England vs South Africa 2012

[Vilander]

"New Duke ball" and Englands unfair advantage, and achilles heel while facing Pakistan or Steyn ? Picked up this interesting article. http://www.cricketcountry.com/cricket-articles/Why-the-Duke-ball-gives-a-very-unfair-advantage-to-England/16591 By Adrian Meredith

England's recent rise up the cricket ladder has had one interesting facet to it: all of a sudden they were almost unbeatable at home. Previously, England was a team with no major home ground advantage, other than against India and Sri Lanka who themselves have major home ground advantages. But now, suddenly, since 2007 or so, England's home ground advantage has been the biggest of any country. What has happened? England haven't started ÃÃ…octoring pitches. They don't suddenly have conditions that are so vastly different to other parts of the world. They are, as they always have been, much the same as in South Africa, Australia or New Zealand. Perhaps there is a bit of uniqueness but they aren't enormously different. Nothing has changed in that regards. The major difference is the ball that they are using: the Duke ball. Now, England have used a ball that was called "Duke" for several decades, but only recently has this ball been changed to be something that is quite different to what it used to be. Since 2007, something has been done to it to make it reverse swing a lot quicker than any other ball. While other balls might reverse swing after 60 or 70 overs, if prepared expertly and with exactly the right kind of bowlers, the Duke ball will reverse swing after just 20 or 30 overs - a massive difference indeed. The ability to reverse swing much more quickly isn't the only difference in the "new Duke" (I say "new Duke" so that I don't have to deal with people who say that England have been using the Duke ball for decades - since the "original Duke" has virtually nothing in common with the ball that is currently used - other than the name). The "new Duke" is a lot heavier. It comes off the bat more quickly. Thus, even if the pitch isn't bouncing very much, off the bat it will bounce a lot anyway. Edges fly higher and quicker. As you can imagine, if you are used to this ball, you can get big runs really quickly. After all, with it being heavier and going off the bat more quickly, batting to fast bowlers it is really easy to hit boundaries and sixes, at least if you are used to it. It makes for quicker scoring rates. It makes for more exciting cricket. Perhaps, fittingly, the only country which was able to challenge England in England was a country that is master of reverse swing - Pakistan. If Pakistani bowlers were able to have the Duke ball in their own country, they would not even come close to losing a match, ever. But for everyone else, even countries who have worked out reverse swing, they have found it very hard to adjust. Seeing reverse swing come in as early as the 30th over, yet themselves being unable to get it to start happening until the 60th or 70th, it is a big advantage. It is little wonder that since 2007 England have barely been threatened at home. Their only losses at home in Tests in that period have been to Pakistan, who, as previously stated, are themselves masters of reverse swing. Nobody else has come close. England have, of course, put the credit on Andrew Strauss and Andrew Flower, the new captain/coach team that has taken a haphazard team and made them now the No 1- ranked team in two formats who, were it not for rain, would have been No 1 in all 3 formats. But England away from home haven't been any better than they were previously. Oh sure, they won an Ashes series in Australia. But Australia warmed up for that series horrifically badly, warming up by playing a T20 and ODI series against Sri Lanka! England were whitewashed by India in India and they have struggled everywhere else overseas. Yet in England they are unbeatable. In terms of conditions, India have a big home ground advantage, of course, because the conditions are vastly different, with lots of spin, dusty tracks, low bounce and the rest, so very different to anywhere else, especially to outside the subcontinent. West Indies still has a big home ground advantage - they actually win occasionally at home while they struggle to even come close away. And in terms of conditions New Zealand probably have the biggest home ground advantage - conditions that suit slow bowlers - not spinners - but military medium bowlers that just kind of put the ball on the spot. It is just that New Zealand's team haven't been good enough to take advantage of it. So England, who have no natural home ground advantage, have manufactured one through having a very, very different ball. But is it fair? In theory, the current rules state that all countries get to pick their own ball for their home series. It just so happens that everywhere else around the world they happen to pick the same or similar balls, with no major differences. There is nothing to stop Pakistan from using the Duke ball for themselves at home, too. If they did that, then, even if they never played in Pakistan again, they would be virtually unbeatable anywhere they went. You might say, "But England are therefore at a disadvantage away from home, because they are used to the Duke ball". But that isn't true. Given that everywhere else in the world uses virtually the same ball, England get to use the Duke ball half the time (including their domestic fixtures) and the other ball the other half of the time. In comparison, all other countries get to use the Duke ball only when they tour England, only 10% of the time, or less, often years between using it. They have no time to get used to its intricacies. So should all countries adopt the Duke ball? If they did, then England's home ground advantage would disappear quickly. They certainly wouldn't be the No 1 team in any format. But should they have to do that? The Duke ball doesn't suit all types of cricketers. It is good for England and would probably be good for Pakistan - but it probably wouldn't be good for Australian or other nations. So how exactly did the Duke ball get approved? The Duke ball was approved about 30 years ago - back before it was modified to be made heavier, to reverse swing more quickly and so forth. The ICC's laws have a loophole, which says that they only need to approve the ball once - and if it is changed, then it doesn't need to be approved again. Other countries have no say as to whether they object to it. And, at the time that the Duke ball was changed - 2007 - England were so hopeless that nobody much thought that it would matter. They just thought that it'd add some excitement. In my opinion, the Duke ball should be banned from international matches. If they want to use their own ball for domestic matches in the county championship, where all players are being treated equally, then fair enough. But, given how enormously different it now is to all other balls, it is simply not fair to use it in international matches. Secondly, I think that they should be tighter on what balls they allow to be used for international matches. I am tempted to suggest that they should be required to use the same ball in all internationals; but of course there are various companies with contracts etc. But they certainly need to have them all be essentially the same. You can't have one ball that is considerably harder, bounces a lot more and allows reverse swing three times quicker to be on the market. It is like one team playing with a tennis ball while the other plays with a hockey puck. It just isn't fair. This is the most unfair thing in the game since West Indies were allowed to get the second new ball 15 overs earlier than everyone else. I remember watching Test cricket in the 1980s and if it was in West Indies they changed the ball after 70 overs, while for everyone else it was after 85 overs. Why? Well, because they thought that it would advantage their four-pronged fast bowling attacks. It was absolutely unfair, of course, and was a large part of the reason why West Indies had such a huge home ground advantage. And it was completely unfair. This Duke ball issue is much more unfair than the changing the ball much more quickly issue. And it needs to be stamped out. Sadly, far too few people are aware of the issue. I am sure that if the public at large were aware of just how big a difference there is between the Duke ball and every other ball used in the world, and how much of an unfair advantage it gives to England when they play at home, then I am sure that there would be a widespread protest that would lead to the Duke ball being banned.

(Adrian Meredith, an Australian from Melbourne, has been very passionate about cricket since he was seven years old. Because of physical challenges he could not pursue playing the game he so dearly loved. He loves all kinds of cricket - from Tests, ODIs, T20 - at all levels and in all countries and writes extensively on the game)

[vamos_rafa]

nice article indeed! But, England were crap at their home in 2007 and '08 as well. We had beaten them in 2007 and SA in 2008. They were regularly beating the other chota mota sides though. The turnaround happened after 2009, when they won the Ashes and 2011 was ofcourse :((

[bajrang]

i read sometime ago that england went back to 2010 batch of balls to play against india because those ball swung more.

[jairamesh]

I remember watching Test cricket in the 1980s and if it was in West Indies they changed the ball after 70 overs, while for everyone else it was after 85 overs.

Interesting, never knew about this. Anyone else see this occur in the West Indies.

[vayuu1]

i read sometime ago that england went back to 2010 batch of balls to play against india because those ball swung more.

Yup that's right even nasser the donkey Hussein confirmed it, he said that during Lanka tour of eng ,poms used 2011 set of duke ball, but it didn't swing that much , so against india they went back to 2010 set of duke ball.

[Needforspeed]

i read sometime ago that england went back to 2010 batch of balls to play against india because those ball swung more.

Yes thats true. There was a particular batch of 2010 Duke balls which were found to swing more than normal. England had preserved a few of those balls specifically of the India series in 2011.

[Needforspeed]

The author is wrong when he says all other countries use the same balls. India uses SG balls. All others use the Kookaburra balls of course.

[maverick451]

What a complete load of shite The England players dont even like the new ball, it gets softer more quickly and doesnt swing as much which isnt a great thing for a seem attack. And since when has England been a master of reverse swing? we rely on conventional swing and seem movement, Pakistan didnt reverse swing the ball in 2010 Also the best England seemers have bowled in recent times was away to Australia which the Kookabura ball. If anything our home advantage is the colder conditions, green pitches and all the seem and swing movement that come from that, its nothing to do with the ball, does this guy even now anything about cricket? "So England, who have no natural home ground advantage, have manufactured one through having a very, very different ball"

[ravishingravi]

What a complete load of shite The England players dont even like the new ball, it gets softer more quickly and doesnt swing as much which isnt a great thing for a seem attack. And since when has England been a master of reverse swing? we rely on conventional swing and seem movement, Pakistan didnt reverse swing the ball in 2010 Also the best England seemers have bowled in recent times was away to Australia which the Kookabura ball. If anything our home advantage is the colder conditions, green pitches and all the seem and swing movement that come from that, its nothing to do with the ball, does this guy even now anything about cricket? "So England, who have no natural home ground advantage, have manufactured one through having a very, very different ball"

2005 Ashes was won on reverse swing

[maverick451]

Exactly, with the old ball, since the new ball I cant remember one series where we won be getting reverse swing at home.

[Old guy]

Exactly' date=' with the old ball, since the new ball I cant remember one series where we won be getting reverse swing at home.[/quote'] is 30 over old ball considered new ?

[Vilander]

i have no idea how authentic this source is, but this lends credence to the fact that Steyn has been able to reverse by 29th over in not so hot or humid conditions of England with this ball. Makes one wonder if Zak not playing might have had a bigger impact on Indian showing in England than previous thought.

[Crookbond]

Interesting, never knew about this. Anyone else see this occur in the West Indies.

I'm surprised you don't know this! It was to support their fast bowlers. They got away even by bowling 12 overs per hour and evaded penalties etc.

i have no idea how authentic this source is' date=' but this lends credence to the fact that Steyn has been able to reverse by 29th over in not so hot or humid conditions of England with this ball. Makes one wonder if Zak not playing might have had a bigger impact on Indian showing in England than previous thought.[/quote'] Oval is an abrasive surface brah! Helps reverse swing. Wait for Leeds. +1

[diga]

bob woolmers write up on the cricket ball The Duke & SG balls are both handmade while the Kookaburra is machine-made. The subtle differences are the treatment of the leather surfaces and the height and quality of the seam. The Kookaburra is generally redder in colour and swings from the word go, and for the first 30 overs is quite difficult to play against on a helpful surface The Duke is a much darker red (enjoyed by the bowlers), does not swing from the start but as the lacquer used on the ball wears off, it swings conventionally. Please note that in the Duke ball in the subcontinent and Africa the external surfaces wear away very quickly and therefore it does not last long in the harder rougher conditions. The SG ball is redder in colour and almost identical to the Duke but hardly swings at all. Contrary to the words of many commentators, the SG ball is not easy to reverse swing and it offers no greater reverse than the Kookaburra balls. The Kookaburra keeps its shine longer but starts to soften after 35-40 overs and batting becomes a lot easier as it seems to get softer and loses the seam. Reverse swing is less than the Duke ball. This is only in the UK because, as I said earlier, the Duke ball cannot survive subcontinent conditions because of the way the leather is treated. SG retains its seam but can become fat in the hand. The spin bowler can get the grip and purchase he needs from the seam and therefore in India where the pitches turn predominantly they are preferred. The Duke ball is excellent for English conditions. Tt starts to shine up after the initial lacquer has worn off. In the swifter conditions it swings and the larger seams are needed for the slower conditions. It also reverses well as Simon Jones showed during the Ashes series in 2005. The cost of an international-class cricket ball is far too expensive for the average club. You can pay 10 times more for a top quality ball than a cheap club ball, hence the battle for position. Finally the recommendations I believe that there is a need to standardize the cricket ball and by using technology make sure that: a) The ball will not go out of shape. The centre of the ball should be standardised so that the bounce is consistent (on a concrete surface bounce cannot be consistent on an uneven pitch b) The leather should be treated as the Kookaburra ball is and last longer in all conditions. c) The seam should be made of a standardised thread and be as tough as possible to a given height, and all balls should conform to these parameters. I also believe that, in order to prevent tampering with the ball, the bowlers should be allowed to rough the ball in the batsmanÃÔ footholds (as they used to be in the 60ÃÔ), under supervision, to allow reverse swing. At least then it would be legalised. Manufacturers might baulk at the cost of providing the technology for this to happen but in the end the game would be far better for it.

[CG]

Morne Morkel shows his mongrel When Morne Morkel found success in the final Test match against New Zealand in March, he did more than become the only South African to take the first six wickets in an innings. He outbowled Vernon Philander and Dale Steyn. It was something Morkel had not done in the six matches before that, since Philander had been given the new ball ahead of him. He found a confidence he had not had before, an aggression that was usually hidden and an intensity that he did not seem able to sustain in the past. Even when Morkel was part of what was being labelled as the world's best opening pair, it was Steyn who did put fear into the hearts of batsmen intentionally, using swing, pace and a bullying glare. Morkel had the ability to hurt them and sometimes he did, but he never tried to do that with anything other than the ball. There were no clever, or even not so clever, quips, no piercing stares that cut through a batsman's confidence and no over-heating to approach combustion, the way a typical fast bowler fumes. Recently, that has changed. Since his six-wicket haul in Wellington, Morkel's mean streak has become a little longer and according to the bowling coach, Allan Donald, it's going to keep growing. "He has gone a little bit further in terms of his personal development," Donald said. "He has found something else, he has found a bit more of that mongrel that we talk about. I think he has overstepped the line in terms of finding someone who wants to engage in battle a little bit more" Morkel started the tour of England as badly as a bowler can. Peter Trego hit him for six fours in the first over he bowled in Taunton. Instead of spit fire, Morkel congratulated the batsman when he walked up to him at the end of the over and gave him a friendly pat on the shoulder. He went on to concede 90 runs from his 14 overs and sprayed the ball both sides of the wicket, usually a sign that a rough patch lies ahead. This time, though, he was able to turn that around quickly. Morkel was the one who made major incisions in Canterbury, where he enjoyed a much better and more controlled return. He was the standout bowler from the first day of The Oval Test, where he was given the new ball because of what Steyn called a "psychological edge," over Andrew Strauss who he promptly dismissed fourth ball and was the most economical bowler at New Road where he also picked up two wickers. The steady progression of his form as the tour has gone on has been one of the clearest hints of consistency Morkel has ever given. Combined with a new found hostility, it seems Morkel is ready to take the next step. "He is a confidence bowler, there is no question about that," Donald said. "The more he bowls, the better he bowls. He's got great confidence right now and he is in a good place. We are fine-tuning things all the time and I am not going to be pushy about that. He is learning all the time and he is starting to show us what lies on the other side of Morne Morkel." To bring out that other side, Donald made sure that neither Morkel, nor any of the rest of the Test attack, were rested for the tour match, a move that was in complete contrast to England. None of their bowlers who played the first Test appeared in the county matches before Headingley while South Africa's pack were all put through at least three spells at New Road. "It's easy to say Dale or Morne should have a rest but I think momentum is a big thing, not only as a team but for the bowling group," Donald said. "It's important that we tick over, and get a few overs under the belt, not as much as in a Test match but just for a bit of confidence. When you are on a tour you always look for that confidence and form and we want to maintain that." Maintenance seems a simple task for South Africa's bowlers, especially considering that they managed to take 20 wickets on a surface which England's attack could only snaffle two but Donald said there are areas of concern he highlighted to them. "We want to get out of the blocks better," he said. "It's not that we bowled poorly on the first day at The Oval but we want to have a real solid start with the ball." Donald believes South Africa "bowled themselves into a winning position," on the second morning last week when they dismissed England for 385. While taking nothing away from the batsmen who put in a performance "you may never see again," he said the bowling onslaught, driven by the need to up the intensity, was crucial to giving South Africa the lead. Now that they have that advantage, Donald said the approach would be not to sit on it, but to press it home. "There's no ways we are going to sit back and wait for things to happen. We know what's coming our way and we know England will throw everything at us," he said. "We take nothing for granted. We've won a Test match but we haven't won the series." Firdose Moonda is ESPNcricinfo's South Africa correspondent Feeds: Firdose Moonda Ž© ESPN EMEA Ltd. Cricinfo. He set the game up for southafrica.:hatsoff:

[Ultimate_Game]

I find it quite strange that cricket doesn't have a standard ball for all ICC events. After all you don't see similar situation in Tennis or soccer where the behaviour & dynamics of the ball changes depending on the manufacturer of the ball or the venue of the match. Sure you may have different turfs (slow or fast in footie) or different kinds of courts (clay, hard-court or grass) which is similar to getting different pitches in cricket depending on lcountries where you play the game, but the ball remains the same in all sports barring cricket. I think it's high time ICC decides to define the actual standards for a cricket ball and bats. That way you won't have balls that differ in behaviour depending on the manufacturer and you won't see batsmen bat with a log of wood. For sport where we have pages dedicated to "spirit of cricket" I am sure we can add a page or two about the exact specifications the cricketing equipment (balls, bats etc.) have to comply with.

[Vilander]

I find it quite strange that cricket doesn't have a standard ball for all ICC events. After all you don't see similar situation in Tennis or soccer where the behaviour & dynamics of the ball changes depending on the manufacturer of the ball or the venue of the match. Sure you may have different turfs (slow or fast in footie) or different kinds of courts (clay, hard-court or grass) which is similar to getting different pitches in cricket depending on lcountries where you play the game, but the ball remains the same in all sports barring cricket. I think it's high time ICC decides to define the actual standards for a cricket ball and bats. That way you won't have balls that differ in behaviour depending on the manufacturer and you won't see batsmen bat with a log of wood. For sport where we have pages dedicated to "spirit of cricket" I am sure we can add a page or two about the exact specifications the cricketing equipment (balls, bats etc.) have to comply with.

dude i think if we standardise we will loose the variety, complexity and challenge of cricket. In no other sport that i can think of other than possibly golf, there is so much impact of conditions on the game. And owing to the geographical teams instead of clubs the home and away advantages have a considerable geographic variant. Although it is annoying to see home games mostly being won by home team, it makes pretty dramatic viewing. If we lose the dramatism of india whitewsh in aus and eng whitewash in india i think the game will become poorer in drama that it offers. We still have a peculiar Sa who seem to do well everywhere except home.

[vamos_rafa]

I find it quite strange that cricket doesn't have a standard ball for all ICC events. After all you don't see similar situation in Tennis or soccer where the behaviour & dynamics of the ball changes depending on the manufacturer of the ball or the venue of the match. Sure you may have different turfs (slow or fast in footie) or different kinds of courts (clay, hard-court or grass) which is similar to getting different pitches in cricket depending on lcountries where you play the game, but the ball remains the same in all sports barring cricket. I think it's high time ICC decides to define the actual standards for a cricket ball and bats. That way you won't have balls that differ in behaviour depending on the manufacturer and you won't see batsmen bat with a log of wood. For sport where we have pages dedicated to "spirit of cricket" I am sure we can add a page or two about the exact specifications the cricketing equipment (balls, bats etc.) have to comply with.

I think Tennis has different makers as well like Prince/Wilson/Babolat and every GS has it's own brand of balls being used. For example, Wimbledon uses the slazenger balls while FO has Wilson. all these balls respond differently to surfaces. It may or may not be as massive in differences as in Cricket but it surely does play a little bit of role. I have played a bit of Tennis and you can feel the difference. Moreso, this non-uniformity is what makes Cricket such a difficult game. This is where the adjustment part comes in and that's what separates the men from the boys.

[Ultimate_Game]

dude i think if we standardise we will loose the variety' date= complexity and challenge of cricket. In no other sport that i can think of other than possibly golf, there is so much impact of conditions on the game. And owing to the geographical teams instead of clubs the home and away advantages have a considerable geographic variant. Although it is annoying to see home games mostly being won by home team, it makes pretty dramatic viewing. If we lose the dramatism of india whitewsh in aus and eng whitewash in india i think the game will become poorer in drama that it offers. We still have a peculiar Sa who seem to do well everywhere except home.

But "ball" is not supposed to be a condition in the game. As I mention in my post you will always have different pitches/conditions, i.e. swinging & seaming in Eng/NZ, seaming and bouncing in Aus/SA, turning in SC. Standardising the ball won't change it.

[Vilander]

But "ball" is not supposed to be a condition in the game. As I mention in my post you will always have different pitches/conditions' date=' i.e. swinging & seaming in Eng/NZ, seaming and bouncing in Aus/SA, turning in SC. Standardising the ball won't change it.[/quote'] true but dont you tink, the ball variety adds to the complexity of the game, for me its fun to see big team fall flat on their face at times, then learn over 2 years and counter then retire then fail. Its fun to see these cycles of accent and descent.