Stephen VasciannieIN THE first test match of the 2002 cricket series between England and Sri Lanka at Lords, the left-arm seamer Ruchira Perera took 3 for 48 and 2 for 90. Perera was playing in his seventh test, and his five-wicket performance might have been perceived as a harbinger of considerable bowling prowess. But this now seems quite unlikely, for Perera's bowling action has been called into question, not only by television commentators, but more importantly by standing umpires Srinivas Venkataraghavan and Daryl Harper.
Questions about Perera's action are now to be addressed by the Sri Lankan authorities, but, in the meantime, another cricketer, Mark Butcher of England, has entered the picture. Last Thursday, Butcher was fined an unspecified sum by the English Cricket Board for comments in the Croydon Advertiser, a regional newspaper of limited circulation, about Perera's delivery style. Butcher has appealed, and so the matter could well stretch beyond the narrow boundaries of English and Sri Lankan cricket boards, and the Croydon Advertiser.
Here is what Butcher said about his fellow international cricketer: "Having faced him for some time, I can say that he definitely straightens his arm. It's not so bad when the ball is pitched up, but when he bowls short he just runs up and throws it at you. It's extraordinary and I can't believe someone is getting away with it" (quoted in the London Times).
On the matter of suspect bowling actions, terminological clarification may be helpful. On the Jamaican playing field, if a delivery is offered from a bent arm, the word 'fling' immediately comes to mind. Apparently, in other cricketing jurisdictions, people talk of 'throwing' and 'chucking,' but somehow these terms seem inappropriate to Caribbean sensibilities. After all, throwing sounds almost like a general term that could embrace both legitimate and illegitimate deliveries; and, particularly with reference to the 1970s, a man who was 'chucking' was presenting a picture of resistance outside the context of cricket. So, I'll stick with the language of the fling, though it is not formally incorporated in Rule 24 of the laws of cricket.
Another general point concerns the role of television and action replays. For test matches nowadays, if we are so inclined, we can review the suspect action ad nauseam. But, for bowling in the past, and for matches not covered by television, the matter is more open to conjecture and fleeting, subjective, assessment. It is reported, for instance, that on one occasion, Tony Locke, the English spinner, dismissed Doug Insole with a questionable delivery. Upon reaching the pavilion, Insole curtly asked the scorers whether he had been given out bowled, or run out!
When a bowler is called for flinging, this can be quite a dramatic development. The shout of "no ball" echoes across the ground, but, lo and behold, as the spectators realise that the voice is coming from square leg, there is always a special buzz. The captain of the bowling team then faces an immediate dilemma. What if the bowler is repeatedly no-balled for flinging? This could mean the loss of the bowler for the entire match, if not for all time. And the embarrassment to the bowler may well lead to irretrievable breakdown, as lawyers are wont to say in an entirely unrelated context.
As a means of minimising the shame factor, the International Cricket Council (ICC) now tries to be more sympathetic at the test level. If a bowler shows too much elbow down at his end, the preferred procedure in test matches is for the umpires to report this to the ICC and to the bowler's team manager; the team is then given time to rectify the bowler's action, and if questions remain, the ICC itself tries to offer advice and assistance to the bowler. Not only is this fair to the bowler, it also reduces the natural tendency to believe that a particular umpire may be out to undermine one of our bowlers.
As to that natural tendency, Sir Garfield Sobers implies, in his recently published (and long overdue) autobiography, that umpire Arthur Fagg may have overstepped the line with Charlie Griffith, the former Bajan and West Indian pacer. According to Sobers, Fagg no-balled Griffith for flinging in a 1966 tour match between the West Indies and Lancashire. On his way home, Fagg heard nothing about this no-ball incident on his car radio, so he called the radio station to reiterate what had happened, and to ask why they had not reported it. The polite, and probably correct, comment offered by Sobers is that Fagg may have "expected notoriety" to have followed (Garry Sobers, My Autobiography, 2002, p. 56).
It should be conceded, however, that Sobers' description, and my acceptance of it, may well reflect instinctive loyalty in defence of an accused West Indian comrade. Indeed, whenever a bowler's arm action is questioned, his nationals come out in support. Hence, Shoaib Akhtar, the Rawalpindi Express, had no small number of defenders in Pakistan even before Holding helped him to straighten up. Similarly, when, in the mid-1980s, members of the English B team gave the Sri Lankan bowler KPJ Warnaweera the nickname 'Spear,' because his action was reminiscent of spear-throwing, we can be sure that his nationals did not see humour in the classification.
And, finally, what are we to make of Muttiah the unplayable? Murilatharan's action has been challenged and defended across the world, with his supporters placing sour grapes in the mouths of the critics. Bishen Singh Bedi, a former Indian spinner of the highest calibre, has been quoted as saying: "If Murali doesn't chuck, then show me how to bowl," and yet, various technical experts have given approval to Murali's highly unorthodox action.
A few years ago, one of our spin twins of yore, Sonny Ramadhin, indicated that he would fling the occasional delivery for effect. I cannot say if this is true, but it seems to my untrained eye that Murali's action is far more questionable than anything that Ramadhin ever offered from the bowler's end.
A final note: Goodbye Hugh, rest well, and know that your brilliance in the media will be greatly missed.
Stephen Vasciannie, a UWI lecturer, is currently Visiting Fellow at Wolfson College, Cambridge University.
