The ICC’s recent headhunt for illegal bowling actions snared its most high profile victim today, as Saeed Ajmal, one of the best spin bowlers in the world currently, was banned from bowling following biomedical analysis.
Ajmal is the latest in a slew of bowlers –including Sri Lanka’s own Sachithra Senanayake- that have been found guilty of exceeding the degree of flex allowed in delivering a ball. Opinions on these decisions are vastly polarized, with various arguments and theories being presented both for and against the bans. This piece will attempt to bring forward some thoughts on various aspects of the whole “chucking” saga.
If his appeal fails, Saeed Ajmal’s career is practically over. Cricket fans may harbour hopes of him making a swift return following the miracles of “remedial measures” that they keep reading about whenever something like this comes up. The problem is that most of those success stories only had a particular variation or two in their bowling arsenal called into question. Ajmal, on the other hand, exceeds the limit every time he runs up to bowl, according to the ICC release. Having your doosra or your faster delivery ruled as unlawful is one thing: you can try to fix it or just stop bowling it. Having ALL your deliveries including your stock ball (the off break in Ajmal’s case) ruled offside is another matter entirely. Saeed Ajmal will have to rework his action for every ball he bowls. At 36 years of age, he isn’t getting any younger, and it is highly unlikely he will be anywhere near the lethality he poses now if he were to change his entire action. If the ICC turns a deaf ear to his pleas that he cannot help his medical condition – a natural bend in his arm due to an accident – One of the modern world’s greatest cricketers will have been unceremoniously dumped from the game forever.
How practical is the law in its current state? The morality of the law itself is another matter, but if the law exists, then it should definitely be followed. Fantastic conspiracy theories aside, if the tests find a bowler to be straightening their arm beyond the limit, it most likely is actually beyond the limit. The issue here is that special testing in a lab is the only way to (somewhat) conclusively prove that the rule is actually being broken. This brings about the serious issue of a bowler not being able to know if his action is legitimate or not until he is called out for it. A bowling action defines a bowler and whether or not he is any good. If this issue is not addressed at the grassroots level, many more talented bowlers could find their careers cut short just as the spotlight begins to shine on them. The current system is to call based on what umpires and coaches see to the naked eye, which is absolutely terrible since our eyes and brains are in no way equipped to make a definite measurement such as this. It also becomes a matter of personal opinion, as different people will have different standards as to what they consider to be a throw. The only way to weed it out at the basic levels will be to encourage as straight an arm as possible, skewing the odds further in an already batsmen friendly game.
Evolution or Transgression? Practicalities of the law itself aside, the mass crackdown signifies that the cricketing world is no longer a safe place for spinners trying to keep up with the batsmen. Cricket has slowly pulled away in the direction of the run scorers with its new rules and playing conditions, especially in the limited overs arena. Bats get bigger and meatier, fewer fielders are allowed in defensive positions, and sixes go farther than they ever have. It’s a thankless job being a bowler nowadays, and it is only natural that they try to innovate new ways to remain relevant in the sport. Curiously, for a sport that has undergone vast changes since its inception, cricket also lays claim to an extremely conservative factions of purists who are quick to decry anything out of the currently accepted norms. Many eminent figures in the game are quick to cry foul at the first hint of the word “mystery spin”. The word “doosra” has almost become synonymous with “chucking” in some parts. They are opposed by those who insist that evolution of the game is natural, and necessary if the game is to maintain even a semblance of competition between bat and ball.
The controversy related to bowling actions is hardly new. In 1822, a cricketer name John Willes was no balled continuously due to what was, at the time, an illegal bowling action. Eventually the MCC laws were changed to allow Willes action. His fault: bowling over arm in an era of under arm bowling. The very action that the modern day purists try so hard to preserve unchanged was illegal when introduced in the first place.
Of course debates on the pros and cons of the existing laws and possible new laws can go on forever. Those entrusted with the game will ideally make the best decision for the future of the game with regards to this matter. Through all the arguments and technicalities, one thing that bears reflection: without the likes of Saeed Ajmal, cricket will certainly be a little bit poorer.
