Intimidatory bowling and nonsense like that

[C_C]

The reason why bowling bouncers is so effective ( i used to bowl fast medium and i could tell from the batsmen) is this : Unless you are a REALLY good batsman who's REALLY confident in his abilities, it will shake you up and destroy your confidence.
It is a softening-up tactic and is often very useful.
Bouncers dont get you as many wickets ( there are always those happy hookers) but they pave the way for a wicket-taking delivery.
Michael Holding used to do this very effectively...a brutal bouncer followed up by a yorker or a ball bouncing chest-high off of good length....

I personally dont mind unsing bouncers and if someone wants to bounce me all day long, its his perogative.

The only thing i dont like to see are bouncers that are bowled too short and sails a few feet over the batsmen's head...that is negetive bowling and there is no way a batsman can hit that kinda delivery....

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

The difference being that everything you've mentioned above is actually illegal in the game concerned...........bowling a bouncer to a batsman isn't. I'm not in favour of bowling 6 an over, but if a tail-ender is keen enough to hang around then you're within your rights to see how he likes a bouncer

 

[Richard]

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.

Except there are some things you can't learn.
If you can't learn to fend-off with your bear hands someone attacking you with a large wooden club, screw you.

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.

Yet for many there is nothing to worry about in a few short-balls.
eg: does Flintoff worry that Nel will give him twice as many in return? No, because he can defend himself, Nel can't.

 

[Richard]

Definitely, just see how effective freddy was against pollock on the 4th test, lovely stuff.

And of course Pollock is so regularly intimidated by the short stuff, isn't he?
Nothing to do with his fragile fingers, no.

 

[Richard]

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.

Jason Gillespie quite clearly is not a clueless tailender, and does have the ability to defend himself.
If you bowl a single Bouncer at someone who clearly can't defend himself it's unacceptible - simple as. There are provisions in the Laws for Umpires to deal with such behaviour.

 

[Richard]

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.

Indeed - most Bouncers are wasted deliveries. They hardly ever get wickets.
If they've got the ability to hang-around, they've mostly got the ability to defend themselves. Hoggard, for instance, is more than capable of handling a few Bouncers.
If they've got the ability to hang-around, still, a decent inswinging low delivery (Full-Toss or Yorker) is far more likely to result in dismissal.
And if they haven't - it's certainly more likely.

 

[Richard]

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.

And if the bowler can bat a bit the chances are he'll smash you into the next field.
For plenty there's an unfair advantage.

 

[Richard]

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.

But why must people keep bringing-up these tail-enders with some batting ability?
They're not the issue, and never have been - the only problem is bowling Bouncers at those without the ability to defend yourself.
There's no gospel ruling that just because you're batting below number-seven in a Test-match you're immune from Bouncers (nor, indeed, the reverse - due to the nightwatchman situation) - it's all up to the Umpire's discretion.

 

[Richard]

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.

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.

The difference being that everything you've mentioned above is actually illegal in the game concerned...........bowling a bouncer to a batsman isn't. I'm not in favour of bowling 6 an over, but if a tail-ender is keen enough to hang around then you're within your rights to see how he likes a bouncer

All these things centre on one thing - bowling a Bouncer at a player who hasn't got the ability to defend himself is against the Laws in cricket, and quite rightly.
That's the whole point of the matter - the things t h suggested are totally unacceptible in the respective sports, and hence they're outlawed.
Bowling Bouncers at clueless batters is - quite rightly - the same. Sadly it's not quite so easy to enforce as a high tackle or a two-footed lunge.

 

[marc71178]

And of course Pollock is so regularly intimidated by the short stuff, isn't he?
Nothing to do with his fragile fingers, no.

Isn't it amazing how whenever a cricketer you don't like that much, bowls a spell of bowling using a method you don't think is good for getting people out, you immediately start making excuses up.

 

[Richard]

Because Pollock has been troubled by short, quick bowling when, exactly?
Yet a couple of weeks ago Harmison had twice smashed his fingers with deliveries that leapt from a length.
I'd say it was unusual - but, frankly, quite understandible.

 

[Swervy]

Indeed - most Bouncers are wasted deliveries. They hardly ever get wickets.If they've got the ability to hang-around, they've mostly got the ability to defend themselves. Hoggard, for instance, is more than capable of handling a few Bouncers.
If they've got the ability to hang-around, still, a decent inswinging low delivery (Full-Toss or Yorker) is far more likely to result in dismissal.
And if they haven't - it's certainly more likely.

i havent read this thread in depth so it may well have been mentioned previously, but the fact that a bouncer hardly ever takes a wicket isnt the point. The abilty of a bowler to get a batsman in the frame of mind of expect the short stuff opens up opportunities to take wickets with fuller stuff.

 

[marc71178]

Ignores my point.

 

[Richard]

i havent read this thread in depth so it may well have been mentioned previously, but the fact that a bouncer hardly ever takes a wicket isnt the point. The abilty of a bowler to get a batsman in the frame of mind of expect the short stuff opens up opportunities to take wickets with fuller stuff.

Clueless batsman - doesn't matter whether they're expecting the short ones or not - a decently-pitched ball will still splay the stumps more often than not.
Up-to-standard batsman - even if they are expecting some short stuff, they're usually more than capable of adapting.
Quite often, indeed, you see batsmen "stuck on the crease" when a load of short balls are followed by a couple of full 'uns.
Very, very rarely does it result in a wicket.

 

[Richard]

Ignores my point.

How, exactly?
If a bowler can be credited for bowling well (ie exploiting a weakness) that weakness has to have been obvious.
And it's pretty obvious to me that Pollock doesn't have a weakness with the short-ball, but does have pretty fragile fingers having been rapped in consecutive deliveries a couple of weeks previously.
So therefore bowling short at him wasn't good bowling.

 

[marc71178]

For crying out loud, if he's wary of his fingers, is that not a weakness?

Just because you think you know better than anyone else on here, doesn't mean you do, and when you continue to be so negative about everything, is it any wonder more and more people are getting sick of you?

 

[Richard]

So... which people have recently been added to the list, then?

 

[Camel56]

For crying out loud, if he's wary of his fingers, is that not a weakness?

Just because you think you know better than anyone else on here, doesn't mean you do, and when you continue to be so negative about everything, is it any wonder more and more people are getting sick of you?

Yes marc, ive got to agree. I know i probabaly give it to Richo a bit too much at times but im not the only one who cant stand the pratt.

 

[dinu23]

bowling bouncers is ok so long as the bowl doesn't go over the batsmans head, because the batsmen can't play a cricket stroke for that kind of ball.

 

[dudeurfriend]

Friends i think bouncers should be allowed ,as it is the only weapon which a bowler can show his aggressiveness.Else the bowlers will have to resort again in using more sledging at batsman.............