Events in other sports over the past week have highlighted a phenomenon in cricket that is surprisingly accepted, seemingly without complaint.

It is to do with the ball.

Soccer teams in the World Cup have been complaining about changes to the ball which has been used in the Cup, with problems in flight and accuracy resulting from the lighter nature of the ball.

Similarly, a change of ball for the New Zealand v Ireland rugby series, has resulted in a torrent of complaints, from both teams, over the changed qualities of the new ball being used.

Irish rugby coach Eddie O'Sullivan made a pertinent comment when saying if it was good enough for soccer and basketball to have a standardised ball for use around the world, then why couldn't rugby? Other sports also play to similar requirements.

Why should cricket be any different?

It was only the last World Cup in 1999 when controversy broke out over the nature of the ball to be used for the event.

You could beg the question: If equipment used, read the ball in this instance, is not the same the world over, why should records be taken seriously?

If one make of ball swings more prodigiously than another, does that make one batsman's effort against one ball, much more significant than for the batsmen who didn't have to deal with swing? And is one bowler more advantaged because his feats have been achieved by a ball that swung more than one used by his rivals.

Similarly, for batsmen who were required to face spin from the ninth or 10th over of the innings as opposed to a batsman who scored runs against an all-pace attack.

Admittedly conditions do vary from country to country, and for many reasons this is why different balls have been developed in different countries.

But part of the challenge of succeeding in cricket is about being able to play in all conditions, whether batting, bowling or fielding.

The sight of Sachin Tendulkar batting in full flight in Australia, England, India or the West Indies is one of the marvels of the game, just as watching Richard Hadlee achieve his feats on all kinds of surfaces was another. Both they, and all the other stars of the game, have managed their feats using different balls in different conditions.

So does it really matter whether a uniform ball is used around the world?

There is no doubt it would result in quite a different mindset from players and administrators.

Having the preferred choice of balls for home conditions has long been regarded as an advantage for playing at home. But why should it be?

That advantage could be said to be immediately countered by the wildly risky notion of tossing a coin to allow one side to bat or bowl, depending on their preference.

There would be immediate consequences for the ball-making industry, although some of the ball makers could well become local makers for the successful tenderer for the ball contract, working to that company's specifications.

It could also be that the preferred maker of balls for Test matches, is not the preferred maker for the one-day variety of ball with its different colour and less lasting characteristics.

Given the requirement to use the same type of ball around the world, there would be less chance of one team manipulating the make of balls available between one Test and the next. And this has happened in the past.

The International Cricket Council has been working hard in recent years to regulate in some previously shady areas of the game, is it time for them to consider the use of a standardised ball?

With the requirement that lights now be used where they are available when conditions are regarded as too dark to continue, is it time to entertain thoughts of a revolutionary new-coloured ball so that more Test cricket can be played in day-night situations?

The ball is central to the game, yet it can have remarkably different qualities around the world. Does it have to be that way, or is one of those features that make cricket different?

© CricInfo