Quote:
Originally Posted by rivera213
How do you know?
Were you watching in 1956?
|
Yes, I was fielding at 1st slip.
Your fundamentalist stance about needing to see a game in order to have a view on it gets no more persuasive with constant repetition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivera213
How do you know?
I very much doubt Lock was trying to take wickets at the other end and failed. To only take 1 in 2 innings points to both Laker being on fire and Lock not giving anything away the other end.
Laker was better of course, but not THAT much better than on a turning wicket he only took 1 wicket in 2 innings, especially after 50+ overs. I don't buy it.
|
How do you know? Were you watching in 1956? (
Well this is the view of one of the players who was there, Alan Oakman. Now, before you challenge that, I must admit that I don't know if Alan Oakman genuinely wrote this because I didn't witness him writing it with my own eyes, but I'm prepared to take it on faith:
"Tony Lock got so cross that he wasn't getting any wickets that he was bowling faster and faster.
"So in actual fact he bowled as a seam bowler who never turned the ball. If he had slowed down he had to get wickets but his reaction was to simply skid the ball through.
"The harder Locky tried the less he looked like getting a wicket - he didn't even have a catch dropped or a stumping missed.
"When Jim was coming up to 14/15 wickets we realised something special might be happening but at the same time we kept thinking Locky must surely get a wicket somewhere along the line.
"The more wickets Jim took the more annoyed Tony got because the pitch was the same at both ends.
"We went off the field afterwards and Jim went out onto the balcony to hold up a glass of Lucozade - he was sponsored by them - to the crowd and photographers.
"By the time he came back into the dressing room Locky had gone, he was so upset and deflated."