Sunil
Narine, the West Indies spin bowler, is again in the news. Yet again for all
the wrong reasons. He bowling action has been found to be unfair. He was
‘called’ by umpires earlier, went to various coaches to have the action
rectified, and once again has been found to be bowling with a bent-arm action.
The current
trend among cricket administrators is to rectify the actions of bowlers who
have been ‘called’ by umpires of having thrown the ball while bowling. Indeed,
it is always praiseworthy if one can help another, especially when the latter
is in trouble.
Established
bowlers of recent times like Saeed Ajmal and Sunil Narine have had to undergo
rectification programmes for having been ‘called’ for throwing. They went to
the most renowned of coaches and cricket academies. Nothing fruitful is apparent as yet, except for the fact that both
have lost their effectiveness with their new bowling actions. They have
consequently lost their places in their respective national teams.
These
rectification programmes are carried out in fancy-named cricket academies. The
coaches who try to rectify their actions are all former cricketers of various
levels of eminence. These coaches are also holders of coaching certificates
acknowledging their potential as teachers. Here the issue being highlighted is
that no senior “throw- ball” bowler can alter his action and still maintain his
earlier effectiveness. It is impossible for any coach, whoever he may be, to
assist an established cricketer to improve his bowling after altering his
‘unfair’ delivery action. No coach has yet been able to do so over the last
hundred years.
In the
history of international cricket, there have been numerous cases of bowlers who
were ‘called’ for their unfair action. They tried by various means to rectify
their actions but could not regain their earlier effectiveness. Not one ‘throw-ball’
bowler has been able to make a worthwhile comeback in the annals of this sport.
Readers
would surely remember the name of Ian Meckiff. The left-arm fast bowler from
Australia was highly successful in the series against Peter May’s England (then
MCC) in 1958-59 with his whiplash action. On the hard Australian pitches,
Meckiff had the ball rearing at the throat with his deceptive slow run-up to
the wicket. Men of the calibre of Graveney, May and Cowdrey gasped as the ball
darted in and out without any apparent help from the dry, sun-baked, hard
Australian pitches. The pace, bounce and movement of Meckiff were appreciably
more than what the magnificent fast bowler Alan Davidson was able to achieve
from the other end.
The
Australian umpires –no ‘neutral-country’ umpires at the time – did not ‘call’
Meckiff at all. Nor did they pay any heed to the glowering glances of the English
batsmen. When the criticisms in the media began, Don Bradman (selector) and
Richie Benaud (captain) took notice of the situation and realized that the game
was not being played in the true spirit of cricket. As the umpires had not
‘called’ Meckiff for throwing, Bradman and Benaud technically could not blame
him for unfair action.
Following
season when Australia, again under Benaud, toured India to play 5 Tests,
Meckiff was in the team. But the sharpness in his bowling was no longer visible.
It transpired that he was bowling with a changed action as the Australian
cricket authorities did not want any controversy to unfold on account of his original
bowling action. He played against West Indies at Brisbane in the famous ‘tied
test’ in 1961 but his lethal penetrative power had vanished. The changed
action, despite the supposedly best guidance, could not achieve what the unfair
action had. Finally he was ‘called’ at Brisbane in 1963-64 by an Australian
umpire, Col Egar. He was ‘called’ thrice in his first over, left the ground and
never played cricket again.
It
transpired that Ian Meckiff was finally ‘called’ for throwing because Sir Don
had apparently instructed the umpires to follow Law 24 very strictly. This law
deals with unfair bowling action. This kind of strict enforcement is the need
of the hour today. Until and unless the umpires are given the authority to
follow the laws strictly right from the junior levels, bowlers with unfair
actions will proliferate.
Another
point to note is that Richie Benaud, the Australian captain, did not start a
long argument with umpires about the legality of Meckiff’s action. He accepted
the judgment of the umpires who are stationed precisely for that reason.
This rational
approach is exactly the opposite of what happened in Australia in 1995-96 when
umpires Ross Emerson and Daryl Hair had ‘called’ Muthiah Muralidharan for
unfair action. The Sri Lankan captain Arjuna Ranatunga raised a hue and cry and
refused to continue the match. Subsequently the cricket authorities bowed down
to ‘player power’. Since then no umpire had the courage to ‘call’ him till he
retired after a career lasting a decade and a half. Muralidharan went on
capture more than 800 wickets in test cricket with an action, which even from
beyond the boundary, appeared to be in gross violation of Law 24.
Over the
last decade eyebrows have been raised about the actions of Shoiab Akhtar,
Shahid Afridi, Harbhajan Singh, Johan Botha and some others. But these bowlers
were fortunate that no umpire decided to rock the boat by ‘calling’ them even
once. The umpiring fraternity realized that the cricket administration would not
support them and, on the contrary, they would favour the players.
Another
interesting incident relates to Geoff Griffen of South Africa. He toured
England in 1960 and at Lord’s in the 2nd test achieved a hat-trick.
His action was grossly awkward and the English umpire Frank Lee ‘called’ him 11
times in the test match. As the Lord’s test had ended early, the two teams
decided to play an exhibition match in the late afternoon for the benefit of
the spectators.
In that
exhibition match, too, Griffen was ‘called’ for throwing by umpire Sid Buller.
Griffen had to finish his over bowling under-arm (allowed those days)! Never
again was Griffen seen to bowl again on a cricket ground.
Cricket
history has revealed time and again that the bent-arm bowler loses his
effectiveness the moment he bowls with a proper action. Even CB Fry, the master
strategist, was ‘called’ for throwing and could not rectify his own problem.
Later, over a period, a whole plethora of bowlers underwent scrutiny and
controversy.
Some were
‘called’; others were lucky to escape. Names that feature readily in the post
War period are of Tony Lock, Peter Loader, Harold Rhodes, Jim Burke, Peter
Slater, Charlie Griffith and a few others. Recently the ‘bent-arm’ masters come
primarily from Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. It seems that they simply refuse to
believe in bowling with a fair action!
Most
unfortunately today the cricket officials are prone to thinking that they have
the expertise to eradicate the problem of throw bowling from cricket at the
international level. They are still wasting time, effort and money to solve a
problem that cannot be solved by mere patch-work at the highest level.
Not a single international bowler has been
able to rectify his action and become a better bowler. No one, any where in the
world. No cricket academy, no bio-mechanic (or whatever they are called), no
‘eminent’ coach has achieved even 1% success.
The lesson
for all cricket administrators is that they need not waste precious time,
effort and money to help to rectify the actions of established ‘throw-ball’
bowlers. These bowlers have to be preened out of cricket by persistent
‘calling’ by umpires. And the selectors must be conscientious enough not to
consider them. And the associations need to support the umpires and the
selectors.
The only
solution is that the coaches at the primary level must very seriously
concentrate on rectifying the action when the young trainee is just learning
the craft of bowling.
It is of paramount importance for cricket officialdom
to learn from the lessons of the past so that they do not repeat the earlier
mistakes.
