Cricket’s foremost nineteenth century moralist the Reverend James Pycroft published his famous treatise The Cricket Field in 1851. He recalled a shocking chapter in the game’s history – the presence of bookmakers at cricket matches:

“They had all sorts of tricks to make their betting safe. ‘One artifice,’ said Mr. Ward, ‘was to keep a player out of the way by a false report that his wife was dead.’”

The Reverend rejoiced that cricket had been placed back in the hands of sober and temperate men. Yet by 1886 he was again despairing at the state of the game. This time it wasn’t the sinful or wicked ways of man that upset him, but the dominance of bat over ball.

“No one can be satisfied with the game as it is at present, especially in a dry season with true and hard grounds – with innings of three hundred and more runs no match has much interest.”

Replace the number three with a six or a seven and the Reverend could be writing of cricket in 2009.

The Tests played so far this year bring to mind Neville Cardus’ line that the bowlers might well have watered the pitch with their tears.

While Australia duelled with South Africa three other series unfolded. At Bridgetown England declared at six for 600. West Indies replied with nine for 749. At Karachi Sri Lanka amassed seven declared for 644. The Pakistanis countered with six for 765. The two sides were at it again at Lahore, eleven wickets falling for 716 before the terrorist attack on the Sri Lankan team. Even the New Zealand batsmen joined the party, knocking up 619 at Napier against the Indians.

Bowlers have always been the downtrodden labourers of the game. And their burden has only grown over time.

Batsmanship developed from a means of artistic expression prior to the First World War, to a relentless pursuit of big scores by the onset of the Depression. By the time Don Bradman came to Test cricket it was played with a ruthlessness that had not before existed.

Jack Fingleton opened the batting for Australia in the bodyline Tests of 1932/33, all the while the personification of courage. He could reflect thirteen years later in his seminal account of the saga, Cricket Crisis, that bodyline was an uprising of bowlers against their lot.

“All it required to touch off the fire of bowling revolution was somebody like Bradman, somebody who could throw into bold relief just how one-sided this game of cricket had become in its lauding of, and consideration for, the batsman, always at the expense of the bowler….. The people to blame for bodyline in the main were those who could see no further than huge scores, doped wickets and limitless Tests.”

Andy Sandham made Test cricket’s first triple century in 1930. Four more followed in that decade of doped wickets and limitless Tests. Len Hutton’s 364 stood as the highest individual Test score from 1938 to 1958. Then Gary Sobers went one run higher, and his mark stood for 36 years. That innings of 365 has been bettered four times in the last 15 years, by Brian Lara twice (375 and 400), Matthew Hayden (380) and Mahela Jayawardene (374).

In no decade in the history of the game has the bat been as dominant over the ball as in the first of this century.

The reasons why are there for all who care to look. Flat pitches. Turbo charged bats. Smaller playing arenas courtesy of boundary ropes. Batsmen encased like armadillos in lightweight helmets and protective padding. The deskilling of the bowling class as a result of ceaseless limited overs cricket, both versions of which further advantage the privileged batting class.

From 1877 to the end of the 20th century Test cricket saw fifteen triple centuries, on average one every 99 Tests. This decade there have already been eight individual scores over 300, on average one every 55 Tests, including the first Test quadruple century.

Double centuries are now commonplace. Since 1999 Test cricket has seen 101 individual innings over 200, one every 4.8 Tests. This compares with 187 double centuries or better prior to 1999, one every 7.7 Tests.

Discounting the Antigua Test abandoned after 10 balls due to the outfield resembling a beach, 16 Tests to date this year have produced one triple and five double centuries.

The panjandrums of the International Cricket Council, a body as dysfunctional as the United Nations, have helpfully tampered with cricket’s regulations to make things worse not better. Take the restrictions on intimidatory bowling.

Law 42.6 empowers the umpire to rule persistent short pitched bowling dangerous and unfair at his discretion, and provides that the skill of the batsman on strike shall be taken into consideration. An umpire has the authority to come down hard on a fast bowler seeking to intimidate a tailender with bumpers.

Yet the ICC Standard Test Match Playing Conditions alters Law 42.6 to limit a Test bowler to two fast short pitched deliveries per over, regardless of the skill of the batsman. This is another legislative ruse in favour of pampered batsmen. It should be struck out.

Only last year the guardians of the Laws of Cricket, the MCC, amended Law 6, concerning the bat. Yet almost all bats which were legal remain so under the amended law. No limits have been set on the weight of a bat, or the maximum depth from the face to the back of the blade, or the width of the side edges. In reality the new Law 6 seeks to guard against the future introduction of performance enhancing properties in bats, especially artificial materials in handles.

It is the LBW law that, properly amended, could do most to even the scales. Simply rewrite Law 36 to remove the prohibition on a leg before wicket dismissal if the ball pitches outside leg stump. Such an amendment would improve the lot of leg spinners and left arm bowlers alike. It would punish negative pad play.

If a batsman is beaten, or doesn’t offer a shot, and is hit on the pad by a ball which would have hit the wicket, give him out.

The MCC must act where the ICC won’t, to establish equilibrium between bat and ball.

 

 

Most commented

10 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Padraig Collins says:

      09:05am | 01/06/09

      Well said Luke. Great column.

    • Allan says:

      01:50pm | 01/06/09

      Let’s hope the upcoming Ashes provide a competition, and not just serve as further proof of what’s written in this column

    • Jo says:

      01:52pm | 01/06/09

      I’m all for more dangerous bowling ... perhaps after you reach your ton you have to take off an article of protective clothing each following 50 ... no more boring Hayden innings

    • Noel says:

      03:12pm | 01/06/09

      It’s about time someone went into bat for the bowlers. The key to compelling sport is a contest and in cricket that means giving the bowlers an opportunity to do harm. I don’t mind a batsmen knocking up a big score but it is more interesting to watch and more of an achievement if it is done against a testing attack.

      This is a nice piece. I like the historical references.

    • Pauli says:

      03:41pm | 01/06/09

      What’s the Terror up to printing this class war rubbish.

      ‘Bowlers have always been the downtrodden labourers of the game’, ‘both versions of which further advantage the privileged batting class’.

      Give those cry baby bowlers an inch and the games will be washed out with their bawling.

      Comrade Luke obviously hasn’t heard of the trickle down theory - every three hundred runs or so we still get a small trickle of wickets. Everyone kinda wins.

      Get with the zeitgeist Foley!

    • matt says:

      04:07pm | 01/06/09

      not to mention the influence that Twenty20 is going to have on test cricket… why don’t the Bollywood corporates and pay tv moguls just replace bowlers with bowling machines?

    • Tim from Leichhardt says:

      07:59pm | 01/06/09

      This is the best cricket article I have read all year. I learnt a lot.

    • Haydos says:

      02:17pm | 03/06/09

      I read your article of 31 May 2009 ‘Tons of tedium on pitches watered with bowlers tears’ with more than a little interest.

      Your article whilst eloquent, well expressed, finely researched and of the highest Roebuckian standards is, in true Roebuckian style, unfortunately wrong in several important respects.

      First, the amendment you propose to Law 36 would not achieve the desired result that you apparently have in mind namely that ‘If a batsman is beaten, or doesn’t offer a shot, and is hit on the pad by a ball which would have hit the wicket, give him out’. This is because you will have left in place the requirement that the batsmen be struck in line with the stumps. Thus, even on your proposed law change (removing the prohibition on adverse LBW decisions for balls pitching outside leg stump) the ball could be pitched outside leg stump to a batsman offering a stroke who is struck outside the line of leg stump who then would not be out on the current state of the law.

      If what you are proposing is that Law 36 be totally rewritten to read “A batsman shall be out Leg before Wicket if the ball strikes the batsman without first striking his bat and would in the opinion of the umpire have gone on to hit the stumps the batsman shall be given out” you should say so. Such a change to the laws would, in my opinion, be very silly, but if that’s what you want you should make it clear. I trust you would also propose change to the name of the game as well, as such a law change would no longer mean the game was ‘cricket’. Perhaps I am just a pedant or a conservative or worse an old Tory.

      You see the second thing is wouldn’t it just be easier to tell them to stop doctoring the pitches? Go back to the good old days when pitches were just pitches. We didn’t make them hard or fast or wet or anything. We just new Adelaide would spin and Perth would be fast the SCG would break up on days 4 and 5? Is that so hard? Maybe introduce a law that says the groundsman must prepare a pitch that is fair to everyone. Or make the ball smaller? Or why not allow the batsman to be out if the ball is caught one handed on the first bounce? Or how about allow the bowler to bowl underarm again? Or maybe even allow the bowler to have a new ball after each over? Far better than your proposed law change. But would it be cricket? Maybe it is like WorkChoices? Different laws but the same game?

      The third problem is how negative do you think it might be to see EVERYONE coming in from around the wicket (well okay not Mitchell Johnson I agree but some say he should be banned for different reasons) and aiming every ball at the pads outside leg stump in the hope of catching the batsman’s blind spot and winning the lottery if he happens to miss it.. Can see it now: Skull calling the ball ‘Lee is coming to bowl to Smith Haddin si two feet outside legs stump, there’s a silly leg, short leg, square short leg, leg slip, leg gully . . .” Oh dear what have you done to my game?. Its going to be so exciting!!! I can’t wait. You are replacing one type of ‘tedium’ (I don’t find batsman going the tog and scoring lots of runs tedious anyways . . . and certainly not when it was me doing the scoring) for another.

      Finally the consequences of giving more (not less) discretion to umpires (in the age of “John”) are mind boggling. Good try. It just won’t work. It certainly will no longer be ‘cricket’.

      Warmest regards


      HAYDOS

      Ps: do you miss me?

    • Antony says:

      09:07am | 04/06/09

      A well written piece from Mr Foley who, as a batsman and never a bowler, is showing true bi-partisanship.

      Reform of the LBW law is not a bad idea. It will encourage bowlers, and force bats men to think more.  It will also make the laws of cricket easier to explain to kids - bowled, caught, runout, stumped, double hit, and even handled ball are easily explained, but the LBW law is twisted in its logic.  Foley is right - you’re out if if you’re hit on the pad by a ball which would have hit the wicket, it’s that simple.

      Try also getting rid of leg byes.  Why do we even have them?

    • Peter Warrington says:

      10:58pm | 14/06/09

      f**k I hate batsmen.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

The AFL needs a special draw song. Feels weird having no club song at the end of #AFLSwansFreo. But what song?

Anthony Sharwood

Don't love his politics but dig his reports. My fave snow blogger @RichardsReport did May skiing in Australia today http://t.co/mgnJJlDkY9

ToryShepherd

And it's @msmarto for the win! Best news report, well done! #samediaawards

David Penberthy

@radionotes1015 I'd love to do that mate

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter