Ken Borland

It would seem the whole debate over whether ball-tampering should be allowed in cricket has been resurrected due to the Covid-19 pandemic and, predictably, it has been Australians leading the way.

When it comes to delicate questions requiring much cricketing wisdom, I generally ask myself, “What would Michael Holding do?” (Although I disagree with his belief that the toss should be done away with as I explained in a previous column – http://kenborland.com/2018/09/cricket-looking-to-toss-a-boomerang/)

And Holding has indeed made a very pertinent observation regarding the whole legalising ball-tampering debate: The great West Indian fast bowler and much-loved commentator asked whether we should even be playing cricket if we are so worried about saliva and sweat?

Whether the Covid-19 virus can even be transmitted via sweat seems unlikely. But if the ICC are so concerned about possible transmission through perspiration then they should probably not be playing cricket anyway. Cricketers are generally running about in the sun and they are going to sweat, there’s no avoiding that fact.

And bowlers, the sweatiest of the lot, are also likely to be spraying out some saliva when they are bellowing out appeals.

The cricket authorities overseas are assuring us that there will be thorough testing, temperatures being taken every day, and extensive safety measures in place, and yet they are also suggesting putting sweat or saliva on the ball will not be allowed. Which would seem to be a contradiction. If the testing and safety measures are so good, why are they still concerned about those body fluids?

The Australians, of course, are still recovering from the disgrace of being guilty of the biggest ball-tampering scandal of the lot – when David Warner, Steven Smith and Cameron Bancroft decided to use sandpaper on the ball during the 2017/18 series here. It is disappointing that they are now the first to suggest legalising that sort of nonsense, perhaps revealing that their only remorse is that they were caught and not that their blatant cheating did much damage to the game.

I understand that bowlers are going through a tough time in cricket, but there are better ways of restoring the balance between bat and ball. Pitches can provide more assistance to bowlers, although not as much as has been on offer in some recent summers here, but most importantly there should be greater control over the size of bats that are being used.

The bat manufacturers are giving batsmen bigger and bigger trunks of wood with ever-larger sweet spots and edges that are now broad enough to still hit the ball for six.

Down through the ages, bowlers have used all sorts of substances to illegally alter the condition of the ball and I fear relaxing those rules will lead to a flood of ingenious new methods of ball-tampering. We’ve already had all manners of creams, bottle tops, long fingernails, mints and sandpaper, what’s next?

And to say it can only be done under the supervision of the umpire is only going to cause even more lengthy delays in the game. Most teams have a designated player responsible for looking after the ball and are they now going to have to walk over to the umpire between deliveries and spend 30 seconds rubbing and shining the ball under their watchful eye?

This week came the happy news that England’s players next week will resume training in controlled environments at a range of different venues. This is in line with the UK government relaxing their Lockdown protocols  and will initially just be to allow the bowlers to get their fitness levels up. This will then be followed by more typical nets featuring batsmen.

England are still hoping to be able to host the West Indies in the first Test of a series in seven weeks’ time, but whether this happens remains to be seen with Caribbean players already expressing concerns about going to one of the epicentres of the pandemic.