« THE HISTORY BOYS | Main | BEND IT LIKE MURRAY MINT »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Surprise! Surprise!

The person Stressa credits with starting the mint sucking cheatery is a Pakistani, Asif Din.

nick

Look, it's hardly a surprise. England have sucked for years.

(thanks for the hat tip)

The Don has risen

This isn't cheating.
It doesn't matter what you put in your mouth.
If all they did was shine the ball then that is within the rules.

Shining one side of the ball is not rocket science however Tress did not make Aussie batsman forget how to use their feet nor allow Freddie nor Jonesy how to bowl the ball.
I don't recall Hoggers using the old ball all that well!

for those who have forgotten both Jones swung the new ball as well as the old ball.

They were a better side than us.
period.

live with it. Don't make up excuses on why we lost the Ashes.

Adsy

Don, the spit mixed with the lolly would have essentially "re-lacquered" the ball - no wonder they were hooping it around all over the place. Especially when Lee was bowling straight-ons that Pietersen and Flintoff happened to get onto on their postage stamp sized grounds.

I don't agree they were a better side than us at all. They certainly batted better than our bats, and bowlers better than ours save SKW.

I agree a number of factors (excuses) led to the loss apart from this...

1. Kasper misses that bouncer and scores another run we go two-nil up (i.e. game over)

2. Pigeon doesn't roll his ankle and we don't have to play a bowler down...

3. Their middle order actually misses the odd one whilst swinging out of their ass.

4. Brett Lee learns to bowl behind the line and doesn't get multiple wickets from noballs.

5. Our slips cordon learns to catch (e.g Warney)

It doesn't change anything apart from putting their win into some sort of perspective... and making the shellacking they copped back in Australia about par for the course.

Tony T

It's cheating alright.

And struggling against big swing is not some horrible flaw isolated to Aussie batsmen. Most EVERY batsman struggles when the ball is swerving around.

1. And Billy gets the decision right and gives Kaspers not out.

2. And we don't then send the bastards in.

3. And with their eyes closed.

4. And grows up.

5. And... just and.

My 6. And we don't get butchered by the umpires. YES. I know. We've cleaned up over here courtesy of loads of howlers. Still...

My 7. Just added something to the bottom of the post.

m0nty

Hard to believe Stressa could have got that stressed with his breath so fresh. Or maybe he was worried about cavities.

Tony T

I tend to agree with Nick that Stressa got stressed because he was tortured by his part in lolly-gate (sorry).

Either that, or he was wracked with guilt because he scored runs without ever moving his feet.

Adsy

Simon Jones v Michael Clarke - You shouldn't get that sort of hoop with a half taped up tennis ball.

RT

On account of Lollygate the ICC must reverse the result. Make it 2-1 Aussies. Don't care which test they reverse.

Suspect Stressa is not too popular in the Old Dart at the moment. For punishment they'll probably making him tour Pakistan for the Champions Trophy. Problem is he'll be feted over there for correct use of mints.

Pedro the Ignorant

So, all is revealed.

The Aussies didn't want to mess up a perfectly good bat by hitting a ball covered in some grubby Pom's drool.

Tony T

Stress will be looking for an assistant coaching role alongside Sunglasses Fletcher.

The Don

The rules of cricket do not allow you to tamper with the ball.
you are allowed to keep the shine on the ball.
noe do the rules say about anything in your mouth.

for petes sake you blokes whinge better than the poms.

nick

The Don puts the moron into oxymoron. Why not put lacquer on your sweatbands, polish on your lucky red rag, or lollies on the pitch? Maybe what was thought to be a bad practical joke by the Poms was actually a secret tactic?

Someone once said it is what comes out of a man's mouth that make him unclean. Karma, Stressy, karma.

The don has Risen

for the ignorant,

It is not how MUCH the ball swings but how LATE.

The lateness of the swing is not exacerbated by excess shine. you merely need shine on the ball.

for those who have bowled then it is known sweat is more than enough.

Please quote the rule of law that says you are not allowed to have lollies in your mouth.

what was that about morns?

It does help to know just a little bit about the game

Tony T

What was what about morns?

Adsy

Morne Morkel?

Tony T

Don, as to your analysis. Such as it is.

First off: No one said there was a "rule of law that says you are not allowed to have lollies in your mouth."

Second: If "sweat is more than enough" then why would anyone have ever dirtied, finger-nailed, Murray-Minted, trod on or bottle-topped the ball? Bowlers will do anything they think they can get away with if they think it will make the ball swing more.

Third: "It is not how MUCH the ball swings but how LATE." WE KNOW.

What makes the ball swing is having both sides of the ball different; hence the electric tape on one side of a tennis ball.

Exactly the same case can be made for a cricket ball. You rough up one side and load up the other with spit or perspiration and you will achieve the same effect; maybe not to the same degree as the taped tennis ball but certainly more than a cricket ball that has only been shined on one side.

Thus the amount of swing then becomes a matter of how much rough and how much loading.

Now that roughing is largely out of the equation courtesy television exposure - apart from having the fielders return the ball via a bounce or having the bowlers try to land the ball on the same side - it's all about how much loading. For instance, one side of ball covered in a mouthful of honey would swing more than one side of a ball covered in plain old spit.

THAT is why artificially loading the ball with sticky and gooey substances is banned, and why Wall Dravid got fined in 2003/04, and why a scrambling Stressa stressed with guilt when he confessed that "I dived to gather the ball at square leg, I landed on my side and a shower of Murray Mints spewed out of my trouser pocket all over the grass right in front of the umpire. Fortunately, neither he nor the two batsmen seemed to take much notice as I scrambled around on all fours trying desperately to gather in the sweets before they started asking awkward questions."

Fourth: As for knowing "just a little bit about the game" - well, have a stroll through the AGB Cricket Archives, read my posts, read all the comments and feel free to have a lash at us if you reckon it is absolute, as opposed to partial, bollocks. Even if you do say so yourself.

chris

Don –

for the ignorant (and, by the sounds of it, arrogant)

It actually doesn’t matter if the ball swings late, early or at all.

If a team is tampering with the ball – be it through bottlecaps, nail files, resin, Vaseline, lollies or anything that can alter the natural shape or state of the ball and make it behave in an unnatural way, then it is illegal.

Baseball didn’t outlaw the “spitball” just for the fun of it. They outlawed it because it altered the natural state of the ball and gave the pitcher an illegal advantage.

The same thing goes for mints and cricket balls.

Whether it impacts on the result of the game, or on half, two-thirds, three-quarters or all the deliveries bowled by bowlers with the affected ball, IT DOES NOT MATTER.

The ball has been tampered with, its natural state altered, and it is therefore against the laws of the game.

Tony T

Chris, have you ever seen that footage of a pitcher chucking away a nail file, hoping that no one saw it, when he was asked by the umpire for a look in his pocket? A superb gotcha.

Tony T

And as for whinging:

"That's in the past... 2005 is a long time ago... it doesn't bother me right now... one series at a time... we're looking forward to playing the Deshis in Darwin... we'll get our chance at England next year... straight bat... zzzzzzzzzzz...

Want more?

The Don has Risen

Then I guess you whingers believe the Aussies cheat when all that suntan cream and lip salve gets on the ball.

If you don't then you are rank hypocrites.

Tony your third point means your second point is pointless!!

Shining the ball is not tampering the ball. Taken your line to its conclusion one cannot attempt to keep a shine on the ball.

In England or Australia you can keep a shine on the ball almost all day.

By the way if you look at the 2005 highlights carefully you will see Jonesy takes more wickets with normal swing.
That is why he was so dangerous. He would bowl normal swing or reverse swing without our batsman recognising it.

Stop being ungracious losers and get over it.

The nest thing is you be be apologising for Aussies not walking or appealing when the ball clearly hasn't hit the bat.

Tony T

"Then I guess you whingers believe the Aussies cheat when all that suntan cream and lip salve gets on the ball."

None of us said that, either. We are not rank hypocrites; not in this case, anyway. No doubt Aussie bowlers have rubbed suntan lotion on the ball. No lesser bowler than the Great DK was accused of it. But in this case it's Stressa who owned up to it.

"Tony your third point means your second point is pointless!!"

Does it? Well, let me put it this way then: Spicing up the ball gives you exaggerated late swing.

"By the way if you look at the 2005 highlights carefully you will see Jonesy takes more wickets with normal swing. That is why he was so dangerous. He would bowl normal swing or reverse swing without our batsman recognising it."

His dangerous reverse swing meant that his normal swing was made more potent. Don't pretend you don't know that.

"Shining the ball is not tampering the ball."

What are you up to? No one said that, either.

"Taken your line to its conclusion one cannot attempt to keep a shine on the ball."

Balls!

"In England or Australia you can keep a shine on the ball almost all day."

So what. Doesn't mean you can't rough it up for extra movement.

"Stop being ungracious losers and get over it."

You mean ungracious winners, don't you. We spanked 'em in 2006/07 and now have the Ashes again.

"The nest thing is you be be apologising for Aussies not walking or appealing when the ball clearly hasn't hit the bat."

Yeah, like Aussies are the only ones who don't walk, or appeal for catches - and dodgy LBs, for that matter - that don't hit the bat.

Russ

You do attract some fabulous comments Tony.

Don, firstly, sweat clearly isn't "enough", otherwise why would Tresco go out of his way to use more than sweat.

Secondly, the relevant law is 42 (Fair and Unfair Play): "(a) Any fielder may
(i) polish the ball provided that no artificial substance is used and that such polishing wastes no time."

Mints (or rather, the sugared syrup that gathers in the mouth) is an artificial substance (as is sunscreen and lip salve). Ergo, using any of them to polish the ball is against the laws. The penalty is 5 runs and a changed ball. Not that any umpire will attempt to apply it after the last time.

Adsy

Suntan cream works to a point, but only to keep the surface on that side smooth enough to create a little bit of air disturbance/ wobbly swing. It doesn't penetrate into the ball and weight one side as much as saliva, let alone jacked-up, sugary super-spit.

Not that I'm a ball tamperer or anything... well only maybe at training.

So really the shine isn't the problem, its the weight added to that side of the ball that causes the big swing. As we've said a couple of times its the "taped up tennis ball" theory - and pretty much the basis for reverse swing. The Duke balls were known to swing from ball one (hence Jones nipping out a few early due to "normal swing", and perhaps the Aussies couldn't handle the swing by trying to play with a Kookaburra ball mentality (i.e. thrash the ball from the first over) which decimated our top order a number of innings.

In the end, a flat track approach by the Aussies, compounded by a ball that swung for the whole innings due to dubious means, some good bowling and control of the swinging ball by the Poms, along with the other factors I noted above were the reasons I think the Aussies lost in 2005.

That's not ungracious, its pure analysis, brought on by the fact one of the Poms has come out and said that they outright cheated. If you can't reanalyse a situation given some important new information then the world would get nowhere. I'd be on the back of one of our blokes if they come out and said that too, so theres no favouritism here.

Bruce

I think we give too much attention to the trolls in Tone's comments.

Any idiot can jump in and the regulars will treat his arguments as if they came from an equal level of consideration as his own.

(I've used male pronouns here as an assumption. Do any girls comment regularly?)

David Barry

Firstly, from this physics of swing, it's not a difference in weight in each half of the ball that's important, just the difference in smoothness/roughness.

You also can't control how late the swing is.

Anyway, I don't care the slightest bit about the sugared saliva. It's against the laws as they currently stand, but I have no problems with casual ball tampering like that. It disappoints me that Australians don't seem to be doing the same thing. I want to see vicious swing bowling all the time.

Adsy

The one misconception about reverse swing that is commonly heard (even today) is that it occurs due to a weight imbalance created by wetting one side of the ball. This is based on comments made by some of the early exponents of reverse swing, but it has NO scientific basis to it whatsoever. Wetting the ball may indeed help in the gouging process, but the importance of a dry, rough surface is now well understood by the current players who are often seen avoiding hand contact with the rough surface.

Another misconception is that reverse swing is more lethal because the ball swings more and late. It turns out the side-force magnitude and direction for reverse swing are comparable to those for conventional swing and for both types of swing, the ball follows a parabolic flight path so that most of the movement occurs in the latter part of the flight. Bottom line: late swing is "built-in."

Ah well, wouldn't ya know. You learn something new every day.

Mark Williams to Adsy: "You were wrong!"

Adsy

That's a great article by the way DB. Very enlightening.

I'd like to see that kind of swing all the time too, although I doubt we'd see too many full length tests anymore.

Tony T

No matter weight or smoothness, it's still a case of one side being made different from the other (smooth vs. rough), thus enabling the ball to swing when it wouldn't normally swing.

Allow ball tampering AND trick up the pitches. That would make for some fun Test matches and one-dayers.

Tony T

Bowlologist:

Sticky fingers

ENGLAND's 2005 Ashes victory will forever be tarnished (with mint), according to former swing bowler Damien Fleming.

"It does tarnish it (the series win) to a certain extent, I would have thought," Fleming said. "For me, it doesn't totally tarnish it because what I did like about the England bowlers in that series was their wrist release, and for the first 10 overs (Simon) Jones and (Andrew) Flintoff got the new ball to swing beautifully, but from the 20 to 45-over mark, that is where the mints are helping. And they bowled better reverse swing than us.

"They definitely got an illegal advantage over us in those overs. At least now we know why England lost the (next) Ashes: they lost their minty guy!"

The Don has risen

Sorry people but late swing is not determined by how shiny the ball is but merely one part of the ball is shiny.

There is no evidence that mints make a better shine on the ball via saliva than chewing gum does.
Some people think it does however if this is the case then why hasn't this been the case since 2005!

some of us can actually keep the shine on one side of the ball all day merely using sweat although suntan cream was around.

in 2005 we had people using suntan cream in every game. wow given the pommy conditions it was ONLY used for ensuring no sunburn.

Err Dave what was Lee doing this season with reverse swing but vicious swing but of course everyone will have to say the Aussies were cheating by using various creams to assist them in shining the ball.

Poor sports always have the absurd argument shoved back in their faces.

SaggyGreen

Whilst the whole ball tampering affair does leave a bad taste in the mouth (sorry...), the thing that still gets my goat about that series
is the dodgy use of substitutes to rest bowlers. Looking back, I reckon well-rested leather flingers (that's for you, Spanky) had as much to do with it as the mints. But gee, it was good cricket, and if Straya have to lose to provide such a contest, then so be it.

Tony T

(I've used male pronouns here as an assumption. Do any girls comment regularly?)

It's been said to me more than once by persons of the contradictory gender that there is a protest running against our frequent use of the c-word: cricket.

Tony T

But gee, it was good cricket, and if Straya have to lose to provide such a contest, then so be it.

The cricket was too good. It constantly deprived me of sleep courtesy of late nights struggling to drag myself to bed followed by early mornings jumping out of bed in the hope of a restorative performance, only to find we were in trouble again.

Dunno about you, Sags, but when we aren't doing so well, a full five day Test drags out to five days of torture; six, if you lose and include the day after when you have to put up with the beaming faces of opposition winners.

Nabakov

This whole mint thing does leave a nasty taste in the mouth.

(can't believe none of youse jokers have thought of that sweet one liner yet)

Speaking of pro sports tampering, I've heard from one who there that during the late 70s/early 80s when cocaine use was rife in pro tennis (Hello Vitas, Nastase and someone who's last name starts with Mac!) the favoured method of on-court delivery of a drug that'd give you a sudden physical and confidence boost before the start of the deciding set was to carefully remove from your court bag and don new wrist sweatbands to wipe your nose. A lot.

Notice how wearing wrist sweat bands on the pro tennis circuit completely dropped off when the ATP and ITF started introducing drug tests.

The downside is of course that post match courtside interviews have got a lot more boring.

Nabakov

"Do any girls comment regularly?"

How do you know that everyone commenting here except for you, me and Tony ain't swaggering Australian sportswomen playing around with net de plumes?

And frankly, I have my doubts about Tony. There's been some sus literary references and dodgy photos without people in 'em posted here.

Yobbo

Us losing the test had little to do with breath mints and more to do with the fact that we played like shit while the poms played out of their skin.

We were still the best team in the world while losing that series, just happened to have 2 bad games at the wrong time.

Also, edgbaston.

Antonia

This whole mint thing does leave a nasty taste in the mouth.

(can't believe none of youse jokers have thought of that sweet one liner yet)

(Ahem...)

Whilst the whole ball tampering affair does leave a bad taste in the mouth (sorry...), the thing that still gets my goat about that series.

carneagles

Out of, um, interest, is it possible to influence the performance of a bicycle by using breath mints?

miss b

there is a protest running against our frequent use of the c-word: cricket.
- not just the c-word, but the f-word too: football.
(well the f-word is tolerable as long as the s-word is involved)

Tony T

I prefer the m-word: memons.

Tony T

Reckon Patrick Smith is about right: Straya didn't lose because of the lollies. Although he puts the loss almost entirely on Straya's bowling:

Admission just sugar-coating

SWEET tooth Marcus Trescothick has appeared to send the cricket world into a frenzy. An embarrassing one at that.

Adsy

What about our bats?

Hayden was in his usual flat track bully mode, but didn't know how to pull up against the swinging ball. Put in a shortish mid off and watch him try to drive it past him without any success whatsoever.

Ponting was found out early by the swinging ball. Schnick. Out. Save his captain's knock to save the third test.

Martyn was our worst bat average wise (19.77) behind even Warney and Brett Lee. Seeing Giles spin one past him showed how out of touch he was.

Clarke had the cosy no.5 position for most of the series, made a lot of 30-40 scores but was a bit of a front runner back then, has improved a fair bit since.

I've never rated the Kalamity Kat, but 2 50's out of nine hits down the order wasn't really good enough. Still a crap catcher.

Gilly was found out with the bat, but our lower order saved us on a number of occasions. Warne and Lee were quite good.

Its probably been a long time since our best bat on a tour to England (Langer) averaged less than 50. Take out Warne and McGrath and your left with our bowlers averaging more than 90% of our bats. You don't win a test series against anyone doing that.

Carrot

Wow. This is almost as much fun as Monkeygate! I love this blog, I really do...

Just moved to The Hague! Was quite impressed to find that it's apparently the Dutch cricket capital, and is second in popularity only to football (the European kind). Bring on next summer!

carneagles

Cricket and war crimes tribunals. Hand and glove, really.

Tony T

Stop press!

"Following extensive testing conducted at the UWA, the ICC (recently relocated from Dubai) have ruled that Radovan Karadžić is free to invade Bosnia; as long as the temperature doesn't exceed 15 degrees."

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)