Q&A with Ali Bacher, captain of the 1970 South African cricket team

When is cheating acceptable and when not? Chris Barron asked Ali Bacher, captain of the South African cricket team that thrashed Australia in 1970...

08 April 2018 - 00:00 By CHRIS BARRON

How much ball tampering was there in your day?
It was common.
How far did it go? Sandpaper?
No, no. Somebody at mid-on would have a lot of Brylcreem in his hair. The ball would be thrown to him, he’d stroke his fingers through the hair and add shine so it may swinga bit more. Players also used their nails to lift the seam. It wasn’t a big deal, it was accepted.
So should ball tampering be legalised?
No, no. What happens now is the one side you make as red as possible by shining it. The other side you roughen it up using nails, screw tops, whatever. So now the ball, which at 45 overs is generally going to be easy for the batsman, all of a sudden it reverses in to you. That is the problem.
Doesn’t it make for a better contest between ball and bat?
No, no. This is stretching it now. You ’re transforming a ball that is lifeless. All of a sudden it’s got venom. It’s reversing at a much faster pace.
Is that bad for the game?
Yes. Because in essence it is illegal. It ’s different from in my day.
How?
At 45 overs the ball’s getting a bit old, you use a bit of Brylcreem, it swings a bit more, but nothing dramatic. Here, what’s happening is dramatic stuff. It becomes a different ball and it’s going in a different direction to which it should be going.
Doesn’t this make it more interesting to watch?
It’s got to be fair to the batsman. He ’s on his way to a reasonable score and now its 40 overs and suddenly it’s a whole new ball game. It’s unfair. For the majority of batsmen it’s impossible.
With the new technology of today, don’t batsmen have too much of an advantage?
No question.
So isn’t there a need to even out the contest?
Not like that. I wouldn’t have liked to face Mike Procter reversing the swing at 45 overs.
Given its effect on the series, should the Australians have been sent home?
There’s a bigger issue here. The Australian cricketers of today are arrogant. You see it in their sledging. Totally unacceptable. Now they’ve been humbled. In the next two or three years you’ll see that sledging diminish remarkably from the Australian team, and that will be good for world cricket.
Did sending their best batsmen home detract from our victory?
Well, they just capitulated, they fell apart. 
It was over as a contest, wasn’t it?
No question. Their spirit was gone.
So in the interests of a competitive series, and of viewers, should they have been sent home?
There was such a reaction in Australia, they had to come home. Psychologically, mentally, they were finished... could never have played with the same intensity.
Is there any equivalence between their ball tampering and ours in Australia?
No. There’s no evidence that the South African team, or Faf du Plessis, endeavoured to roughen up one side of the ball by artificial means. All he was doing was using outside influence to put more shine on the ball...

There’s never been a more important time to support independent media.

From World War 1 to present-day cosmopolitan South Africa and beyond, the Sunday Times has been a pillar in covering the stories that matter to you.

For just R80 you can become a premium member (digital access) and support a publication that has played an important political and social role in South Africa for over a century of Sundays. You can cancel anytime.

Already subscribed? Sign in below.



Questions or problems? Email helpdesk@timeslive.co.za or call 0860 52 52 00.