Thread by @shrikanth_krish

While watching Test cricket one has to be cognizant of the fact that the performances we see are heavily contingent on the "Laws of the Game" at a given point in time

If the laws change, certain players can go downhill, while other players can have a career upswing

(Contd..)

Let's pick the act of bowling itself.

Overarm bowling, something that we take for granted, was not legal until 1864.

The game changed when the laws unambiguously made overarm bowling the norm in that year

Throughout the 18th century and right uptil 1835, the only form of bowling that was legal was underarm.

It was only in 1835, that round arm bowling was legalized wherein the bowling hand is allowed to be upto shoulder height.

From 1835 to 1864, round arm bowling was the norm

Finally in 1864 the laws changed again allowing bowlers to deliver from above shoulder height. Overarm bowling had arrived.

However some players like WG Grace continued to bowl round arm right till the end of their careers (as late as 1900) though overarm was the norm

So when we discuss matters like "the greatest batsman of all time" we have to be cognizant of the laws

How would Tendulkar or Bradman face round arm / underarm bowling? Would they be as good as Fuller Pilch - one of the great batsmen of early-mid 19th cen? It is anybody's guess

Let's take the much debated Leg Before Wicket (LBW) law now.

This is a law that has changed multiple times in the "modern era" itself - i.e the era post 1864. The current version of the law is only about 40 years old

Right upto 1935, the LBW law was extremely biased in favor of batsmen -

Basically a batsman could be given out ONLY if the ball pitched in line and hit in line, and the umpire felt it was destined to hit the wicket.

As the pitches improved during the 1920s, this law was exploited by many batsmen and pad-play became extremely common

While even in 19th c, batsmen like Arthur Shrewsbury excelled at pad-play, it was during the 20s that pad-play boomed with the likes of Herbert Sutcliffe

But one good thing about the state of affairs before 1935 was that it was not favoring any type of bowler.

The ball had to pitch in line and hit in line. Period

So most English county sides, as well as Test sides (both in England and Aus) had a leg-spinner or two. Given the potency of Wrist-spin, legspin was actually more favored than off-spin in those days.

The 20s and 30s were the golden age of Leg spin and Googly bowling -

Arthur Mailey, Tich Freeman, Clarrie Grimmett, Bill O'Reilly.

All were bowlers who matured in the set-up before 1935

So what changed in 1935. That year, in reaction to a great deal of complaints about negative play and excessive use of pads, it was ruled that -

A batsman can be given out EVEN if the ball hit outside off stump as long as it strikes the batsman in line with the wickets.

This did result in an increase in the number of LBWs.

But it was not a panacea. It brought with it, its own set of problems

The problem now was that the law was asymmetric.

You could be given out if the ball pitched outside off. But you could NOT be given out if the ball pitched outside Leg.

Unlike the law before 1935, the new law now favored off-spinners, but positively discouraged leg-spin

What this meant was that Leg-spinners gradually went out of fashion.

The 50s and 60s were a Golden age for Off-spin. Not so much for leg-spin - the pre-eminent form of slow bowling before the War.

It was the age of Laker, Gibbs, Appleyard, Titmus, and a host of others. Off-spin was pre-eminent. The off-cutter also became very popular among seam / medium pace bowlers.

Sure, there were a few leg-spinners. Benaud, Gupte. But they became lesser figures on the cricket scene

The other problem post 1935, was that the ball was expected to "hit in line" though it could pitch outside off-stump

This meant pad-play did not go away. Batsmen could still get outside the line of the stumps and pad away. Also it didn't matter if a stroke was offered or not

In 1970 the law was amended to address these concerns over the near extinction of leg-spin bowling and the dominance of Off-spin bowling as well as negative play.

The 1970 law said -

"the Ball can pitch outside the line and the batsman can still be given out as long as he is NOT offering a stroke"

Please note the nuance here....It is not mentioning anything about where the ball strikes the batsman at all.

So if a ball pitches outside off stump, but hits in line, you CANNOT be given out as long as a stroke is offered.

This was the 1970 law.

This naturally meant a huge decrease in LBW dismissals. Also it meant a batsman can get away even if he is plumb in front, as long as he is offering a stroke, and if the ball pitched outside

This was noted by observers and the law again changed one final time circa 1980-

If the ball pitches outside off, and hits in line, you can be given out regardless of whether or not a stroke is offered

But if it strikes you outside, you can't be given out IF a stroke is offered

This 1980 change is what remains with us to this day.

Have these changes been for the better? It's debatable

Despite the couple of changes in the 70s, the law has not greatly encouraged leg-spin to the extent the authorities thought it would.

Offspin remains the primary form of slow bowling, and leg-spin not quite as dominant as it was before 1935 - when the law was perfectly symmetric

A return to the law before 1935 is totally ruled out. In this age of over-prepared wickets and heavy bats, that would tilt the balance too much in the batsman's favor.

But should we still attempt to make the law symmetric by allowing dismissals if the ball pitches outside leg but strikes in line?

I think that change should be considered. Though it is a very controversial suggestion given the role of the "rough" outside leg in test matches

The LBW law is not the only law to have changed considerably in the course of the 20th century.

Take the "second new ball" rule in test matches..

At the start of the century, there was only 1 ball per innings.

Then in the 20s-30s, it was the norm to take the second new ball once 200 runs were scored by a team. So if 200 runs were scored in 50 overs, the bowling side could take the new ball as early as the 51st over.

Post World war 2, there were experimentations on this front.

In the 1948 Aus tour of England, the new ball was due after 55 overs. A radical experiment, which greatly boosted the potency of Australia's pace-heavy attack led by Lindwall and Miller.

Finally at some point in the post War period the law settled at "80 overs" with the new ball becoming due exactly after 80 overs.

While a lot of this discussion may seem academic, it has implications for how we assess players

What would be the great Herbert Sutcliffe's record had he played his cricket post 1935?

What would be Shane Warne's record if new balls were due at Over 55? Much inferior of course!

While it is all very well to be carried away by individuals it sometimes helps to retain a long historical perspective.

We are only as good as the "Laws" of the game allow us to be!