Roebuck: "There was a self-destruct button there. Shahid Afridi did not have anything in his head which told him, 'This is a foolish thing to do, don't do it'"

Harsha Bhogle: On this third show, we are going to talk about the issue of ball-tampering. I have Sanjay Manjrekar in the studio, and on the phone line is Peter Roebuck from Sydney. We are also going to get views from Ian Chappell and Tony Greig.

Peter, you never get a dull season in Australia, do you?

Peter Roebuck: We think we are going to have a very quiet time and then someone takes a bite out of the ball, someone else invades the pitch, and it's all on again.

HB: Have you ever seen anything like that before? You are one of those hardened pros, went from ground to ground, and probably saw everything that was to see in county cricket.

PR: No, no… not deliberately. Someone said that the food in Perth was not good... but no one could make head or tail of it, really. It was a very naked and extraordinary thing to do.

Sanjay Manjrekar: I have seen Afridi do things like these a couple of times and get penalised, at least twice, officially. The last time, I think, it was in Faisalabad, when he did the spike thing on the pitch, and now the ball-biting. On both occasions, the expression on his face told you something about Afridi. He was really not intending to do something significant to change the course of the game. He was doing it just out of fun, just trying to be naughty and hoping to get a few laughs. When he did that spike thing, he had the expression of a little kid. Almost like: look at me, I am doing something that we are not supposed to do.

HB: As if to say, you hid the chocolates from me, but I knew it all along so I nicked one.

Soon after that game ended, Afridi spoke to Peter Walsh of ABC radio, and let's listen in to what is a very interesting clip.

Peter Walsh: Shahid, it was a close game. [You were] captaining the team and pressure can bring people to do weird and wonderful things. But it did appear, from where we were sitting, that you might have actually put the cricket ball in your mouth on couple of occasions?

Shahid Afridi: No, I was actually just trying to smell it to see how it was feeling.

PW:You smelt it?

SA: [Laughs] Yes.

PW: But you don't smell it with your teeth?

SA: Sometimes you can do. Don't bring negative questions.

PW: I won't go into the negatives, but you have to understand that it will be looked at because it did look as if something was going on.

SA: No, there was something so I tried to move it.

HB: Peter, you were there when that was happening. What I find funny was that in between he suddenly says, "Don't ask negative questions."

PR: It was a bizarre episode, bearing in mind that he was captain of Pakistan at the time.

HB: You seem to associate that position with lot of gravity.

PR: You would think so. There has to be some gravitas somewhere along the way if you are going to be an international captain. You cannot be playing the fool in that position, even in front of the cameras there. I think that was the thing with Afridi. There was a self-destruct button there. He did not have anything in his head which told him, "This is a foolish thing to do, don't do it." He just went and did it.

SM: Exactly my feelings, Harsha. As captain he should not be doing this. Shahid Afridi should not be the captain of Pakistan. He has none of the qualities that one needs. Especially when there is no cricket in Pakistan and the Pakistan team is travelling the world. That means that they are carrying a huge responsibility and they are ambassadors for their country. People will look at Pakistan in terms of the Pakistan cricket team that travels to England, Australia and South Africa. So it is imperative that they have a captain who sets a better example and shows the team in a better light than Afridi is capable of doing. If I was the PCB President then Afridi would not be in my longlist of probables as Pakistan captain.

HB: Except that you won't be the PCB President by the evening.

[Laughter]

What I find very interesting is that virtually every leading cricketer in recent times has come out and said that we knew it all along [that ball-tampering happens]. I think Angus Fraser said it. Allan Donald said it. We've had former cricketers as umpires, who therefore should be expected to know what is happening on the field. The general manager of the ICC, Dave Richardson, who takes great interest in all these laws, has been a very distinguished former Test cricketer himself. Is there a general hush-hush, wink-wink attitude towards ball-tampering in world cricket?

SM: I think there was a time when ball-tampering was happening. A time when the umpires weren't really focussing on that aspect of the game - they were worrying about lbws and all the other things. Then, suddenly, the officials came to know about ball-tampering and how it was affecting the course of matches, and so they started monitoring it closely.

I would like to think that ball-tampering has drastically come down in the last few years. I don't see that kind of blatant alteration of the cricket ball anymore that we saw till the mid-90s. It's very fashionable to say that it happens all the time. I don't think India tampers the ball. The last Test match that we saw - Zaheer Khan or the other bowlers yesterday, I don't think they've tampered the ball.

HB: Peter, is it a bit like that - where everyone is involved in it, so no one is talking about it?

PR: I think it comes and goes. It is a bit like throwing. There are phases when ball-tampering is high. There are lot of runs being scored in Test cricket right now, so the ball cannot be doing so much. But in the 70s and 80s, when I was playing, I didn't really hear anything about ball-tampering in county cricket or even from international bowlers. I don't think I even came across it that much. Yet before that, in the 1920s, there was a Somerset bowler called Jack White and the guys would not field in the covers for him because their fingers would get cut up because the seam was so high. In the 1960s, there were Test umpires who used to pick the seam, in county cricket. They are still running around or maybe they have retired.

So in various periods, ball-tampering has been as high, and as Sanjay says, in the 1990s it came surging back into the game. Now maybe it's levelling off. So I think it's one of those things: people become more aware of it and then it goes quiet for 10 to 15 years. But it comes on strong when batsmen are scoring a lot of runs. I think the reason it was not so much in focus in 70s and 80s was because there were very good bowlers and also there were wickets they could bowl on and hope to take wickets on.

HB: Okay, let me throw this to both of you: as per the law today, ball-tampering is a crime, but is it a just law?

PR: I think it is overstated. The problem is, what is acceptable? Is it acceptable to put Murray mint on the ball? Is it acceptable to put things from your mouth or the sweat from your head on the ball? What is acceptable and not acceptable is very difficult to police. And what happens is, you put a bit on and the ball gets better, so you put a bit more on and it gets even better. I think the problem is with policing the law, and the lack of policing has led it to happen more and more, whether it is bottle tops or whatever it might be.

Who was that New Zealander who got a whole stack of wickets...

	Manjrekar: "One reason why reverse swing got attention during Waqar and Wasim's time was because of the kind of effect they could create" © Getty Images

HB: Chris Pringle

PR: Yes, and out of the blue they suddenly bowled the opposition out.

HB: He never threatened to take anywhere near 11 wickets before or after.

PR: Mind you, there was an element of surprise in that as well. There is a lack of clarity about the law. Even the word "tampering", I think is too strong. It has all sorts of connotations, and I would like to see some other word associated with it. I don't know what. It's not such a serious thing. I mean, we only ever hear about the ball, we never hear about the bat. We only ever hear about the bowlers, we never hear about the batsmen. I don't see it as such a desperate thing.

HB: Right, Sanjay what do you think about it?

SM: I think there are far graver issues in the game. Afridi has suddenly got us talking about ball-tampering and ball alteration. I think if the pitches were more bowling-friendly then the bowlers would have realised that there was something in the surface for them, and they would have given importance to conventional swing. I am very happy to see Ryan Harris is taking wickets at the top for Australia. He is swinging the ball the old-fashioned way and getting wickets at the top. If that starts happening then you don't need to alter the ball too much. I think there have been great bowlers who have never tampered the ball. As Peter said, the conditions are stacked in favour of the batsmen, and there is nothing in it for the bowlers to make it an even contest. That is when you start seeing little things that happen, which at times were not illegal.

HB: Right, let's hear what Ian Chappell thinks about this whole business. What you can be sure of is that when it comes to the laws, Ian will have a very strong forthright opinion.

Ian Chappell: Rub the laws and start again. I think they have made a total mess of the laws in recent times. If bowlers felt the contest is even then I don't think you will get the illegal actions and the ball-tampering. They should sit down with all the captains, and write down the list of all the things that make ball swing. We will then go through the list and then pick out six or eight or any number from those. Then we present the list to all the captains, and we ask them to pick one out of that lot, and make it legal and the rest illegal. And if you are caught doing any of those, you are in big trouble. You will be handed a suspension. You see, you've got to keep swing bowling in the game. Swing bowling and legspin bowling are the two aspects of the game you must do everything to encourage, because they are both attacking forms of bowling.

SM: I am in agreement with that. Find out the things that we can do. But too many laws in the game makes it difficult to enforce. You should not have too many laws, and too many do nots in the game, because how many things can the umpire worry about?

HB: Just one thing before we move on from this issue of what is fair and what is just. I think you made an excellent point about conditions - if the conditions were good for bowling they wouldn't need to do it.

What about this whole business of shining the ball versus roughing up the ball? In either situation you are changing the normal condition of the ball aren't you? In one case you are maintaining it, and in one case you are altering it and changing the natural process.

SM: See, if you want to make it fair then allow deliberate deterioration of the ball. Like when you shine the ball, you are enhancing the quality of the ball. But ideas are good in theory. Shining the ball is something that seems part of the game. It looks good and it doesn't embarrass anyone. Earlier there used to be cases where India wanted to get their spinner on in the third over so you would have those guys from deep fine leg throwing the ball with one bounce or two to the keeper. Now if you start overdoing it, if you just start rolling the ball all along the ground… after a while that starts looking bad. So I think there's got to be realistic balance of what is to be allowed and what is not.

HB: Peter, Sanjay makes an interesting point, doesn't he? If you made slightly more bowler-friendly conditions then you wouldn't have to resort to tampering. There is this other theory that the doosra came in because the finger spinner was almost rendered toothless. The doosra is almost necessarily an illegal delivery. But people are driven to it rather than the old-fashioned floater because there is nothing left in the game for the finger spinner.

PR: The nature of the ball must be sympathetic to the bowler. There was a season in county cricket, in 1990, where they decided the ball was doing too much and batsmen were scoring too many runs, so they made the ball soft with a flat seam. No one could get anyone out. That inevitably brought ideas into the bowlers' heads: what are we going to do? So the nature of the ball is a factor as well. TV is caught up with the desire for matches to last five days. Cricket is a balance between bat and ball and both have a way of restoring that balance when they feel it has gone too far against them. It is a delicate balance and the ball has a part to play in it.

SM: But why is the Kookaburra ball the ball for all conditions and international cricket? In Pakistan, for example, it is the worst ball to play cricket with. I think balance is the key word. All that top-order batsmen in Pakistan have to do is be careful for the first 10 to 15 overs when the seam of the Kookaburra ball is hard. Then the ball just dies in those conditions. So the Kookaburra ball doesn't give you the right balance between bat and ball. Perhaps an SG ball, or the Duke's with a more prominent seam is the ball for Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka. Maybe the Kookaburra ball is better for conditions in Australia and South Africa. That is where cricketing intelligence comes in, and that is where the administrators need to involve intelligent cricket minds. The pursuit has to be to create balance between bat and ball.

HB: Let's hear what Tony Greig, someone who always has tended to think laterally, has to say on this.

Tony Greig: Yes, ball-tampering is one of cricket's most open secrets and it has been for at least the last 50 years. Most of the best cricket administrators have been former players and they know that it is happening. But their attitude has been to write the laws as strictly as possible, knowing full well that short of submitting all balls for forensic testing, there is little chance of doing anything other than what is being done at the moment.

All fielding teams want to take wickets, and in order to do that a swinging and seaming ball helps no end. To get the ball to swing in a conventional fashion, it has always been perceived that shine on one side and rough on the other is imperative. This is a misleading notion because the new ball that is equally shiny on both sides swings more than an older ball. It is also to do with the position of the ball in flight, the seam, and how the air tumbles around the ball, creating a vacuum and therefore drag.

Thereafter, through manipulations of the seam and surface, bowlers can create reverse swing, which is even more effective than orthodox swing because the ball will swing both ways and can swing very late. It is common knowledge that bottle tops and sandpaper in particular have been used in the past to change the surface of the ball in an effort to create reverse swing. New Zealand's Adam Parore openly admits that New Zealand, in retribution for what they thought Pakistan had been doing, went to work on the ball with a bottle top in a Test in 1990 in Faisalabad. Parore said Chris Pringle was the major beneficiary in so much as he took 11 wickets in the match. Some may choose to deny it but over the years bowlers have technically indulged in ball-tampering. Saliva and sweat are permitted as shining agents, but what about the mints and gum that alter the make-up of saliva? What about sunscreen and lip balm, which mixes with sweat? And so it goes on...

HB: We have just heard from Tony, but Peter, Sanjay makes an interesting observation - rather than focus on the ball, focus on the contest. You alluded to that as well, so do you think the ICC should be looking more closely at making it an even contest between bat and ball?

PR: Sanjay is right about using different balls for different conditions. This homogeneity is not a good idea, because the conditions are so different. I think they have to get right and I don't know if you can get that right by issuing a decree from Dubai.

HB: But Sanjay, why is Pakistan in the middle of it all? We heard of it when Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis were bowling, then you had Inzamam-ul-Haq and Darrell Hair at The Oval, and now Afridi. They have a view in Pakistan that everyone does it, but they get targeted.

SM: One reason why it got attention during Waqar's and Wasim's time was because of the kind of effect they could create.

HB: That is an interesting point. I was speaking to Rahul Dravid recently and I asked him what the difference was: one swings away and one swings into the batsman and once you have figured the swing out, it should not be too difficult. He said that with reverse swing the ball almost dips - it doesn't swing, and that it depends on when the ball starts to reverse. He thinks a 70-over ball reversing is not a threat but a 30-over ball reversing is a threat. Is there a difference in the swing for the batsmen?

SM: I think the bowler is the key. Guys with a round-arm action and those who were quicker through the air were nightmares, like Waqar and Wasim. Someone like Danny Morrison wasn't the greatest of bowlers but when the ball started reversing his bowling action was perfect to create difficulty for the batsmen. Rumesh Ratnayake was very difficult to play when the ball reverse-swung.

HB: So, Peter, reverse swing is not a mirror image of conventional swing is it?

PR: There are two things there. Firstly it is happening in 20-over cricket and rest assured, there are bowlers who can get it to reverse by the sixth or seventh over by interacting with the ball.

I faced Waqar in a county game and he bowled outswingers in his first five overs. I happened to see the Surrey captain at first slip gesticulating to fine leg to come finer and I thought something was up and realised Waqar was going to bowl an inswinger. I see the ball come three-quarters of the way down the pitch and it rushed back in really late and it was a lethal, fast inswinger. It was luckily missing leg stump by three inches and it went down. That is the difference with the inswinger; it goes so late and fast that you can see why Waqar and Wasim were even more dangerous with reverse swing.

SM: Peter, because they were so great in some ways, they were easier to play because they were so accurate. When reverse swing came into play, sometimes as a batsman I would decide that I would not lift my bat and keep it on middle stump to face the ball. It didn't matter to me where the ball was in the air when it was delivered, because I knew it would finally finish on middle stump. That was how I made it easy.

HB: Finally Peter, two sentences for the ICC that can make a difference to world cricket…

PR: Sporting pitches, good governance.

SM: Look at every situation in every country and try and get a balance between bat and ball. One formula will not work in all countries. Shortening the time aspect, especially in Test cricket, providing the same flair and action but in a shorter time span and finding ideas and means to do it.