In recent days some discussion has started on the legality of what I can only described as specialized bowling. The two kinds of deliveries that are the present subject of discussion are the 'Doosra' and the 'Reverse Swing' which is once again in the news. It is an interesting fact that both these deliveries were developed and perfected by Pakistani bowlers. In both cases the cricket world immediately reacted by charges that they were illegal deliveries. Time and Science have proven that legally delivered they do not contravene any law. Strangely enough in both cases cricketers from the sub-continent have excelled in these kinds of deliveries and the main criticism naturally enough emanates from elsewhere. I believe some comments on these phenomena are relevant.

The Australians in a recent seminar have raised the subject of the 'Doosra' and have taken the ostensible high road by suggesting that their young should not be taught this delivery. I must suggest that this could be a case of 'sour grapes'. Oddly enough it is that Country which has developed the technology that is able to provide proof about the legality of this delivery within the standards defined by the laws of cricket. If I was to argue that in the history of fast bowling there has been more than one bowler who has bent his beyond the limit in arm bowling a bouncer it would not be over stating reality.

Knowledgeable readers will be able to identify the bowlers without my having to make a list. Could this be due to the fact that historically fast bowlers developed in greater numbers out of Australia, West Indies and England? I suggest that the dead wickets in the sub-continent have pushed bowlers into developing something different and one outcome has been the off spinner's googly.

In addition, the laws of cricket in my view still weigh heavily in favor of the batsmen. The use of pads as a part of a batsman's defense makes life further difficult and thus the off spinner's googly was just waiting to be developed.

Remember 'French Cricket! Whilst in pure geometric terms it is only possible to bowl the 'Doosra' with bending the elbow the laws state that only if in delivery the arm is straightened is it a 'chuck'. Thus if a bowler is able to train his fingers to hold the ball suitably and also not straighten the elbow in the act of delivery the 'Doosra' is an entirely legitimate delivery.

Saqlain Mushtaq who could be called the designer of this delivery and has bowled under the close supervision of the best Umpires of the world has never been called for 'chucking'. This clearly proves that such a delivery is entirely possible without breaking the laws of the game.

Turning to Reverse Swing, the creator, if I might use such a term, of this was 'Big Saf' (Sarfraz Nawaz). How he was able to conclude that the weight difference of one half of the ball to the other could overcome the effect of air resistance that creates normal swing is really quite remarkable. That this difference was created by roughening one side and soaking it with moisture again entirely legal as per the rules at the time did not stop the world from calling it 'ball tampering'. It is accepted that the roughening process was accelerated using various means which may have been on the edge of legality. But let us also remember that spinners in those days on occasions opened the bowling and took the shine off the ball by scouring it on the ground totally legally.

The art of 'reversing' is not easily acquired. Scientifically speaking it is a combination of weight, speed and mode of delivery that creates the reverse swing and some of the greats like Waqar Younis, Wasim Akram and now Brett Lee could exploit this delivery much more than others. I therefore feel that Wasim Akram is correct in stating that to correct the present imbalance that is in favor of the batsmen some of the unenforceable laws regarding rubbing or changing the ball's condition should be cancelled.

Finally I cannot prevent myself taking notice of the 'Bookie' problem that has raised its ugly head again. I am amazed that the Manager on the same page of a newspaper was quoted as saying that nothing untoward occurred, whilst the other quote said no 'Bookie' existed. There is added confusion about whether the Team shifted floors or did not shift floors. I hope most sincerely and I am sure that my suspicion is wrong that this could conceivably be an effort to muddy waters and pass all the blame onto the players. This would conveniently remove any responsibility about Selection, Team Unity, Ability of Local and Central Management etc. Whilst all this was or was not going on where were The ICC and Lord Condon's team?

I look forward to the day when the Man in charge on the spot is competent and responsible enough to clearly advise the press about any situation without creating confusion and suspicion. The present action or inaction has only served to further the wrong perceptions about Pakistan Cricket.

(Article: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author only.
Copyright © 2009 Cdr. Malik Arshed Gilani)