Cricket Xtra: Facing Amir is a Test with little value

Ajit Vijaykumar 03:44 11/07/2016
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Mail
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • WhatsApp
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Back in England: Mohammed Amir.

    The first Test between England and Pakistan at Lord’s on Thursday won’t be any ordinary Test. It will be about one bowler, returning to the ‘scene of the crime’, looking to pick up the pieces of his reputation.

    Mohammad Amir knows what is coming his way. We all know what he did that summer in 2010. A teenager at the time, Amir admitted to bowling deliberate no-balls for money and after a five-year ban his journey has come full circle.

    This is not the first big tournament for Amir, as he has already played in the Asia Cup and World T20. But a full Test series against England will prove conclusively whether he has maintained that level of excellence he exhibited before his exile from the game.

    By all counts, the left-arm pacer is getting close to his best. The pace and late swing are back and England’s top order batsmen better be ready for a thorough test of their technique.

    But, as expected, some England players like Alastair Cook and Stuart Broad admit their discomfort at having to play against a convicted fixer. Former spinner Graeme Swann has gone on record to state that the very idea of Amir playing a Test at Lord’s makes him sick.

    Some away from the field feel the same way. The BBC deemed it pertinent to state that “convicted spot-fixer Mohammad Amir was in the wickets as he returned to first-class cricket.” This after he sliced through the Somerset top-order in a warmup match.

    Many came to Amir’s defence, saying that it was uncalled for. But how can anyone be stopped from labelling him that? Amir is the first person in the history of cricket to return to the international scene after being convicted for fixing. He has admitted to bringing the game into disrepute. So if members of the cricketing fraternity, and fans, have a problem with him playing the game at the highest level, bad blood is to be expected.

    I have maintained that convicted match-fixers need to be banned for life and their records expunged from the books. But the decision makers don’t agree with me. Fair enough. But I don’t have to share my workspace with the left-arm pacer.

    For those who do have the biggest say in it and if there are players who feel uneasy about the entire exercise; I believe it won’t be much of a contest on the cricket field. When an England batsman, or any other player, takes guard against Amir, there is bound to be a sense of resignation regarding the match-up. They have to face him.

    But if the batsman himself doesn’t hold the bowler in high esteem, will the runs he scores against him really matter? Will any record set against Amir from now on be ranked highly by batsmen?

    Simply put, do batsmen really want to test themselves against Amir anymore? These issues matter. Because if a cricketer is asked to play against a bowler because he has been asked to, he is likely to take it as a chore, which I feel many batsmen will do. And results that emanates from such a contest will only add to the record books without augmenting the game as a whole.

    If it’s a job that needs to be done, it will be done. Amir will try his best with the ball and batsmen will look to counter his challenge. But will it be a face-off every batsmen will be proud to be a part of? I doubt it.

    Advantage batsmen

    The game has not been fair to bowlers for many years and while a few efforts have been made to balance the contest, the bat has continued to dominate the ball.

    There are two specific areas where batsmen have been given an unfair advantage for too long. The first is them being allowed to play the switch hit – a shot after changing their grip and stance – while bowlers are required to announce which arm they will bowl with and from which side of the pitch.

    The logic given by the lawmakers – the MCC – was that the switch hit was a testament to the talent and risk-taking ability of the batsman and should be allowed.

    A similar logic was put forward by David Warner while defending the second major advantage enjoyed by batsmen – big bats which are light in weight.

    Warner believes the lightweight ‘superbats’ are a credit to the makers and it is flat wickets which harm the bowlers more.

    Incredibly, when it comes to day-night Tests and pink ball cricket, the situation reverses. Many fear that the extravagant swing that the pink ball provides under lights will result in Tests that finish inside three days.

    What amazes me is that we have just started the pink ball experiment and already there are murmurs of discontent.

    But batsmen have been allowed to plunder runs for years and it’s only now that some effort is being made by the ICC to restrict bat sizes, if not the switch hit. Who would want to be a bowler?

    Recommended