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.

Convenor of selectors Andrew Hudson: 'Massive selection changes will not sort out the problem'

The news from the national selectors in the wake of South Africa being massacred by Australia at Centurion is that the debate over the balance of the side has been reopened but Proteas fans should not expect widespread changes for the second Test starting in Port Elizabeth on Thursday.

“From a personnel point of view, we have no doubt that the 15 chosen for the series is the right group of players. Massive selection changes will not sort out the problem, which was application – by the players’ own admission they did not play as well as they could,” convenor of selectors Andrew Hudson said yesterday.

“There may be a change, a tweak from within that squad, but it’s unlikely we’ll bring anyone in from outside that group. We weren’t unhappy with Ryan McLaren, but it has just reopened the debate about the balance of the side. Do we play seven batsmen or a spinner, it’s about the balance for Port Elizabeth.”

While McLaren can quite rightly protest that he performed the role expected of him with the ball, while there were glaring failures all around him, it seems the selectors are toying with the idea of following Australia’s gamble of only playing three seamers and a frontline spinner.

“Australia went in batting-heavy and played three seamers and a spinner. Perhaps we’ll play a batsman at seven and then have three quicks and Robin Peterson.

“But that does leave you hanging a bit if the spinner gets hit out of the attack or there’s an injury. That’s the dilemma: having the all-rounder at seven as insurance or backing four bowlers to do the job like Australia does,” Hudson admitted.

Australia’s march to victory was very much achieved on the back of Mitchell Johnson, however, and the South African batsmen played the other touring bowlers with relative comfort. South Africa don’t have a Johnson and the Australian batsmen have already shown a liking to Peterson, which could leave their attack incredibly vulnerable.

Hudson also admitted that JP Duminy, who successfully blocked out Johnson in the first innings and then fell to an extraordinary catch at short-leg off his bowling in the second innings, would come under discussion.

“JP’s place in the team – we’d need to chat about that and whether the top six are doing what we expect from them. JP hasn’t had great form but he is a quality player and he’s done well against Australia before. There’s no doubt he’s a class player,” Hudson said.