Wouldn't it be nice if England was legitimate?

By Adrian Meredith

VICTORIA, Australia (TheSportsNext) July 21, 2012: I am sure that the cricket-loving public in England (at least, those who don't prefer soccer or some other sport, or no sport at all) love the fact that England is currently the top ranked team in test and T20 cricket, and very nearly the top team in ODI cricket as well (they would have been had that ODI against Australia not been washed out).

The question I have to ask is: Is it deserved?

Sure, so Australia didn't send their best possible squad to England. Michael Hussey was spending time with family and, for some inexplicable reason, Cricket Australia chose to use that ODI tour to trial some possible test candidates, such as Peter Forrest, Steve Smith and George Bailey. None of them legitimately deserved a spot in the ODI tour, and only George Bailey legitimately deserved a spot on the T20 tour, but nonetheless they were all there. To make matters worse, Australia were trialling both Pat Cummins and Mitchell Johnson back from injury, and hence were featuring far from their best lineup.

But this wasn't why England were able to clean sweep the series. Sure, it made it all that much easier, but the main reason came from that little ball that they use in England, that they don't use anywhere else, the Duke ball.

Sure, so this time, rather than last time, Australia sent a whole bunch of swing bowlers. But none of them were suitably experienced with the Duke ball. None of them knew how to swing it like the English bowlers, who use it in county cricket, are. Had Pat Cummins not been injured, had Shane Watson not been injured, had Mitchell Johnson not been out of form, had Brett Lee been in form, Australia might have had a chance. But in the end none of them know the Duke ball quite like how the English do.

See the Duke ball, at least in the post-2007 version, is an entirely different ball to that used anywhere else in the world. The Duke company, who had been producing balls for England since the 1980s, managed to give it a bit of extra weight and a bit of extra swing, to encourage Steve Harmison, Andrew Flintoff and James Anderson, to let it reverse swing a lot quicker than *ANY OTHER BALL*.

To put this in perspective, in the 2007 Ashes series, the first series featuring the new Duke ball, English bowlers Steve Harmison, Andrew Flintoff and James Anderson were able to extra reverse swing from as early as the 20th over of the innings.

In comparison, the Australian counterparts, then still featuring most of the world beaters, could not manage to figure out how to get any kind of reverse swing before the 60th over of the innings.

One team gets reverse swing in the 20th over - the other in the 60th: is that fair?

This has been the case for *ALL TEAMS* going to England, from India to South Africa to everywhere in between: no team is able to get the ball to reverse swing as quickly as England can. Why? Because England are used to the ball and hence are able to get it to do what it is capable of doing a lot quicker than other teams.

When Pakistan came, they were able to get it to reverse swing from the 30th over, close enough to when England could. Had Pakistan been used to the Duke ball, they might have even had it reverse swinging quicker than the English team. They even managed to win a test - in England - before of course the horrible spot fixing controversy took hold.

So it isn't that English bowlers are better at utilising the Duke ball. In fact, Pakistan are. It just so happens that England are used to it.

Technically, the Duke ball is legal. For now. But, like the aluminium bat and the idea of West Indies (and only West Indies) changing the ball after 70 overs, I think that this discrepancy in the law, once properly exposed, will be undone.

England have legitimately been number 1 in the world in times past.

This is not one of those times.

England at home are the best country in the entire world - thanks to the Duke ball.

England away from home are mediocre, at best 4th or 5th in the world - like they were before the Duke ball was changed.

So, while we continue to say how fantastic England are, how much of that is due to the ball that they use and how much of it is due to their talent?

Take away the Duke ball, and England are still, as they were in 2006, 4th or 5th in the world. They are competitive but they are a long way from the best in the world.

The Duke ball suddenly turns a mediocre team into world beaters.

It'd be nice if England could win legitimately, instead of on the coat-tails of the cheating Duke ball.