Michael Holding on the modern ways of cricket
Saj Sadiq in conversation with Michael Holding, the West Indies pace bowling legend and highly respected commentator, on some important issues that have arisen during the last summer of cricket in England
Good to see a controversy-free and largely competitive series between England and Pakistan? Michael Holding: Yes, it was a good and very competitive series in which we saw some good cricket from both teams. Sometimes some of the fielding left a lot to be desired with a lot of catches dropped, but in general it was good cricket and entertaining cricket.
The talent is always there in Pakistan, I guess the key is to enhance that talent and to ensure it is groomed properly? For sure. Not too many people will doubt the talent in this team. Various players at different times stepped up and took on the challenge on behalf of the team. Sarfraz Ahmed in particular is a brave cricketer and I have a lot of respect for him and not just for his wicket-keeping, but his batting also.
I recently saw they were picking a Test World XI and Sarfraz’s name came up as the wicketkeeper/batsman but sadly, without having seen too much of him in the current series and not knowing what he is capable of, they wouldn’t have thought too much about him and they would instead have been thinking of someone like AB de Villiers, which would be a little unfair.
The images of you visibly upset in 2010 are still etched in many minds, but how did it feel to be back seeing Mohammad Amir bowling in Tests again? I was glad to see Amir back and it was good to see him coming back into Test cricket. He’s a very talented cricketer and after a while the public in England warmed to him. When he walked onto the field for the first time people were a little bit hesitant as to whether they should applaud or not. I heard a few people booing, but as time went on they warmed to him and they recognised his talent and I think people have forgiven him for what he did.
People recognise that he didn’t do it off his own bat, he was forced and coerced into doing what he did and he regrets it terribly. It’s time to move on.
How does the 2016 version of Mohammad Amir compare to that excellent bowler we saw in England in 2010? Well, if they had taken the catches off his bowling we would have seen a better Mohammad Amir because it’s difficult as a bowler to be running in and doing your job and seeing the fielders letting you down consistently throughout.
But he kept his head up and kept on running in and trying his best. I know that Wasim Akram said something on television about the way he was holding the seam, but I noticed the next time he bowled he was able to do exactly what Wasim Akram had been suggesting, so that tells me that he learns quickly and can adjust his game quickly.
Were you surprised at the lack of reverse-swing from the Pakistan bowlers throughout the tour? No not at all. People keep talking about reverse-swing as if it’s very easy to do and anyone can just do it. It’s not as simple as people make it out to be.
It’s similar to conventional swing, not everyone can do it and you have to have the skills to do it. It’s not just about getting a ball that’s rough on one side and letting the ball go and it does what you want it to do. If it was that simple, everyone would be masters of the art of reverse-swing.
Give the same ball to other guys that Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis were bowling so beautifully with, they wouldn’t be able to do what those guys did. It’s a craft, it’s not simple and if people can’t do it then I’m not surprised.
In recent weeks we’ve seen the highest innings total records broken in ODIs and T20Is. Is the modern game becoming too batsman-friendly? A lot of people in the cricketing world have come to this consensus and think that it’s unbalanced. It’s supposed to be a battle between bat and ball and there are too many factors at the moment that are pushing things towards a disproportionate advantage for batsmen.
At some stage the authorities will have to look at it and make some adjustments. It’s fine that we want to be entertained by batsmen and cricket has always been a batsman’s game, but at the same time when you have a team batting first and scoring over 440 the game is pretty much dead because you know very well that the other team is not going to get that.
Only once in a blue moon will you see 800 runs in an ODI. People want to be entertained, but at the same time don’t want to have a one-sided contest and see a game where it is over at the half way stage. People need to take a look at this and ensure that there is a more even contest between bat and ball and batsmen and bowlers are competing on an equal footing.
Ramp shots, sweeps to the fast bowlers and other innovations by the batsmen. I can’t imagine too many batsmen trying those shots against you in your prime? Well the game has changed. I’m not going to say that some of the shots they are playing now they wouldn’t have played in the Eighties because back then it did not occur to people to play those sorts of shots.You adjust to what you come up against.
If you say that batsmen in the Thirties would not have been able to score as many runs as the batsmen of today, well that is just not true. If they played under today’s circumstances under the same rules and regulations and the way the game is played today, they would have been able to do that just as well.
So when you see people breaking records now it’s not because they are better, it’s just that the game has changed and people have moved on. Today if a bowler bowls his ten overs for 50 runs he will feel he has done a pretty good job, but years ago bowlers bowling their ten overs for 50 would be thinking: “Oh no, I have done badly.” The game has changed and we have to accept that.
What are your thoughts on the innovation of no-balls being called by the third umpire rather than by on-field umpires? The on-field umpires should be encouraged to keep looking for those no-balls. It’s fine to have a third umpire who can correct something that is wrong on the field but to leave all the no-ball calls to the third umpire is the wrong way to go.
We saw in one of the matches an incident which was totally out of order where the batsman was bowled but then the third umpire called a no-ball and the ball had ricocheted to the boundary and the batting team got four runs which was ridiculous. The ball should be called dead once it has hit the stumps.
However, if a batsman gets bowled and leaves his ground on the assumption that he is out and the umpire signals a noball but he didn’t hear or see the umpire’s signal and starts heading to the pavilion and then the fielding team run him out, he would be declared not out because the ball is dead. Now if the batsman cannot be out, then why should he get four runs in a similar situation. This is something the ICC did not think about and have to do a re-think if the third umpire is going to be calling no-balls.
What are your thoughts on the issue of bowlers running on to the danger area and subsequently being warned or in some case removed from the attack? The bowlers simply have to learn to get off the pitch, but I think sometimes the umpires can get a bit carried away as well and they think to themselves once that bowler steps into the no-go area we have to warn him.
I think the umpires get into the official warnings too quickly because if you step into that danger area once or twice in a three or four-over spell then that is not going to damage the pitch.
However if the bowler consistently does it then you should get to the warning stage. I think the umpires are aware of the TV coverage and the TV commentators and it gets into the back of their heads that, if they allow it, it may look as if they are not doing their job.
The umpires are getting a bit too officious and they need to relax a little bit and let the game flow.
People want to be entertained, but at the same time don’t want to have a one-sided contest and see a game where it is over at the halfway stage