just a skinny dude


Absolutely. Especially interesting given that it's pretty clear that the mints/lollies shining the ball actually tends work a lot better than artificially roughing it up.

Well, maybe coz the conventional way the folks look at it is like this: keeping the shine of the ball is "maintaining" the state of the ball, but artificially scuffing up one side is actually like "damaging" the condition of the ball for an advantage. Either way, if we let everyone use Dukes balls with their prominent hand made seam, I think a lot of this might stop, as it seems to give more for bowlers of all varieties.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Is the claim that mints contain an active ingredient that aids the shining of a ball or just enables the flow of saliva in the mouth to be more active?
 

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
What methods of shining the ball did folks use in your playing days, and did you use any yourself?
When the ball got older I used sweat. On one occasion I was introduced to a product call "Pad o' Wax". These were small (about 3 cm) discs inset with a sponge impregnated with shoe polish. Tried it once. As I relied more on seam than swing the shine wasn't as important as the hardness of the ball and how proud the seam was. I still polished the ball diligently for the other pace bowlers. My creams and shirt front (from whence I gathered sweat a la DKL) were always well coloured after a game.
 

Top