As I write the World Cup’s going on. No one’s sure whether Bob Woolmer died or was killed, whether the Pakistanis lost their game against Ireland or threw it, or whether England will lose to Australia embarrassingly or very embarrassingly. The only certainty is that the whole tournament has been and will continue to be rigged in favour of the batsman.
The ICC regards the cricketing public in the same way as Hollywood regards the viewing public. They see them as cretins. Hollywood thinks its audience wants an endless succession of bigger bangs, more spectacular car chases and unlimited special effects. The ICC thinks cricket lovers want to see only sixes. Anything short of a smashalong will not draw the crowds.
Hence the huge bats, the plumb tracks and grounds the size of matchboxes. The intention is to make 50-over cricket resemble 20/20. But 20/20 is barely cricket. It is plain dull. And it is plain dull because the bowler doesn’t matter any more.
The only rule that has been adapted to favour bowlers is the chucking rule. And that does not favour bowlers. It favours chuckers. Any cricketer can spot a chucker from the boundary. Murali is a chucker. If he wasn’t he couldn’t bowl the doosra. The 15% flexion rule is just a licence to let the cheats cheat. If I was just starting in the game I’d teach myself to chuck.
All other rules are stacked against the bowler, especially the slow bowler. For example, if an offspinner turns one sharply from off-stump and it brushes past the batsman’s thigh, it’s a wide. If he draws a batsman down the pitch, floats it wide of him and beats him, it’s a wide. Why? These skills are legitimate parts of the tweaker’s armoury. And if a spinner wants to post boundary catchers in the first 20 overs, he may not. Why not? Is a catch on the boundary less valid a dismissal than a cartwheeled stump?
Worst of all is the limit on the number of overs a bowler may deliver. Batsmen are not required to retire at fifty. Yet bowlers have to stop after ten overs. Why? I see no reason for the rule at all and never have. If you have a bowler capable of delivering 25 overs in a row you should be free to bowl him for 25 overs in a row. The risk that he might be collared would be yours to take. And the more often he bowled 25 consecutive overs the greater the likelihood that he would be collared.
The present rule deprives the crowd of watching great bowlers parade their talents to the full. It also means that the best bowlers can just be seen off by defensive play, rather than the batsman being obliged to take them on. The effect is to partially castrate the sides with the best bowlers. The rule skews the game yet further in favour of the batsman. It is unfair and unnecessary and should be removed, except at the Willows, because otherwise Andrew Nuttall would bowl all day.