From: rasf@st-andrews.ac.uk (Russell Anthony Stewart Fiedler)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Aqib Javed ct picking the seam?
Date: 12 Aug 92 11:33:00 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <1992Aug12.073005.19952@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> bholu@nyx.cs.du.edu (  Bholu) writes:
>rasf@st-andrews.ac.uk (Russell Anthony Stewart Fiedler) writes: 
>
>>Err... I'm not too sure if we're talking about the same incident
>
>Yes we are. Realizing the error (the one where I had referred to the 
>Sunday newspapers), I had soon after posted a correction on rsc 
>(I should have said Monday's newspapers instead).

Sorry about that. The correction didn't arrive here till a few hours after I
replied.
>
>>here. There wasn't a close up of the ball. The hand movement was 
>>extremely obvious, hence Benaud's reaction. 'Rip' might be a poor 
>>description of the action. His hand movements were entirely 
>>consistent with inserting his thumb nail in the seam of the ball 
>>and running his nail along it. The extent of the picking indicated, 
>>to me anyway, that it was probably the quarter seam (it was about a 
>>half rotation) rather than the main seam. 
>
>Zooming in may be a better description. The camera was kept
>focussed on the ball many times, during which what all one could
>see of Aqib on the screen was from his chest downwards to his 
>thighs where he was polishing the ball. This is not the normal 
>sort of camerawork we see as the ball is relayed back to the
>bowler. 
>
>The view on the TV was that one could see AJ's left hand in full
>view but not the right hand. In my judgement the scratching
>action with the right thumb was not enough to cover even the
>quarter seam. 
>

I've received email from one person, who wishes to stay out of things, backing
up my version of what happened so I'm pretty confident in what I've said. I
think that we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether Aqib was running
his thumbnail along the seam or was scratching the ball in some way.

>I'll quote some lines from The Independent (Tuesday 11 Aug).
>...
>Clyde Walcott, the match referee assigned to oversee the decisive 
>fifth Test at The Oval, also exonerated the Pakistani fast 
>bowlers Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis. Having inspected the ball 
>at the end of each innings as well as during every interval, he 
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>declared himself satisfied that there has been no subterfuge.
>...

Well, you'd have to be really stupid to tamper with the ball when there are
9 wickets down or last over before lunch, wouldn't you?
Look, don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying or implying that the 2W's have
ever done anything illegal to the ball (or had others do their dirty work for 
them). I'll leave that to the Sun, Star and Mickey Stewart. I've related one
suspicious incident involving AJ. Given the amount of scrutiny of the Pakistan
team I'm convinced that this is a totally isolated incident. The 2W's and
Mushtaq form the most enterprising and entertaining bowling attack in cricket
today. Whether they are as effective as the WI attack is moot but I know which
one gives the spectator value for money although watching Curtley Ambrose
working over Hick last year was good fun I must admit! They've gotten where
they are by means of talent, intelligence (refer SAN's post on use of the
return crease by WY etc) and hard work.

>... (still from the Indie)
>Besides, it would require the claws of an Edward Scissorhands to 
>make much of an impression on today's rigidly stitched seams.

Methinks that this correspondent should play a bit more cricket and stay
out of the cinema (or bar). He's living in a fantasy land. Picking of the
seam has been going on for ages and still occurs. It's just that it's very
very rare at the top level. Go to club level cricket. It happens. As in most
sports, those who aren't up to it take short cuts.


Cheers,

Russ Fiedler
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket