Today I’m going to talk a load of old balls. Kookaburra balls to be precise.
This week Joe Root advocated using the often maligned Kookaburras in the county championship. He doesn’t want to replace the Dukes balls entirely; he just wants our domestic cricketers to use Kookaburras for part of the season.
So is this a good idea?
I’ll answer this question in one simple word – maybe.
I can see where our beloved team leader is coming from. Too many English bowlers take bucketloads of wickets in county cricket with a Dukes ball that hoops around like garish Welsh Fire replica shirt, but then look absolutely clueless when they’re presented with a lifeless Kookaburra on England duty overseas.
Joe not unreasonably thinks it will give our bowlers a leg up if they’ve already used a Kookaburra ball in the county championship, and perhaps mastered some of the arts required to take wickets when the ball isn’t doing much either in the air or off the pitch.
On the surface this sounds like a good plan. Why shouldn’t we ask our bowlers to work a bit harder in domestic cricket? What’s more, there are advantages for the batsmen too …
Rather than going out with all guns blazing, fearing there’s a delivery with their name of it, batsmen can learn to take their time, cash in, and make some really big scores. According to Joe it’s why the Aussie batsmen always fill their boots in their home Test matches – they’ve learned how to make a bowling side suffer in Shield cricket.
Although it’s tempting at this juncture to say “well, you play a lot of Tests overseas with a Kookaburra ball, Joe, and you couldn’t convert three eggs into an omelette”, I do think this idea has some merit from a batsman’s perspective. County batsmen have to suffer in April and May when bowlers like Darren Stevens are more dangerous than anthrax, so why shouldn’t we give them an advantage later in the season?
Well, unfortunately I can think of a couple of good reasons actually.
Firstly, the last time we used balls with flattish seams that favoured the batsmen in county cricket it ended up being a complete run-fest. Every batsman, his dog, and his dog’s Bridge partner scored a mountain of runs. In fact, a whopping eleven batsmen scored over 2,000 runs and an amazing forty two players averaged over 50!
Basically, therefore, the move solved one problem but created another. Bowlers with a bit of skill were easier to identify but the best batting prospects – ones with techniques likely to survive a tricky session in a Test match – became much harder to identify. Duh!
Consequently, Joe’s genius plan might not be so genius-like after all. And who wants to watch boring run gluts anyway? Low scoring games are often the most enthralling. Which brings me on to my next (and final) point.
The Kookaburra ball is, in a word, a turd. Do we really want to encourage the use of a ball that (in many observers‘ opinion) is a bit rubbish?
The Kookaburra only stays hard for a few overs, doesn’t swing for long, and often produces insipid defensive cricket. Yes it’s ok if the outfield’s abrasive and the pacemen can find some reverse swing, but its use is not something I’d generally encourage.
Dukes balls are better all round. Batsmen can score runs against them on good pitches and bowlers can obviously thrive too. Therefore surely we should be campaigning to expand the use of the Dukes around the world rather than admitting defeat and accepting the ubiquitous Kookaburra?
The bottom line is this. The best Test matches are those in which there’s a balance between bat and ball. We don’t want games where 500 plays 500. We want games where 350 plays 350. These are the best games to watch as they stay entertaining for longer.
Therefore, in an age where first class cricket needs all the help it can get (especially the county championship) it seems counterintuitive to promote use of an inferior ball that might produce more boring cricket.
So yes, red ball cricket in our country does have problems.
And yes, it would definitely help if England’s seam bowlers could learn to take more wickets in places like Australia.
But – and it’s a pretty big ‘but’ – we should never forget to consider the broader implications of potential solutions.
Got that, Joe?
James Morgan
From Root’s point of view, if he see no signs of flat seams getting higher in test cricket, then it’s a decent idea to go with the flow and make the best of a bad job. Whatever the merits of the Duke, if its use is going to be restricted in the test arena then there’s little point in the short term persevering with it on the county circuit, which after all is supposed to be the breeding ground for test selection. We can certainly then get a better idea of how our myriad of medium quick county seamers will fare abroad.
Interesting points but how many of our test players actually play championship matches?
Once they’re on a central contract, the ECB governs their availability.
Apart from the newcomers to the test team, hardly anyone else saw a red ball except in tests; when did Buttler last play a championship match?
Why can’t the ICC standardise the use of one make of ball worldwide?
I can see the logic in Root’s idea but because the championship is pretty much book-ended, the matches will be in conditions unlike test matches in most countries.
See Cook’s comments on Buttler during the week for an indication of how valuable they think playing CC is. The answer of course is…. not at all.
And on standardising the ball worldwide the answer has been given many times – that conditions vary. The abrasive grounds of Australia and SA shred the Duke ball so if there ia a standardisation it won’t be to the Duke.
It’s more to do with the prospective test players of the future who do play in the championship. We know the comparative plusses and minuses of most of the regulars, it’s the up and comings we need to be more proactive in developing.
In a word – no. I have no desire to go back to 1990 when Lancashire almost scored 1000 runs at the Oval in their 1st innings , Fairbrother over 300 and Tony Grieg for Surrey 270 odd! What a bore that was. And most of us old foggies don’t like run feasts in 4/5 day cricket. Save it for one day.
More importantly for prospective test players, bat and bowl, is to have 4 day cricket in peak summer. But with the Championship relegated to the bookends of the season it ain’t gonna happen. The only advantage this year for the working supporters is that most of the April/May games cover the weekends.
I rather like this – “well, you play a lot of Tests overseas with a Kookaburra ball, Joe, and you couldn’t convert three eggs into an omelette”. Witty, cutting and truthful at the same time.
Definitely worth giving it a go – we need to do something to at least try and mimic one of the playing conditions we experience overseas. There are of course many other factors which contribute to us struggling away from home – as well as relegating the championship to the beginning and end of the season, the lack of any meaningful warm up games before the Tests begin also hurt us – but using the same ball everyone else uses would at least be a start.
The problem is that Test cricket in England is the most entertaining. I wouldn’t like to change that. Cricket is increasingly a batsman’s game. It’s such a shame.
This has always been the case in cricket. How many bowlers do we talk about in the same breath as the great batsmen, especially since pitches were covered. There’s a few quickies and a few spinners, but most bowlers are neither. Spinners have the advantage of being blue to bowl in long spells but sheer physical fitness limits the rest, whereas batsmen can carry on for hours. Every test team has 5 or 6 players capable of making hundreds, but how many bowlers capable of taking 5 wickets, certainly not 5 or 6.
NZ managed to bowl the No.1 team out pretty cheaply again overnight with the supposedly rubbish Kookabura. I’d think Christchurch is about as close to English conditions as one is going to get outside England. (Seriously, Kyle Jamieson is some talent).
Starc, Cummins, Hazlewood, Boult and Southee have all averaged under 30 using mostly the Kookabura. How can it be that rubbish for bowlers? It reeks of English hacks (often ex-medium pacers or their mates) looking for an excuse why England do badly abroad that can’t be applied to when England are at home. If they admitted home team dominance is caused by pitch manipulation and the scrapping of proper acclimatisation they couldn’t puff England’s home wins up so easily as a result of the managerial magnificence of the ECB and the genius of their favourite players.
Elsewhere, apparently Jack Leach is struggling to be fit for SL (calf strain).
It might swing a bit in NZ but look at the Tests England played there recently. Flat as the proverbial. When bat dominates it really dominates with that Kookaburra.
They used the Dukes as a trial in Australia when the Aussies had the same idea re: trying to win in England. I have no idea how the trial went. Did the ball get shredded as you say?
Okay, I’ll admit I’m in a bad mood. So the captain of our pampered Test team (which has hoardes of back-up staff) is talking balls.
The planet is threatened by coronavirus, floods, fire and famine but poor Joe thinks his bowlers our disadvantaged. Well I have an old fashioned theory that Test batsmen and bowlers should be able to play in any conditions and with whatever equipment that is authorised. Stop looking for excuses for mediocre players who can only thrive when the conditions are fine-tuned for them.
India,I understand, use SG.
They could try any balls they liked at New Road right now, given that the ground is under several feet of water and has been for some time.
As for Joe, he can spend time locked in a room with Greta Thunberg.
Things are seldom what they seem.
I don’t suppose for a moment that this idea originated with Joe Root – I don’t think he is capable of having an idea, even one like this. He will have been told to say it by someone higher up at the ECB.
Why? Well, why do K balls dominate in world cricket when (according to sources I trust) they are poorly made – and objectively worse than Dukes. So why? Who benefits from using an inferior product?
All this is pure speculation on my part – but sometimes things happen for non-obvious, bad reasons; that benefit specific individuals at the cost of disadvantaging the sport, the fans or other larger interests.
When this kind of thing happens it usually reflects something going on behind the scenes, some kind of backstairs corruption. K balls seem to have some key people in their pockets. Perhaps including someone important at the ECB?
Another option. Would it help (in terms of more predictable bounce and less seam movement) to play these ridiculously early or late season first class matches on some kind of matting surface?
Sorry, Doug M regarding the Surrey v Lancs run fest in the early 90s, it was Ian Greig who played for Surrey and not the late great Tony ‘I’ll make you bastards grovel’ Greig who only ever played for Sussex and Kerry Packer.
Thanks for the correction. I think Greig and Bicknell.s 7th wicket partnership is still a Surrey record.
The 6N disappearing behind a paywall and what should be a flagship Test match going to be over within three days….
Another day, another morning reading the headlines from the toxic cesspool that is international sport.
Well not sure it’s quite s toxic cesspool yet, but I do wish the BBC would not plaster Women’s incredibly boring T20 all over their cricket site. It really is well over the top.
Oh, and Kohli averaging less than 10 in the Tests. Of course these things happen.
It does not help to lose both tosses (the last time New Zealand lost a Test at home after winning the toss was in 2009; for India that is 2012). The moment India win a toss in South Africa / England / Australia / New Zealand they compete well (3 wins and 1 draw from 4 toss wins in those places – the draw was to ensure a series win in Australia). Problem is they hardly ever win those tosses. 10 toss losses resulting in 1 win (in England) and 9 losses (4 in England, 1 in Australia, 2 in New Zealand, 2 in South Africa). Could make a compelling argument to either do away with the toss or appoint neutral curators.
International sports is broken. But in the case of cricket it is so obviously broken, that it is not even funny anymore – and one has to be utterly ill-informed to even be able to pretend that it is not so. Maybe that explains a bit of the atrocious state of cricket journalism in the MSM in England.