Intimidatory bowling and nonsense like that

[SJS]

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.............

I used to be against this but really its not such a bad idea as long as the wide (not playable being out of resonable reach) aspect is taken care of.

The problem could be more bouncers outside the off stump with a packed field in the point to fine thirdman area since there is no restriction on the number of fielders as is on the legside.

This could be used as negative tactics. If something innovative can be thought for this, why not. I am sure over time more batsmen will start playing the hook better since they will have to.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

Some would argue that having two arms, two legs, and a bat = having the ability to defend yourself. I would be one of those people . Obviously in a game where there are startling differences in class from one player to another then it's a no go. But I think at test level, if you've got the ability to dish them out then you better make sure you have the ability to face up to them - a good example of this is a man named Alex Tudor.

 

[SJS]

Aha !

So bowling bouncers at Ganguly is wrong !

He certainly has no clue as to how to tackle them. With this kind of thinking he neednt even bother to learn

 

[marc71178]

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

None, because fortunately for the past 3 weeks you've hardly been on here.

 

[Richard]

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.............

Ever heard that brilliant phrase about sticks and stones?

 

[Richard]

Some would argue that having two arms, two legs, and a bat = having the ability to defend yourself. I would be one of those people . Obviously in a game where there are startling differences in class from one player to another then it's a no go.

Exactly - just because you've got a bat and limbs doesn't mean you've got the ability to defend yourself - you have to have the ability to use them too (to use the attack-with-wooden-club analogy again - it's no use having a reasonable sized metal plate on your arm if you're not strong enough to lift it to the neccessary positions to fend-off the club), and some people clearly haven't.

But I think at test level, if you've got the ability to dish them out then you better make sure you have the ability to face up to them - a good example of this is a man named Alex Tudor.

Just because you're a Test-class bowler doesn't say a single thing about your batting.
As for Alex Tudor, he unquestionably has the batting ability to stand-up and be counted - were that match anywhere other than The WACA he'd have been taking Lee on - and probably hammering him around, too.
I don't actually remember him bowling an especially large amount of the short stuff that game, but I couldn't watch as much as I'd have liked of that particular match - in fact I barely saw a ball of the Australian innings, just half-listened to most of it.

 

[Richard]

Aha !

So bowling bouncers at Ganguly is wrong !

He certainly has no clue as to how to tackle them. With this kind of thinking he neednt even bother to learn

Hmm...
If Ganguly really does have as many problems with the short-ball as everyone thinks why has he scored all but 15,000 international runs?
Indeed, I can't even remember a single time where he's been injured due to failing to react to a short-ball.

 

[Richard]

None, because fortunately for the past 3 weeks you've hardly been on here.

Simply to correct you on the timing analogy - I was absent for 10 or 11 days, not 3 weeks.

 

[Top_Cat]

As for Alex Tudor, he unquestionably has the batting ability to stand-up and be counted - were that match anywhere other than The WACA he'd have been taking Lee on - and probably hammering him around, too.

It wasn't exactly a great ball, y'know; Tudor took his eyes off a regulation bumper. If that's his technique for facing that sort of ball, I highly doubt he'd be 'hammering' anyone of pace.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Exactly - just because you've got a bat and limbs doesn't mean you've got the ability to defend yourself - you have to have the ability to use them too (to use the attack-with-wooden-club analogy again - it's no use having a reasonable sized metal plate on your arm if you're not strong enough to lift it to the neccessary positions to fend-off the club), and some people clearly haven't.

Just because you're a Test-class bowler doesn't say a single thing about your batting.
As for Alex Tudor, he unquestionably has the batting ability to stand-up and be counted - were that match anywhere other than The WACA he'd have been taking Lee on - and probably hammering him around, too.
I don't actually remember him bowling an especially large amount of the short stuff that game, but I couldn't watch as much as I'd have liked of that particular match - in fact I barely saw a ball of the Australian innings, just half-listened to most of it.

As far as I'm aware he dished out a few short ones to Lee when he was batting. I think at test level it's a case of learning how to bat fairly quickly if you're going to be dishing them out when bowling. No-one's exempt or deserves special treatment if teams are selected on an equal basis. You could just as easily say that bouncing a batsman from Zimbabwe or Bangladesh is unfair (or indeed USA etc for the World Cup). In my opinion, in International cricket if you're chosen to play and do so then you take what comes your way as long as it doesn't contravene the rules as they're written at the moment. I can't remember seeing too many absolute bunnies subjected to a constant barrage of bouncers anyway.

You're right, being a test-class bowler doesn't mean you're a test-class batsman, but if you are going to dish out the short stuff and think you won't get it back (no matter how you bat) you'd also be delusional.

 

[Richard]

It wasn't exactly a great ball, y'know; Tudor took his eyes off a regulation bumper. If that's his technique for facing that sort of ball, I highly doubt he'd be 'hammering' anyone of pace.

Hmm... you'll forgive me, even normally competant batsmen such as Hussain, Stewart, Vaughan and Hayden were top-edging cross-bat shots to be dismissed in that match... that pitch was quite unlike any I've ever seen, and I've seen Tudor face some pretty quick stuff on some reasonably fast pitches before now.
That pitch could turn what would mostly be ordinary deliveries into much less ordinary ones (still didn't really help Lee's figures - 5 for 150 in the match) - it was quite unnerving, at times - a Test like no other for quite a while.

 

[SJS]

Hmm...
If Ganguly really does have as many problems with the short-ball as everyone thinks why has he scored all but 15,000 international runs?
Indeed, I can't even remember a single time where he's been injured due to failing to react to a short-ball.

If you promise not to make this a five hundred post dialogue I can answer this

Ganguly does have a problem with bouncers. He doesnt get hurt because he doesnt take his eyes off the ball and he isnt scared. Whats his problem then, you say? Well he doesnt know how to play them correctly.

Because he doesnt take his eyes off the ball, he is less likely to be hurt. He has been hit on the helmet a bit as you may have noticed

Of course his problem is not as bad as I made it sound but that was the sjs sarcasm and sarcasm thrives on exaggeration .

But it is bad enough for every bowler wanting to exploit it and bad enough for him to be advised tom leave them alone and bad enough for him to get out to short pitched deliveries more often in the recent matches.

 

[marc71178]

Simply to correct you on the timing analogy - I was absent for 10 or 11 days, not 3 weeks.

And before that we had another week or so of peace, hence what I said.

 

[Richard]

Quite a long time prior to that, I might add.

 

[Richard]

As far as I'm aware he dished out a few short ones to Lee when he was batting. I think at test level it's a case of learning how to bat fairly quickly if you're going to be dishing them out when bowling. No-one's exempt or deserves special treatment if teams are selected on an equal basis. You could just as easily say that bouncing a batsman from Zimbabwe or Bangladesh is unfair (or indeed USA etc for the World Cup). In my opinion, in International cricket if you're chosen to play and do so then you take what comes your way as long as it doesn't contravene the rules as they're written at the moment. I can't remember seeing too many absolute bunnies subjected to a constant barrage of bouncers anyway.

Not too many - personally I'd argue that even 1 or 2 is unacceptible, let alone a barrage.
I'd say that the USA batsmen were perfectly well equipped to deal with 90mph pace. And I think we can tell that Zimbabwe and Bangladesh were by the fact that Lee didn't cause them any real problems (averaged over 30 against both).

You're right, being a test-class bowler doesn't mean you're a test-class batsman, but if you are going to dish out the short stuff and think you won't get it back (no matter how you bat) you'd also be delusional.

Of course you would - which is why it really doesn't make much sense to bounce players who've got the ability to bounce you back.

 

[Richard]

If you promise not to make this a five hundred post dialogue I can answer this

Ganguly does have a problem with bouncers. He doesnt get hurt because he doesnt take his eyes off the ball and he isnt scared. Whats his problem then, you say? Well he doesnt know how to play them correctly.

Because he doesnt take his eyes off the ball, he is less likely to be hurt. He has been hit on the helmet a bit as you may have noticed

Of course his problem is not as bad as I made it sound but that was the sjs sarcasm and sarcasm thrives on exaggeration .

But it is bad enough for every bowler wanting to exploit it and bad enough for him to be advised tom leave them alone and bad enough for him to get out to short pitched deliveries more often in the recent matches.

Yeah he's been dismissed a bit more recently than you'd expect.
But prior to that he really can't have had as many problems as most people make-out.
Yeah, he doesn't look great shakes against them - some people don't (Stephen Waugh never did, for instance), but it's not whether you look uncomfortable, it's whether you get out (or injured every now and then).

 

[SJS]

Yeah he's been dismissed a bit more recently than you'd expect.
But prior to that he really can't have had as many problems as most people make-out.
Yeah, he doesn't look great shakes against them - some people don't (Stephen Waugh never did, for instance), but it's not whether you look uncomfortable, it's whether you get out (or injured every now and then).

Yes. And Steven Waugh realised very early that he had a problem so he decided not to play them ..EVER. and he stuck to it till the end of his career. He just got out of the way.

But Ganguly has this misplaced sense of bravado

 

[Top_Cat]

Hmm... you'll forgive me, even normally competant batsmen such as Hussain, Stewart, Vaughan and Hayden were top-edging cross-bat shots to be dismissed in that match... that pitch was quite unlike any I've ever seen, and I've seen Tudor face some pretty quick stuff on some reasonably fast pitches before now.

It *was* a quick deck but I thought the one on England's previous tour was bouncier, etc. I mean all bar one dismissal in England's first innings in the 1998-99 WACA Test were caught behind. That was a phenomenal stat for mine.

And I really wasn't talking about the balls which got those guys (I only slightly remember Hussain's which if I remember correctly, he didn't touch?) but that ball which hit Tudor; in my opinion, he ducked into it and it was one of the few balls which didn't do the trampoline bounce thing. Maybe that's why it hit him; he was expecting it to bounce more? Wouldn't be the first time; Boonie had his arm almost broken by Curtly in the 1993 Adelaide Test by a ball which didn't get up to the expected chin height and whacked him in the arm instead.

Yes. And Steven Waugh realised very early that he had a problem so he decided not to play them ..EVER. and he stuck to it till the end of his career. He just got out of the way.

WRONG!!!! Got Steve Waugh on video playing TWO (yes, TWO) hook shots in his hundred against England in the 1998-99 series. No kidding, it actually made news.

Having a look at them, I'm sure there was another reason why he put them in the cupboard before and since that innings; they were terrible. They looked terrible and went about 40m away from the bat! That said, the English bowlers bowled them way over his head thinking he wouldn't go for them................

I notice Mark Waugh wasn't much in the hooking department either (particularly towards the end of his career). And I've seen Dean Waugh get out to the hook a few times in district cricket. Wonder if there's anything in that?

 

[SJS]

WRONG!!!! Got Steve Waugh on video playing TWO (yes, TWO) hook shots in his hundred against England in the 1998-99 series. No kidding, it actually made news.

Having a look at them, I'm sure there was another reason why he put them in the cupboard before and since that innings; they were terrible. They looked terrible and went about 40m away from the bat! That said, the English bowlers bowled them way over his head thinking he wouldn't go for them................

I notice Mark Waugh wasn't much in the hooking department either (particularly towards the end of his career). And I've seen Dean Waugh get out to the hook a few times in district cricket. Wonder if there's anything in that?

hmmm. Interesting.
Since he got within 40 meters of them in 98-99, wonder why he never tried to get closer since then

 

[Richard]

It *was* a quick deck but I thought the one on England's previous tour was bouncier, etc. I mean all bar one dismissal in England's first innings in the 1998-99 WACA Test were caught behind. That was a phenomenal stat for mine.

I don't know, I hardly have any recollection of the 1998\99 Test.
All I know was the one of 2002\03 was quicker - by far - than anything I've seen.
Tudor didn't, IIRR, have too many problems in 1998\99 and by all accounts Gillespie bowled like the wind.

And I really wasn't talking about the balls which got those guys (I only slightly remember Hussain's which if I remember correctly, he didn't touch?) but that ball which hit Tudor; in my opinion, he ducked into it and it was one of the few balls which didn't do the trampoline bounce thing. Maybe that's why it hit him; he was expecting it to bounce more? Wouldn't be the first time; Boonie had his arm almost broken by Curtly in the 1993 Adelaide Test by a ball which didn't get up to the expected chin height and whacked him in the arm instead.

Maybe, I don't remember it with total clarity.
Either way, I don't think it was a very easy ball to deal with (certainly more than a "regulation bumper" - which you appear to have acknowledged) and I don't think he could be criticised too much for what you and SOC have seemed to criticise him for.