The change of ball in Australia's second innings raised eyebrows as the new ball appeared newer and swung more than its predecessor, which was replaced after striking the helmet of Usman Khawaja in the 37th over
The owner of Dukes has vowed to investigate the replacement ball controversy that occurred during the fifth Ashes Test at The Oval.
The change of ball in Australia's second innings raised eyebrows as the new ball appeared newer and swung more than its predecessor, which was replaced after striking the helmet of Usman Khawaja in 37th over.
Following the change, England claimed 10 wickets on the last day to win by 49 runs and ensure Australia did not achieve a first Ashes series win in England since 2001.
Khawaja said in the post-match presentation that he alerted the umpire to the issue with the ball as he claimed it had hit his bat harder than any ball in the series.
There have been claims that the replacement ball in question was four or five years old [Getty Images]
Meanwhile, former Australia captain Ricky Ponting led the calls for the ball change to be looked into after describing it as "a huge blunder that needs to be investigated".
Dilip Jajodia, the owner of British Cricket Limited which produces the Dukes ball, has confirmed he will do just that.
He told CODE Sports: "I'm going to investigate myself, because it affects me, my name is at stake so it's important they don't mis allege something wrong with the ball."
While there have been claims there was not a broad enough selection of balls made available for the change, Jajodia was quick to point out that was beyond his company's control.
"On this particular occasion, the balls would be done by Surrey," he said. "Surrey get the supply of balls from us before the season starts and then they start knocking them in, getting them into wear and tear, in my view, they're probably not doing it that accurately."
Usman Khawaja raised concerns about the ball with the umpires [Getty Images]
There has been a lot of speculation regarding what ball was picked as the replacement, with CODE Sports reporting that members of the English team believed it may have been a Dukes ball from the 2018 or 2019 batch.
Those were batches that swung a lot more for bowlers. However, Jajodia does not believe that this was the case.
He said: "I can't imagine they would risk putting a ball in there with a different date on it. Frankly the match referee should be on top of it.
"We do bang that number in quite hard, so even if the gold comes off, the ball is imprinted. It wouldn't be easy to get rid of it. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's not likely."
Posted by Marc Evans on 08/08/2023 at 18:10
Don't know what all the fuss about the ball is. The whole thing was clearly a bad umpire error, nothing to do with it being a duke ball.
Posted by Peter Andrews on 08/08/2023 at 11:57
The newness of the replacement ball seems to have been irrelevant. Broad still made it swing when it was (allegedly) 80 overs old.
Posted by Eugene Keher on 07/08/2023 at 10:20
The umpires have made a lottery of the entire series absolutely farcical decision..
Posted by Graham Wilkinson on 07/08/2023 at 07:45
As a former first class umpire on the domestic scene in NZ, I know that after a ball is used, say after an innings is completed, the number of overs it has had is recorded, put back into its box and the overs used is wrote on the box. This would happen with each ball up until the eighth over. That way if a ball has to be replaced during a match, then the box of balls coming out with the forth umpire can match the original ball with a replacement. If would cant find a replacement with the same wear and tear, then you pick a ball which is nearest. In the case during the test match, they should have found a ball similar to thirty eight overs old. There should have been no controversy.
Posted by Dave on 07/08/2023 at 01:00
Cheaters
Posted by AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE on 07/08/2023 at 00:44
There was absolutely nothing wrong with the ball, the issue clearly was the replacement ball was significantly newer than the ball it was replacing due to damage occuring after hitting a helmet. Don't look at the ball in isolation, compare the two balls for equal wear and attributes to determine if the exchange was fair and correct. Therein lies the million dollar question. It was like being given a new car after the first one was written off in an accident...don't need to investigate the ball in isolation.
Welcome to www.thecricketer.com - the online home of the world’s oldest cricket magazine. Breaking news, interviews, opinion and cricket goodness from every corner of our beautiful sport, from village green to national arena.