Does the type of cricket ball actually makes a huge difference in performance?

[MechEng]

Naturally most of us would think that all great bowlers would not perform differently whether it be dukes or kookaburra cricket balls, they would naturally adapt and still pick wickets.

 

But, I've noticed that there are few South African and Australian bowlers who have always struggled with the new dukes. Mitch Johnson and Steyn loved kookaburra but have average records in England due to the dukes, English and Pakistani bowlers look way more effective with dukes than with kookaburra.

 

Also, there was an article where it was stated that the Duke ball design was changed in 2007 and they were much different from the dukes used pre 2007 with a thicker seam and more conventional swing with reverse within 20 overs. Probably that explains why English bowlers have looked a lot more potent in home conditions as compared to the past where scoring big in England was not a big deal in the 90s.

 

Philander is an odd case, but he is suited to similar seamer friendly pitches of UK/South Africa as compared to hard wickets in Australia.

[Nikhil_cric]

4 minutes ago, MechEng said:

Naturally most of us would think that all great bowlers would not perform differently whether it be dukes or kookaburra cricket balls, they would naturally adapt and still pick wickets.

 

But, I've noticed that there are few South African and Australian bowlers who have always struggled with the new dukes. Mitch Johnson and Steyn loved kookaburra but have average records in England due to the dukes, English and Pakistani bowlers look way more effective with dukes than with kookaburra.

 

Also, there was an article where it was stated that the Duke ball design was changed in 2007 and they were much different from the dukes used pre 2007 with a thicker seam and more conventional swing with reverse within 20 overs. Probably that explains why English bowlers have looked a lot more potent in home conditions as compared to the past where scoring big in England was not a big deal in the 90s.

 

Philander is an odd case, but he is suited to similar seamer friendly pitches of UK/South Africa as compared to hard wickets in Australia.

 

The Dukes' design changes constantly. However, it certainly swung more in 2007 - it was hooping massively when India toured which actually helped us. There is also much more variability with individual balls from the same batch.

 

Although it seems to be a myth that swing bowlers do consistently well anymore including in England. Even in England you have to be more of a seam bowler. Jimmy himself has consistently become more of a top-of-off seam bowler over the years and only venturing fuller when the ball swings significantly.

 

By comparison, Steyn was probably the last pure swing bowler who had massive success in Test cricket( average < 25)

 

The difference between bowling in England and Australia/faster SA pitches is that in England you have to be slower(130-135) and wobble the ball in order to threaten the stumps and bring both slips and stumps into play.   In Australia, the stump hitting length is too full and you'll be driven all day.  So, you're better off hitting length or slightly shorter at higher speeds because bowled's/lbws are not nearly as viable and it's about drawing false shots to slips or to fine leg/square leg.

 

This is why someone like Cummins has struggled in England because his hit-the-deck stuff neither brought stumps into play nor were pitches quick or bouncy enough to rush batsmen.  Different kinds of seam bowling 

 

Steyn was a differnt beast. He relied purely on swing, speed and short stuff. In OZ/SA , when the ball stopped swinging, Steyn would bowl skiddy short stuff to rush batsmen and get them playing false shots. He was the anti-thesis of what's required on English pitches with the Dukes ball

 

The softer English pitches negated the hard lengths just like it did for Cummins, the Dukes is better to swing at lower speeds compared to the high-speed late outswing that Steyn got from the kook because of his wrist snap. And he was never a metronomic wobbler. 

 

Despite that, he averaged 29 in 2012 in a series when Broad and Anderson averaged 40. 

 

 

 

 

[MechEng]

43 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said:

 

The Dukes' design changes constantly. However, it certainly swung more in 2007 - it was hooping massively when India toured which actually helped us. There is also much more variability with individual balls from the same batch.

 

Although it seems to be a myth that swing bowlers do consistently well anymore including in England. Even in England you have to be more of a seam bowler. Jimmy himself has consistently become more of a top-of-off seam bowler over the years and only venturing fuller when the ball swings significantly.

 

By comparison, Steyn was probably the last pure swing bowler who had massive success in Test cricket( average < 25)

 

The difference between bowling in England and Australia/faster SA pitches is that in England you have to be slower(130-135) and wobble the ball in order to threaten the stumps and bring both slips and stumps into play.   In Australia, the stump hitting length is too full and you'll be driven all day.  So, you're better off hitting length or slightly shorter at higher speeds because bowled's/lbws are not nearly as viable and it's about drawing false shots to slips or to fine leg/square leg.

 

This is why someone like Cummins has struggled in England because his hit-the-deck stuff neither brought stumps into play nor were pitches quick or bouncy enough to rush batsmen.  Different kinds of seam bowling 

 

Steyn was a differnt beast. He relied purely on swing, speed and short stuff. In OZ/SA , when the ball stopped swinging, Steyn would bowl skiddy short stuff to rush batsmen and get them playing false shots. He was the anti-thesis of what's required on English pitches with the Dukes ball

 

The softer English pitches negated the hard lengths just like it did for Cummins, the Dukes is better to swing at lower speeds compared to the high-speed late outswing that Steyn got from the kook because of his wrist snap. And he was never a metronomic wobbler. 

 

Despite that, he averaged 29 in 2012 in a series when Broad and Anderson averaged 40. 

 

 

 

 

 

This is an old article, but holds true: https://www.cricketcountry.com/articles/why-the-duke-ball-gives-a-very-unfair-advantage-to-england-16591

 

Batting in the UK arguably became tougher from 2010s and onwards as the ball amplified home advantage. The great Aussie side from the past would have found it difficult to score runs compared to the 90s where they kept tonking gun barrrell straight stuff from Mullaly, Irani, Lewis and the other county gang.

 

Cummins was superb in 2019 Ashes though, maybe that has also got to do with helpful bowling pitches at that time compared to pastas now.

 

England have smartly decoded the home advantage - flat wickets for bazball, finely designed duke balls to suit home grown talent. Not unfair though, we prepare raging turners in India too.

[Nikhil_cric]

49 minutes ago, MechEng said:

 

This is an old article, but holds true: https://www.cricketcountry.com/articles/why-the-duke-ball-gives-a-very-unfair-advantage-to-england-16591

 

Batting in the UK arguably became tougher from 2010s and onwards as the ball amplified home advantage. The great Aussie side from the past would have found it difficult to score runs compared to the 90s where they kept tonking gun barrrell straight stuff from Mullaly, Irani, Lewis and the other county gang.

 

Cummins was superb in 2019 Ashes though, maybe that has also got to do with helpful bowling pitches at that time compared to pastas now.

 

England have smartly decoded the home advantage - flat wickets for bazball, finely designed duke balls to suit home grown talent. Not unfair though, we prepare raging turners in India too.

Home advantage is fine and I didn't mind as long as they didn't whinge about Indian pitches .  

 

But they have taken it a touch too far with this replacement ball nonsense   

 

I think they are indulging in some finely tuned cheating as well .   

 

What happens is that Dukes provides balls to various grounds and it is up to those grounds to provide the balls for the match. 

 

 

Most grounds have balls in varying states of wear and how they knock it into a particular state of wear os totally upto them. 

 

Most grounds have balls from previous batches as well in different states of wear and tear.

 

Because these balls keep going out of shape, the ground has to keep providing balls to the umpires  

 

There is actually nothing stopping a particular ground from providing a selection  of useless balls to the visiting side  and swinging ones to the home side.

 

Consider the India vs England Test in 2022. Replacement balls would seam and zip and swing for both sides until the 4th innings chase  .

 

After a point, the balls that India got went absolutely straight and did nothing either off the air or the pitch. 

 

Take the Oval Test this year. Replacement balls did well for Australia as well but in a crucial 4th innings for Australia, Jimmy was gesturing to Stokes to get rid of the original ball and Atherton even mentioned it on the Comms..  And they got a replacement that was harder than any ball that was used in the series and very newish as well. What is worse is that many are alleging that this was a 2018 Dukes ball that was used as a replacement!  

 

So Australia basically had to bowl to England with the rubbish ball of 2023 and then halfway through had to bat against the 2018 Dukes which zip and seam for ages like it did on our tour of England. 

 

Dharmasena told Khawaja that there were no other options in that box. 

 

 

Edited August 5, 2023 by Nikhil_cric

[MechEng]

1 hour ago, Nikhil_cric said:

Home advantage is fine and I didn't mind as long as they didn't whinge about Indian pitches .  

 

But they have taken it a touch too far with this replacement ball nonsense   

 

I think they are indulging in some finely tuned cheating as well .   

 

What happens is that Dukes provides balls to various grounds and it is up to those grounds to provide the balls for the match. 

 

 

Most grounds have balls in varying states of wear and how they knock it into a particular state of wear os totally upto them. 

 

Most grounds have balls from previous batches as well in different states of wear and tear.

 

Because these balls keep going out of shape, the ground has to keep providing balls to the umpires  

 

There is actually nothing stopping a particular ground from providing a selection  of useless balls to the visiting side  and swinging ones to the home side.

 

Consider the India vs England Test in 2022. Replacement balls would seam and zip and swing for both sides until the 4th innings chase  .

 

After a point, the balls that India got went absolutely straight and did nothing either off the air or the pitch. 

 

Take the Oval Test this year. Replacement balls did well for Australia as well but in a crucial 4th innings for Australia, Jimmy was gesturing to Stokes to get rid of the original ball and Atherton even mentioned it on the Comms..  And they got a replacement that was harder than any ball that was used in the series and very newish as well. What is worse is that many are alleging that this was a 2018 Dukes ball that was used as a replacement!  

 

So Australia basically had to bowl to England with the rubbish ball of 2023 and then halfway through had to bat against the 2018 Dukes which zip and seam for ages like it did on our tour of England. 

 

Dharmasena told Khawaja that there were no other options in that box. 

 

 

 

The biggest reason here is that duke balls are hand made while kookaburra is factory made.

 

It's easier to manipulate or make subtle changes to hand made balls 

[Vijy]

6 hours ago, Nikhil_cric said:

Home advantage is fine and I didn't mind as long as they didn't whinge about Indian pitches .  

 

But they have taken it a touch too far with this replacement ball nonsense   

 

I think they are indulging in some finely tuned cheating as well .   

 

What happens is that Dukes provides balls to various grounds and it is up to those grounds to provide the balls for the match. 

 

 

Most grounds have balls in varying states of wear and how they knock it into a particular state of wear os totally upto them. 

 

Most grounds have balls from previous batches as well in different states of wear and tear.

 

Because these balls keep going out of shape, the ground has to keep providing balls to the umpires  

 

There is actually nothing stopping a particular ground from providing a selection  of useless balls to the visiting side  and swinging ones to the home side.

 

Consider the India vs England Test in 2022. Replacement balls would seam and zip and swing for both sides until the 4th innings chase  .

 

After a point, the balls that India got went absolutely straight and did nothing either off the air or the pitch. 

 

Take the Oval Test this year. Replacement balls did well for Australia as well but in a crucial 4th innings for Australia, Jimmy was gesturing to Stokes to get rid of the original ball and Atherton even mentioned it on the Comms..  And they got a replacement that was harder than any ball that was used in the series and very newish as well. What is worse is that many are alleging that this was a 2018 Dukes ball that was used as a replacement!  

 

So Australia basically had to bowl to England with the rubbish ball of 2023 and then halfway through had to bat against the 2018 Dukes which zip and seam for ages like it did on our tour of England. 

 

Dharmasena told Khawaja that there were no other options in that box. 

 

 

Eng cheating is usually quite sophisticated, compared to the crude stuff from Ozzies, etc

[Nikhil_cric]

27 minutes ago, Vijy said:

Eng cheating is usually quite sophisticated, compared to the crude stuff from Ozzies, etc

Yep. No nails or teeth or zippers or sandpaper. It's Murray mints and gel and dirt inside pockets, accidentally stepping on the ball with spikes etc. 

 

 

[Vijy]

1 hour ago, Nikhil_cric said:

Yep. No nails or teeth or zippers or sandpaper. It's Murray mints and gel and dirt inside pockets, accidentally stepping on the ball with spikes etc. 

 

 

they are the best cheats on the planet in cricket

[wazza]

6 hours ago, Vijy said:

they are the best cheats on the planet in cricket

And SA. Pitch rigging at its finest. I really feel they do some tailoring for their pitches over night during the game. Rigging drs like they did vs us last time. Giving close calls in favour of them. Rassie was out 100%. Game would have been lost there imo for SA.

[Tarak9]

Yes sure. You can Ask this to john Lever of england during eng tour to india he used Vasaline to swing the ball too much in cloudy overcast condition & blow away india on spinners track

 

Secondly once again its england in Limelight. Just concluded oval test Eng did something with Duke ball on 37th over, Ball was out of Shape, Replacement ball was not Same as 37 overs. Actually ball was diffrent brand more heavy & more bounce, track was total batting paradise 1300 runs scored with out 100 was yet other record

 

Eng wants to win even they were 2/0 at one stage but God help Australia on 4th test.

 

Eng wants to win During WTC final vs nz so icc announced them winniner on their super over Tie.

 

Eng must did something to win test.

 

Ball temering were happen many times in test cricket but not properly Invested after the results i wish England Behave in india during 5 test.

 

Read below

 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/dukes-owner-pledges-to-investigate-controversial-ball-change-during-oval-ashes-test-1391026

[Vijy]

16 hours ago, wazza said:

And SA. Pitch rigging at its finest. I really feel they do some tailoring for their pitches over night during the game. Rigging drs like they did vs us last time. Giving close calls in favour of them. Rassie was out 100%. Game would have been lost there imo for SA.

yes, them as well.