ONE person who played his cricket before the commercial era, but tracks practically every ball bowled in international cricket is former Pakistani batting great Hanif Mohammad. And unlike most of his peers, like he tells The Sunday Express, Hanif is a major champion of changes to cricketing laws and the entry of technology into the game. How come? ‘‘The game has to evolve. We can’t allow spectators to go away,’’ he says. A man after Jagmohan Dalmiya’s heart! ‘‘In my days, only the crease area of pitches were covered. The rest was left open. That allowed one team to gain an unfair advantage. A bowler could bowl six bouncers in an over and batsmen didn’t have any protective gear. So many batsmen have died. No balls were off the return crease and not the popping crease as it is now, making it fairer. Bowling sides would take a new ball depending on where we were playing and what the condition of the ball was. There were no neutral umpires. The leg before rules were different. And fielding sides could force a draw by bowling 50-60 overs in a day and slowing down the game,’’ Hanif says, summing up the negatives he and his ilk had to live with. And he adds, ‘‘All that has changed now, making the game better and more competitive.’’ We leave ODI cricket out of the discussion, simply because it is just 30 years old and is yet to reach a stage where changes will be questioned. Test cricket, from the times of WG Grace, have gone through various eras and not one era — in terms of laws and rules — has been the same as the preceding one. Meaning the game has changed constantly. Hanif continues, ‘‘I can understand why a lot of people say the game has become more batsman-friendly. But I think it’s only fair. When we played, or people before us played, it was loaded in favour of the fielding side. Now it’s changed. But see how most Test matches have results these days. Isn’t that our main objective?’’ The entry of technology is also something Hanif welcomes, but says the game needs more of the same. ‘‘I don’t agree with the ICC when they say the role of the field umpires will be reduced. Don’t we all want correct decisions? We do. Then why can’t the third umpire — a brilliant innovation — veto the field umpires’ decisions? It’s best for everyone. Isn’t that the greatest need?’’ Hanif agrees with the comment that change for change’s sake is not good for the game, but if evolution is the motive, it has to be good. With over 70 per cent Test matches in the past five years ending in results, and spectators coming back — to the grounds and to television — to Test cricket, who can complain?
