It is common news by now that Saeed Ajmal, the Pakistan spin bowler, is banned for an illegal bowling action. What perhaps has caught the attention of cricket experts and followers alike is the degree of the problem.
Ajmal has been troubling the best batsmen in the world for a few years now. Professional umpires at the international level have taken their time reporting the issue.
The question that remains is, what do we learn from such cases? It would gladden us to learn that the Board of Control for Cricket in India has been spending crores of rupees on the umpires’ academy along with enlisting the expertise of an umpire on the ICC’s elite panel, Simon Taufel, to guide the trainees.
ADVERTISEMENT
Moreover, the Director of the Umpires of BCCI is former India captain, as well as a highly respected former international umpire S. Venkatraghavan. These statements tie together to form a rosy picture.
Unfortunately, the reality is anything but that and the list of bowlers reported in domestic tournaments only grows longer. A spinner was reported on more than one occasion for suspect action during his junior cricket days.
ADVERTISEMENT
That bowler went on to play Test cricket. Many bowlers at the junior level, in collusion with their respective associations, continue to play in domestic cricket. Some of them manage good performances with their illegal actions. Such players cannot go long without being noticed at the international level. Shouldn’t such bowlers be banned after one warning in domestic cricket?
The media had dubbed Gujarat’s Mohnish Parmar as India’s Muralitharan. Much like Ajmal, Parmar showed much promise and tasted success.
It was during the Under-19 World Cup tournament that he was cautioned regarding his action. Following this Parmar attempted to rectify his action but without much success. His effectiveness dropped as did his chances of getting selected to the Indian team.
What about the players who are reported for suspect action by the umpires? Generally, a change in bowling action is prescribed and such bowlers end up working with the NCA or their respective associations to correct their actions.
However, as in the case of Parmar, correction of action at higher levels of cricket is not easy at all.
Even if a bowler manages to correct his action history has taught us to expect a significant drop in their effectiveness. It is indeed better for cricket if Ajmal avoids this fate but at 36 it looks unlikely. The lesson is that bowling actions being scrutinised at the top level alone is of little use to the players. We need to be strict at the junior level itself.
The BCCI is financially sound and can afford to implement technology and systems to monitor bowlers much before they stand on the verge of appearing on the international stage. Shouldn’t we then expect the BCCI to use the same technology that identified Ajmal’s problem.
It is better to identify the bowlers’ action problem as early as possible. The bodies of bowlers will have more time to adapt to the new action. More than technology the problem of bowling actions can be weeded out with a good cricketing eye and transparency.
It is in this context that the roles of umpires and coaches are significant. Maybe asking all bowlers to bowl with short-sleeved shirts could be a simple enough solution. It’s pointless to have an academy for umpires if the menace of chucking in domestic cricket is not weeded out.