-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Intimidatory bowling and nonsense like that
- Thread starter DocHead
- Start date
I think that for agressive fast bowlers, seeing a batsmen get hit off their bowling is an enjotable moment as long as they are not hurt. It means they have got one over on them.
Often, bouncers are used to intimidate and to "set-up" a batsman, say 8 bouncers in a row are bowled, the tailenders or lesser batsmen or already expecting another bouncer and are on the back foot and a yorker comes, then most will not be able to play it. However there are exceptions, I mean those batsman who have a good head for cricket logic, 8 bouncers means that soon a fuller ball has to come and they'll be ready for it.
Often, bouncers are used to intimidate and to "set-up" a batsman, say 8 bouncers in a row are bowled, the tailenders or lesser batsmen or already expecting another bouncer and are on the back foot and a yorker comes, then most will not be able to play it. However there are exceptions, I mean those batsman who have a good head for cricket logic, 8 bouncers means that soon a fuller ball has to come and they'll be ready for it.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
If you bowl 8 consecutive Bouncers at a tail-ender the chances of them not getting hurt are smaller than the chances of them getting hurt.willb88 said:
You don't need to bowl a single Bouncer at a tail-ender anyway; a low Full-Toss or Yorker will do the trick 7 or 8 times out of 10 anyway.
I dont think you'll find that in any psycology text. You've just made up a lame comeback that makes little sense. You've addmitted yourself that you're on here many hours a day so im not creating any fantasy at all. No back to mummy's garage you pimple faced little hermit.Richard said:
thierry henry
International Coach
Would you like it if I punched you in the face? Or kicked you in the balls? Just wondering.James90 said:
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
No, you won't - and given that I didn't claim you would, that's of irrelevance.Camel56 said:
No, it makes perfect sense, you just don't like it because it makes you look rather stupid.
Not about that, no - you're creating fantasies about there being something wrong with that any many other things.
Do you really think using all these close-to archaic little put-down lines makes you look like a clever boy?
Black Thunder
School Boy/Girl Captain
as a quick bowler i can't stand that law.
If a batsmen can't take the short ball than screw him. He deserves to cop 6 an over. If he gets hurt, he should go back to the nets and learn to play them.
I could live with the rule of a ball going above the top of the head is given as a no-ball, but with no limit as to how many can go above the shoulders.
As for a batsmen not being able to defend himself, well if someone is going to give him a heap of short balls than they'd better expect twice as many in return.
As for beamers, yeah i agree with 2 and your out of the attack. There only two times you'll ever see me apologise to a batsmen - if a bowl a beamer, or if i'm running into bowl and lose my footing and want to start over again.
If a batsmen can't take the short ball than screw him. He deserves to cop 6 an over. If he gets hurt, he should go back to the nets and learn to play them.
I could live with the rule of a ball going above the top of the head is given as a no-ball, but with no limit as to how many can go above the shoulders.
As for a batsmen not being able to defend himself, well if someone is going to give him a heap of short balls than they'd better expect twice as many in return.
As for beamers, yeah i agree with 2 and your out of the attack. There only two times you'll ever see me apologise to a batsmen - if a bowl a beamer, or if i'm running into bowl and lose my footing and want to start over again.
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Well, it kind of depends I guess. If he's got defence like Jason gillespie then no. I think the short one to a tail-ender is a good ball if they've decided they want to hang around for a while/ haven't managed to get themselves out. It's only intimidatory bowling if done repeatedly isn't it? One short ball to a tail-ender would never be called as such.Richard said:
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It depends on how bad they are. Some actually have the ability to hang around. I'd suggest that if they're that bad they can't hit a full, straight one then there's probably no need to bounce half of the team.Richard said:
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
Can you please change your signature Camel.
There's nothing wrong with banter, but direct abuse won't be tolerated.
There's nothing wrong with banter, but direct abuse won't be tolerated.
thierry henry
International Coach
Oh yeah, definitely. And if a footballer can't handle having his legs broken in a 2-footed tackle off the ball, he deserves that as well. If a boxer can't handle having his testicles crushed by a low blow, then you really should dish out a few of those. And all rugby and rugby league players should be sorted out with repeated head-high tackles if you think they aren't up to it.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
There's a difference; those are all illegal in those sports. Bouncers are not. I don't think bouncers are the equivalent of a 'low-blow' in boxing.
Tail-enders in current cricket aren't the same as they used to be. Most of them have now taken responsibility for the fact that even a number 11 has to be able to hold a bat and they should be treated accordingly. I'm not advicating all-out war against tail-enders because they aren't as skilfull as batsmen in handling the short ones but molly-coddling protection isn't fair on quickies either because most are professional enough to work on their batting to the point where they can contribute useful runs. For example, I don't think a tail-ender like Jason Gillespie (with two Test 50's) should be immune from short ones.
That said, I never wasted my time with bowling bouncers to tail-enders; 1) I'm not quick enough any more to intimidate even the most awful of bunnies (Andre can vouch for this!) and 2) when I was quick enough, I used to just prefer to get them out. A yorker on the toe was usually enough.
Why bowl bouncers at the head if you are a good bowler you would be aiming to get his wicket not to hit him.
If a tailender is not such a good batsman then put in a few yorkers and try to take his wicket.
If bowlers were allowed to bowl bouncer after bouncer then every team would select a bowler whos only job would be to bowl at the batsmens heads in the hope they may injure a few. If you need to bowl bouncers then its the bowler that needs to go back to the nets and learn how to bowl good line and length to take a wicket from good bowling.
And I agree it would be ugly cricket watching over after over of bowlers bowling bouncers and the batsmen just ducking and the game petering out to a lame draw.
Would you also argue that the fieldsmen should deliberately try to hit the batsman everytime they return the ball to the keeper, a gully fieldsman could just throw the ball at the batsman hoping to hit him and get him to retire, would keep the batsman on his toes and watching the ball instead of looking to get runs, same scenario.
If a tailender is not such a good batsman then put in a few yorkers and try to take his wicket.
If bowlers were allowed to bowl bouncer after bouncer then every team would select a bowler whos only job would be to bowl at the batsmens heads in the hope they may injure a few. If you need to bowl bouncers then its the bowler that needs to go back to the nets and learn how to bowl good line and length to take a wicket from good bowling.
And I agree it would be ugly cricket watching over after over of bowlers bowling bouncers and the batsmen just ducking and the game petering out to a lame draw.
Would you also argue that the fieldsmen should deliberately try to hit the batsman everytime they return the ball to the keeper, a gully fieldsman could just throw the ball at the batsman hoping to hit him and get him to retire, would keep the batsman on his toes and watching the ball instead of looking to get runs, same scenario.
Black Thunder
School Boy/Girl Captain
a bouncer isn't an illegal delivery though like other things you've mentioned. Why should one delivery be legal to one batsmen, and not legal to another batsmen. I really can't think of any other sports where determining whether you can or can't do something is based on who your opponent is.thierry henry said:Oh yeah, definitely. And if a footballer can't handle having his legs broken in a 2-footed tackle off the ball, he deserves that as well. If a boxer can't handle having his testicles crushed by a low blow, then you really should dish out a few of those. And all rugby and rugby league players should be sorted out with repeated head-high tackles if you think they aren't up to it.
And i know one delivery to a tailender is not considered illegal, but if i bowled three in a row the ump will generally give me a warning. If I do it to an opening batsmen then he won't.
Sometimes the shorter ball is a great attacking weapon.
When i'm batting (permenant # 11) i don't go off sooking to the umps if i cop a couple of short ones in a row. I just dish em back when the bowler comes out to bat.
BTW, I'm not saying i go out and bowl short all the time. If you generally do that you'll get smashed around. But there are batsmen who struggle with the shorter ball and as such you should exploit that, the same why you'd exploit a batsmen who has a weakness to outswinger pitched up to him.