<p>Even two decades after his retirement, it’s quite tough not to feel the presence of Sir Richard Hadlee. Each of his words convey his passion and care for cricket, as you expect from someone of Hadlee’s stature. <br /><br /></p>.<p>The New Zealand pacer, owner of 431 wickets from 86 Tests, is in Bangalore as a guest of honour for the Platinum Jubilee celebrations of KSCA, spoke at length about various issues surrounding the game. <br /><br />Excerpts: <br /><br />On the evolving role of bowlers: I think there’s more cricket today, the wear and tear on the body is going to be greater if you are going to be playing international cricket these days because of the different formats that you play. If you play in all three formats, something is going to happen to the body at some stage. Now, if you last about 10 years as a pace bowler, particularly, I think you’ve had a good career.<br /> <br />Spinners could go 15 or more years. It’s highly unlikely that records will be broken because of the toll on the body. I can tell you that after the 18 years that I played international cricket, I bowled something like 100,000 balls and the body wasn’t designed to handle that sort of wear and tear. Now, I think bowlers have to be very conscious, if they get stress fractures of the back or knee or ankle problems, that it could affect their life thereafter. So there’s got to be a nice balance somewhere, as to how long you keep playing and how much you are prepared to suffer. <br /><br />On players getting tempted to make money illegally: You have to look at the people who have been caught. Did they need to get involved in these sorts of things? It’s a shame that it goes on and it has to be stamped out very quickly and people have to be made examples of and clearly banned, even take it a step further, even have your records in the game erased for life. I think that is the most severe penalty that can happen even more than going to jail. <br />On DRS and the use of technology: When technology first came on to the scene, I was a bit sceptical about it because of the tradition and history. Umpires always made the decisions; they get some right, some wrong and you just accept it and get on with it. And then as technology improved, I have felt then if it’s 100% conclusive, why not use it. What we are seeing, if the technology is not conclusive , mistakes are being made by umpires and by the third umpire, that it’s bringing into question again whether technology should be used or not. <br /><br />My personal view is that I don’t particularly like the captains or players questioning or reviewing the decisions. What I would like is that all the decisions should remain in the hands of the umpires -- two in the middle and the third umpire. If the umpires in the middle have made a not out decision, say when it’s in fact out, the power should go to the third umpire. He should say ‘hang on a minute, let me look at it’ while the bowler is going back to his mark, and if there is a genuine mistake is made, the third umpire can review it. To me that’s clean. <br /><br />On the changing face of the game like batsmen playing innovative shots: I think in the shorter version of the game, particularly in T20 cricket, it is all about scoring as many runs as you can in a short period of time you try things that are different. But if it comes off, it is rather exciting and that’s all part of the entertainment package. Probably, not necessarily seeing that sort of strokeplay in Test cricket because you don’t need to take all those risks. But it’s a tactical thing, a judgement thing, what the coach and the captain and the players agree to into their plan. <br /><br />On the dying breed of all-rounders: (Jacques) Kallis is one of the few that has adapted to all formats of the game and survived. Statistically, he is the greatest all-rounder ever. But, obviously, he is now more slective, as to what he is available for and not available for and having a bit of a rest to let the body recover. I think the all-rounder, it is the hardest role in the game. <br /><br />The responsibility of the all-rounder is to change the course of the match either with bat or ball or with both. And that would take its toll physically. You are not seeing too many of the current all-rounders physically surviving, like (Shane) Watson, physically he is struggling. And he is playing in all forms of the game and i think that tells the story, how tough it is for all-rounders today. Wwhether you are going to get the great all-rounders back again, I think it’s highly unlikely.</p>
<p>Even two decades after his retirement, it’s quite tough not to feel the presence of Sir Richard Hadlee. Each of his words convey his passion and care for cricket, as you expect from someone of Hadlee’s stature. <br /><br /></p>.<p>The New Zealand pacer, owner of 431 wickets from 86 Tests, is in Bangalore as a guest of honour for the Platinum Jubilee celebrations of KSCA, spoke at length about various issues surrounding the game. <br /><br />Excerpts: <br /><br />On the evolving role of bowlers: I think there’s more cricket today, the wear and tear on the body is going to be greater if you are going to be playing international cricket these days because of the different formats that you play. If you play in all three formats, something is going to happen to the body at some stage. Now, if you last about 10 years as a pace bowler, particularly, I think you’ve had a good career.<br /> <br />Spinners could go 15 or more years. It’s highly unlikely that records will be broken because of the toll on the body. I can tell you that after the 18 years that I played international cricket, I bowled something like 100,000 balls and the body wasn’t designed to handle that sort of wear and tear. Now, I think bowlers have to be very conscious, if they get stress fractures of the back or knee or ankle problems, that it could affect their life thereafter. So there’s got to be a nice balance somewhere, as to how long you keep playing and how much you are prepared to suffer. <br /><br />On players getting tempted to make money illegally: You have to look at the people who have been caught. Did they need to get involved in these sorts of things? It’s a shame that it goes on and it has to be stamped out very quickly and people have to be made examples of and clearly banned, even take it a step further, even have your records in the game erased for life. I think that is the most severe penalty that can happen even more than going to jail. <br />On DRS and the use of technology: When technology first came on to the scene, I was a bit sceptical about it because of the tradition and history. Umpires always made the decisions; they get some right, some wrong and you just accept it and get on with it. And then as technology improved, I have felt then if it’s 100% conclusive, why not use it. What we are seeing, if the technology is not conclusive , mistakes are being made by umpires and by the third umpire, that it’s bringing into question again whether technology should be used or not. <br /><br />My personal view is that I don’t particularly like the captains or players questioning or reviewing the decisions. What I would like is that all the decisions should remain in the hands of the umpires -- two in the middle and the third umpire. If the umpires in the middle have made a not out decision, say when it’s in fact out, the power should go to the third umpire. He should say ‘hang on a minute, let me look at it’ while the bowler is going back to his mark, and if there is a genuine mistake is made, the third umpire can review it. To me that’s clean. <br /><br />On the changing face of the game like batsmen playing innovative shots: I think in the shorter version of the game, particularly in T20 cricket, it is all about scoring as many runs as you can in a short period of time you try things that are different. But if it comes off, it is rather exciting and that’s all part of the entertainment package. Probably, not necessarily seeing that sort of strokeplay in Test cricket because you don’t need to take all those risks. But it’s a tactical thing, a judgement thing, what the coach and the captain and the players agree to into their plan. <br /><br />On the dying breed of all-rounders: (Jacques) Kallis is one of the few that has adapted to all formats of the game and survived. Statistically, he is the greatest all-rounder ever. But, obviously, he is now more slective, as to what he is available for and not available for and having a bit of a rest to let the body recover. I think the all-rounder, it is the hardest role in the game. <br /><br />The responsibility of the all-rounder is to change the course of the match either with bat or ball or with both. And that would take its toll physically. You are not seeing too many of the current all-rounders physically surviving, like (Shane) Watson, physically he is struggling. And he is playing in all forms of the game and i think that tells the story, how tough it is for all-rounders today. Wwhether you are going to get the great all-rounders back again, I think it’s highly unlikely.</p>
