Who won these battles?

[subshakerz]

What did Ian Chappell's captaincy do that captains before him did not intensity wise?

There was still a residual Victorian influence on the game (yes with noted exceptions) and that changed in the 70s were sledging, intimidation, ruthlessness, gamesmanship became more of the set standard as Chappells team normalised. The bouncer barrage was a manifestation of that. You had crowds actively calling for Lillee to kill opponents. Thommo talked about how he liked to see blood on the pitch.

It's not that these didn't exist before but the level of aggressive cricket rose. This could also be because according to one Packer cricketer, cricket in Australia was influenced by baseball in the US that had taken more of an aggressive streak too.

 

[sayon basak]

There was still a residual Victorian influence on the game (yes with noted exceptions) and that changed in the 70s were sledging, intimidation, ruthlessness, gamesmanship became more of the set standard as Chappells team normalised. The bouncer barrage was a manifestation of that. You had crowds actively calling for Lillee to kill opponents. Thommo talked about how he liked to see blood on the pitch.

It's not that these didn't exist before but the level of aggressive cricket rose. This could also be because according to one Packer cricketer, cricket in Australia was influenced by baseball in the US that had taken more of an aggressive streak too.

I hope that's not true.

 

[subshakerz]

That's the overall narrative. And even if true, that on itself doesn't mean the competition was tougher.

I mean Chappell was one of the captains and he isn't the type to just play cricket without a will to win.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I mean Chappell was one of the captains and he isn't the type to just play cricket without a will to win.

These are all such dumbish arguments honestly, especially given the amount of money that was involved.

 

[Johan]

There was still a residual Victorian influence on the game (yes with noted exceptions) and that changed in the 70s were sledging, intimidation, ruthlessness, gamesmanship became more of the set standard as Chappells team normalised. The bouncer barrage was a manifestation of that. You had crowds actively calling for Lillee to kill opponents. Thommo talked about how he liked to see blood on the pitch.

It's not that these didn't exist before but the level of aggressive cricket rose. This could also be because according to one Packer cricketer, cricket in Australia was influenced by baseball in the US that had taken more of an aggressive streak too.

This is just Australia, bouncer barrages and attempt to hit the Batsmen were performed by Windies way before, ask Roy Gilchrist for example, a big strategy Lindwall and Miller deployed was attempt to hit Compton in the face with bouncers, they also tried (and succeeded in) targetting and taming the Ws by using bouncer barrages on them and downright hurting them when two of the Ws were already injury riddled. People were extremely ruthless always, it just more obvious with Chappell's side because they made it their whole identity before being smacked and sent a few decades back by the West Indies.

 

[capt_Luffy]

This is just Australia, bouncer barrages and attempt to hit the Batsmen were performed by Windies way before, ask Roy Gilchrist for example, a big strategy Lindwall and Miller deployed was attempt to hit Compton in the face with bouncers, they also tried (and succeeded in) targetting and taming the Ws by using bouncer barrages on them and downright hurting them when two of the Ws were already injury riddled. People were extremely ruthless always, it just more obvious with Chappell's side because they made it their whole identity before being smacked and sent a few decades back by the West Indies.

They were the bullies, and then WI came.

 

[subshakerz]

This is just Australia, bouncer barrages and attempt to hit the Batsmen were performed by Windies way before, ask Roy Gilchrist for example, a big strategy Lindwall and Miller deployed was attempt to hit Compton in the face with bouncers, they also tried (and succeeded in) targetting and taming the Ws by using bouncer barrages on them and downright hurting them when two of the Ws were already injury riddled. People were extremely ruthless always, it just more obvious with Chappell's side because they made it their whole identity before being smacked and sent a few decades back by the West Indies.

I already said you can find examples in previous eras but it wasn't a set norm the way it became in the 70s because as you said Australia as a team exemplified it and Chappell was a no-nonsense ruthless captain. This bled into the WSC were the pace battle was so intense they introduced helmets, and then Clive Lloyd took that inspiration to make the pace quartet.

Saying cricketers were always aggressive is just a gross oversimplification.

 

[subshakerz]

These are all such dumbish arguments honestly, especially given the amount of money that was involved.

You say that as a knock, but it was Chappell who fought for his players to be rightly compensated because he believed cricket was meant to be taken professionally rather than in genteel fashion it often was. It was a product of his more intense approach to the sport.

 

[Johan]

I already said you can find examples in previous eras but it wasn't a set norm the way it became in the 70s because as you said Australia as a team exemplified it and Chappell was a no-nonsense ruthless captain. This bled into the WSC were the pace battle was so intense they introduced helmets, and then Clive Lloyd took that inspiration to make the pace quartet.

I don't think England of the 70s or 80s, or New Zealand of the 70s or 80s, or India of the 70s or 80s were any more ruthless than they had ever been. A Singular Australian side being more ruthless isn't really a display of an era change in general, the Australia and England of the 50s were plenty ruthless before reaching contentment in the 1960s.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't think England of the 70s or 80s, or New Zealand of the 70s or 80s, or India of the 70s or 80s were any more ruthless than they had ever been. A Singular Australian side being more ruthless isn't really a display of an era change in general, the Australia and England of the 50s were plenty ruthless before reaching contentment in the 1960s.

Plenty of player testimony to the opposite. Again you seem wedded to a view that cricket evolution never happens.

WSC brought helmets because of that ruthlessness and Lloyd brought the quartet because of that ruthlessness. Viv said the 75/76 series against Lillee and Thommo.was like a war he never experienced and it shaped him forever.Guys like Imran and others became better bowlers after WSC too and Imran and Hadlee treat the aggressive Lillee as their icon and inspiration. It would be fair to say that the Aus 70s team and WSC gave birth to the 80s WI side that dominated cricket. Lloyd openly talks about how the WI shed away 'Calypso cricket' that was associates with the WI for being somewhat soft and unfocused with a more professional brand of play.

70s changed cricket in a big way.

 

[Johan]

Plenty of player testimony to the opposite. Again you seem wedded to a view that cricket evolution never happens.

WSC brought helmets because of that ruthlessness and Lloyd brought the quartet because of that ruthlessness. Guys like Imran and Hadlee became better bowlers after WSC too and Imran and Hadlee treat the aggressive Lillee as their icon and inspiration. 70s changed cricket in a big way.

I am very much wedded to reality, if there's evidence for something I accept it, most of 70s and 80s Cricket "Evolution" is just sensationalism, and it's not just Cricket but everything about post Colour TV decades is sensationalised. For example, You were not able to list a single event where we can say any country bar Australia was more "ruthless" in the 1970s than they were before, Why?

Helmets were naturally gonna come as pacers started having longer career spans and became more common, the Quaret and WI pace revolution was the resultant of Clive Lloyd giving up on spin bowling after first seeing the terror of great pacers in Australia, and then seeing his spinners being unable to defend 400+ at Queen's Park Oval, it was a tactical change moreso than a mental change. Hadlee did not even play in WSC as far as I'm aware, and you yourself stated Imran improved because he mastered reverse swing with his new action. Lillee was a fantastic bowler and everyone learnt from him, that does not mean either Imran or especially Hadlee were any more aggressive or intense than those who came before them, and Lillee.

 

[subshakerz]

I am very much wedded to reality, if there's evidence for something I accept it, most of 70s and 80s Cricket "Evolution" is just sensationalism, and it's not just Cricket but everything about post Colour TV decades is sensationalised. For example, You were not able to list a single event where we can say any country bar Australia was more "ruthless" in the 1970s than they were before, Why?

Helmets were naturally gonna come as pacers started having longer career spans and became more common, the Quaret and WI pace revolution was the resultant of Clive Lloyd giving up on spin bowling after first seeing the terror of great pacers in Australia, and then seeing his spinners being unable to defend 400+ at Queen's Park Oval, it was a tactical change moreso than a mental change. Hadlee did not even play in WSC as far as I'm aware, and you yourself stated Imran improved because he mastered reverse swing with his new action. Lillee was a fantastic bowler and everyone learnt from him, that does not mean either Imran or especially Hadlee were any more aggressive or intense than those who came before them, and Lillee.

Sorry but you are just wrong.

- Helmet were introduced in the WSC because of the glut of pacers in that tournament. You can't pretend it was about career length.

- Lloyd himself states that the quartet decision came from the way Aussies approached fast bowlers. Several interviews on this.

- Imran said himself that after seeing how aggressive Lillee was on a tour of England, he decided to switch from being a medium pacer to a fast bowler in the mid 70s since he hated getting hit and wanted to bouncer back

- Hadlee did play in WSC but I corrected myself since he didn't play much cricket in it

Without Aus 70s and WSC there would be no 80 WIs. Thats a fact.

 

[subshakerz]

Clive Lloyd attributes the WSC to hone their desire to win at all costs which built the foundation of the 80s ATG WIs side. He said it helped shed the Calypso cricket impression of brilliant players producing inconsistent performances as WI sides of the past. So there was a definite sea change there @Johan

 

[Johan]

Sorry but you are just wrong.

- Helmet were introduced in the WSC because of the glut of pacers in that tournament. You can't pretend it was about career length.

- Lloyd himself states that the quartet decision came from the way Aussies approached fast bowlers. Several interviews on this.

- Imran said himself that after seeing how aggressive Lillee was on a tour of England, he decided to switch from being a medium pacer to a fast bowler in the mid 70s since he hated getting hit and wanted to bouncer back

- Hadlee did play in WSC but I corrected myself since he didn't play much cricket in it

Without Aus 70s and WSC there would be no 80 WIs. Thats a fact.

No, it's you who is wrong

- That's pretty much what I said, you just reworded my statement, "glut" means an excessive amount, and I also said that naturally there were an excessive amount of pacers in the 80s, which is consistent with what I said about there being even more fast bowlers. Not like Helmets changed the game either, by WSC Lillee and Thommo had lost pace, they were tamed by batters from 50s (Edrich) and 60s (Boycott) without helmets anyway.

- That is also basically what I said, he saw the terror of the pacers in Australia in 75 and Yeah, he used that as the model. Lloyd complained after the loss to India in Port-of-Spain in 1976, when he played three spinners, that there were "guys who bowled spin, not got people out." Any decision can be a culmination of factors, losing away so badly to Lillian Thomson just to have your spinners fail you at the Port of Spain in the home series right after, is clearly going to make anyone think that fast bowling is just superior. It was never about mentality or ruthlessness, it was always about effectiveness of pacers just exceeding that of spinners for Lloyd.

- Yeah, but even in the mid 70s Imran was not much, it wasn't until WSC and beyond that Imran Khan became Imran Khan, and it was clearly reverse and his inswingers that were the true weapons in his arsenals, his pace was just the cherry on top. I'm sure Lillee impacted him, but to say it was all mentality is not correct.

- Yeah, Hadlee wasn't very quick anyway, he found his success by doing the opposite of Lillee or Imran, his speed went down but his pace stayed deceptive, he used bounce, he controlled his line and length but he was never about trying to hurt the batsmen, he hurt plenty because most underestimated his pace but saying he wouldn't have developed into what he became without World Series Cricket is just giving Packer too much credit.

there were already signs of the Cricketing superpower West Indies were about to become, in 1976 England, Holding and Roberts were already there and Garner was on his way to complete the trio, Viv/Greenidge were already at full power, Lloyd was also there and Daniels was also the same fast and furious type of bowler Windies play to this day. Without the 1975 Australia tour, sure maybe Lloyd doesn't decide pacers are far superior to spinners, but by 1976 it was obvious what they were going to become.

 

[capt_Luffy]

You say that as a knock, but it was Chappell who fought for his players to be rightly compensated because he believed cricket was meant to be taken professionally rather than in genteel fashion it often was. It was a product of his more intense approach to the sport.

No I don't say it as a knock. I say it as "Chappell would never played for anything but win" are not arguments I vibe with all. You (not you, like in general) never met the dude personally, you don't him. Such claims on a man's personality are really dumbish to me.

 

[Johan]

Clive Lloyd attributes the WSC to hone their desire to win at all costs which built the foundation of the 80s ATG WIs side. He said it helped shed the Calypso cricket impression of brilliant players producing inconsistent performances as WI sides of the past. So there was a definite sea change there @Johan

They were already crushing sides right before the WSC, and honing the desire to win might be true for Lloyd personally given the bags of money they'd make from the WSC but it's not essential for everyone, It's also easier to bave the desire to always win where you're leading the strongest team in history of the sport (after maybe the Invincibles) than before when you're playing with Jumadeen and Uton Dowe.

 

[subshakerz]

No, it's you who is wrong

- That's pretty much what I said, you just reworded my statement, "glut" means an excessive amount, and I also said that naturally there were an excessive amount of pacers in the 80s, which is consistent with what I said about there being even more fast bowlers. Not like Helmets changed the game either, by WSC Lillee and Thommo had lost pace, they were tamed by batters from 50s (Edrich) and 60s (Boycott) without helmets anyway.

- That is also basically what I said, he saw the terror of the pacers in Australia in 75 and Yeah, he used that as the model. Lloyd complained after the loss to India in Port-of-Spain in 1976, when he played three spinners, that there were "guys who bowled spin, not got people out." Any decision can be a culmination of factors, losing away so badly to Lillian Thomson just to have your spinners fail you at the Port of Spain in the home series right after, is clearly going to make anyone think that fast bowling is just superior. It was never about mentality or ruthlessness, it was always about effectiveness of pacers just exceeding that of spinners for Lloyd.

- Yeah, but even in the mid 70s Imran was not much, it wasn't until WSC and beyond that Imran Khan became Imran Khan, and it was clearly reverse and his inswingers that were the true weapons in his arsenals, his pace was just the cherry on top. I'm sure Lillee impacted him, but to say it was all mentality is not correct.

- Yeah, Hadlee wasn't very quick anyway, he found his success by doing the opposite of Lillee or Imran, his speed went down but his pace stayed deceptive, he used bounce, he controlled his line and length but he was never about trying to hurt the batsmen, he hurt plenty because most underestimated his pace but saying he wouldn't have developed into what he became without World Series Cricket is just giving Packer too much credit.

there were already signs of the Cricketing superpower West Indies were about to become, in 1976 England, Holding and Roberts were already there and Garner was on his way to complete the trio, Viv/Greenidge were already at full power, Lloyd was also there and Daniels was also the same fast and furious type of bowler Windies play to this day. Without the 1975 Australia tour, sure maybe Lloyd doesn't decide pacers are far superior to spinners, but by 1976 it was obvious what they were going to become.

- But the fact that there was such risk of damage that they introduced helmets goes against this idea WSC wasn't intense

- Ok but then this is a point that the 70s Aussies side had a legacy that was passed to the WIs and changed cricket

- Imran wouldn't have even become a pure fast bowler if not for Lillee.

- Hadlee himself said he would go to his bowling mark asking what would Lillee do and he was referring to latter half Lillee with less pace and more guile

- Great again we need to give credit to 75 Aussies for setting the foundation to the 80s WIs. WSC gave them the winning instinct and professional approach according to Lloyd.

 

[kyear2]

Imran
Atherton
Sobers
Draw
Botham
Holding

Oh wow.

 

[subshakerz]

No I don't say it as a knock. I say it as "Chappell would never played for anything but win" are not arguments I vibe with all. You (not you, like in general) never met the dude personally, you don't him. Such claims on a man's personality are really dumbish to me.

It's the testimony of players he played against for him being uncompromising as far as cricket is concerned. You can listed to Brearely talk about how his approach was uncompromising and ultra aggressive and the team became like that.

 

[Johan]

- But the fact that there was such risk of damage that they introduced helmets goes against this idea WSC wasn't intense

- Ok but then this is a point that the 70s Aussies side had a legacy that was passed to the WIs and changed cricket

- Imran wouldn't have even become a pure fast bowler if not for Lillee.

- Hadlee himself said he would go to his bowling mark asking what would Lillee do and he was referring to latter half Lillee with less pace and more guile

- Great again we need to give credit to 75 Aussies for setting the foundation to the 80s WIs. WSC gave them the winning instinct and professional approach according to Lloyd.

- Sure, but my point was that WSC is different to Test Cricket, as in, inherently biased against slow batting, biased against spin bowling, biased against medium pace and so forth. Therefore, not exactly 1:1 translateable to Test Cricket.

- Only thing they really gave was giving a pace bowling guide to Windies, not sure how that changes Cricket as it effected 2 of the 6 playing nations, and then Windies sent Australia back to stone age. Like, if we're talking pure and hard fast pace bowling tactics, Windies did that since their conception in 1928, England did that in the 30s and the 50s, Australia did that when they got Lindwall/Miller/Johnston and so forth. I mean, do you really think West Indies making a pace quaret inspired by Australia's lillian thomson changed Cricket when Windies would cease to be a superpower just 15 years later, and then cease to be a power 25 years later?

- I'm sure, what does that prove other than what we know IE Lillee Inspiring people? how does Imran being a fast bowler change Cricket?

- even Later half Lillee was quicker, and again, Hadlee saw Lillee as his inspiration, same way people from past saw Larwood as their inspiration, that's common and doesn't revolutionise Cricket, especially since Hadlee was not some aggressive HTD bowler like peak Lillee.

- Winning instinct is natural when you have a great team, just ask Australia. Australia convinced Lloyd to give up on spin and go full pace, but sadly that does not change Cricket as Australia reverted to the same old in 80s and none of the other countries were even impacted.