'The Bouncer Rule' A Great Debate!
-
BallOil
- Posts: 19409
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:12 pm
Exactly..not to mention now the batsmen have helmets, and protection for the whole body... That is why cricket is more of a batsman game while restricting the bowlers.West Indies' intimidatory tactics and painfully slow over-rates prompted the lawmakers to take away the fast bowler's most lethal weapon
-
mapoui
- Posts: 8507
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:07 pm
I cant agree with you. you must check the Oz before you consign the westindies to intimidatory tactics and such manipulation.
the Oz 4-prong was far worse than anything westindian pace ever was when it came to intimidation. in fact the westindian pace was hardly intimadatory at all, save on a few occassions when they were challenged.
the media was resposnsible for the conning the fan base into the idea that westindian pace was intimidatory. it wasnt! it was tough, consistently testing bowling at high velocity.
the media was not up in arms when the Oz were the ones doing the dictating with pace. the media said not a damm thing when David Brown, Jeff Jones and John Snow were terrorising the world in the late sixties of the last century...or when Harmison was running through side.
the media were all over Charlie Griffith for chucking when a host of Oz were chuckers at the same time, and got away scot free. they made a free pass for themselves by putting it down to the baseball the Oz played as well.
as usual it was a racial thing. it was allright for white fast bowlers to terrorise blac and colured batsmen but not the other way around. and hey of course had the media and could propagandise for pressure to be brought that would neutralise westindian pace
the Oz 4-prong was far worse than anything westindian pace ever was when it came to intimidation. in fact the westindian pace was hardly intimadatory at all, save on a few occassions when they were challenged.
the media was resposnsible for the conning the fan base into the idea that westindian pace was intimidatory. it wasnt! it was tough, consistently testing bowling at high velocity.
the media was not up in arms when the Oz were the ones doing the dictating with pace. the media said not a damm thing when David Brown, Jeff Jones and John Snow were terrorising the world in the late sixties of the last century...or when Harmison was running through side.
the media were all over Charlie Griffith for chucking when a host of Oz were chuckers at the same time, and got away scot free. they made a free pass for themselves by putting it down to the baseball the Oz played as well.
as usual it was a racial thing. it was allright for white fast bowlers to terrorise blac and colured batsmen but not the other way around. and hey of course had the media and could propagandise for pressure to be brought that would neutralise westindian pace
-
mapoui
- Posts: 8507
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:07 pm
to socre 50 against marshall, Garner and Holding, backed up by Walsh was like scoring s ton as far as I am concerned.
I saw Gooch make fifty against that bowling and he was so tired when he was done he had to rest and relax for a good while.
it took hard mental work and focus to deal with that attack. and it was usually impossible to do so hours and hours. and hour to 2 hours and a batsmen was exhausted physically and mentally...emotionally sapped.
and those were the good ones such as Boycott and david Gower, Majid Khan, one or 2 Oz, like Border. they too were worn out by the concetration that was required to score against that attack, often before they go to a ton.
most batsmen could not survive for very long and by the fewer overs westindies bowled the games were lengthened. if not the games would have been over in 2 to 2 and a half days, or 3 days at most.
I saw Gooch make fifty against that bowling and he was so tired when he was done he had to rest and relax for a good while.
it took hard mental work and focus to deal with that attack. and it was usually impossible to do so hours and hours. and hour to 2 hours and a batsmen was exhausted physically and mentally...emotionally sapped.
and those were the good ones such as Boycott and david Gower, Majid Khan, one or 2 Oz, like Border. they too were worn out by the concetration that was required to score against that attack, often before they go to a ton.
most batsmen could not survive for very long and by the fewer overs westindies bowled the games were lengthened. if not the games would have been over in 2 to 2 and a half days, or 3 days at most.
-
mapoui
- Posts: 8507
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:07 pm
westindies did not have to terrorise anybody save like when Lawson sorted out Dujon..or McDermott beamed Richardson...he had to be sorted out in turn.
it was the bounce and height of the pace, the deep , toe-bursting yorkers, the the consistent, in fact relentless probing and searching of batsmen with in and outswing, slower and faster bouncers...indeed all and every manner of testing balls great fastbowlers could conjure up for a batsman!
that as the problem fuh dem! great fastbowlers, all very smart people, fit and fast like lightening and relentlessly competitive. they were trying to destroy westindies soul and they succeeded by 1995, with the collusion and betrayal of the wicbc/wicb
it was the bounce and height of the pace, the deep , toe-bursting yorkers, the the consistent, in fact relentless probing and searching of batsmen with in and outswing, slower and faster bouncers...indeed all and every manner of testing balls great fastbowlers could conjure up for a batsman!
that as the problem fuh dem! great fastbowlers, all very smart people, fit and fast like lightening and relentlessly competitive. they were trying to destroy westindies soul and they succeeded by 1995, with the collusion and betrayal of the wicbc/wicb
-
Googley
- Posts: 5465
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 1:05 pm
Pure Skuntery!!West Indies' intimidatory tactics and painfully slow over-rates prompted the lawmakers to take away the fast bowler's most lethal weapon
Anytime the english in trouble they change the rules...
why they changed the lBW rules when Ram ANd Val cleaned their clocks?
why didnt they complain about fast bowling from other nations? are they claiming thatDennis Lillee tactics were not imtimidatory????
Balllzz!!
-
mapoui
- Posts: 8507
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:07 pm
sorry for the misunderstand Bally!BallOil wrote:tell me Googs... I was just highlighting this but Maps thought I supported it.
However, 70 overs a day is not acceptable ...
dat overs rule cud be flexible..dat is penalties could be! when a side chasing victory they should be able to bowl a hundered overs if possible in the time available.
wat deh mean, if a side chasing vicctory and cricket supposed to stop at half past 5, and by 4:30 deh bowl 90 overs, the game ovah?
not at all! it shud not be so!
and the other way around. if you bowl seventy overs a day and the game heading for a 3-day finish, what you go make noise?
nutten shud happen in those kinds of contexts in terms of official action.
but if a side deliberately wasting time to starve off defeat by bowling 70 overs a day etc., dat shud be penalised.
the game shud be played in a spirit of open competition win or lose....and rules must promote such competition..not detract from it
-
POINT
- Posts: 293
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 10:46 am
Those Of us who have followed Cricket over the years , have always known that Rules & changing of Rules were set in place to make other Teams , in the Golden Eras of West Indies Cricket , have a respectable showing ,never mind the fact that WE beat them .
Let me say , slightly off this Topic , the banning of our players in the 1980's by England is another classic case in point . WE have not yet recovered from that Machiavellian tactic . Due to the lack of vision by the Emperors in the WICB .
I vividly recall that in the days of the 3 W's our Team Toured Australia , and were hit all over their bodies , and even had broken arms , from the ferocity of the Australian Pacers . I dont recall that any complaint was lodged . In fact I have never ever heard that the WICB complained about any Rule changes that were made .
It has always been others whining & complaining about what our Players were doing . Frankly the History of Cricket is replete with examples of Cricket Countries complaining about our Bowlers . Our Team as far as I am aware have never complained . I recall on a Tour of Australia , Rohan Kanhai was batting , and was ill , he requested a Runner , and that was denied by the Australian Captain .
Let me say , slightly off this Topic , the banning of our players in the 1980's by England is another classic case in point . WE have not yet recovered from that Machiavellian tactic . Due to the lack of vision by the Emperors in the WICB .
I vividly recall that in the days of the 3 W's our Team Toured Australia , and were hit all over their bodies , and even had broken arms , from the ferocity of the Australian Pacers . I dont recall that any complaint was lodged . In fact I have never ever heard that the WICB complained about any Rule changes that were made .
It has always been others whining & complaining about what our Players were doing . Frankly the History of Cricket is replete with examples of Cricket Countries complaining about our Bowlers . Our Team as far as I am aware have never complained . I recall on a Tour of Australia , Rohan Kanhai was batting , and was ill , he requested a Runner , and that was denied by the Australian Captain .
-
Googley
- Posts: 5465
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 1:05 pm
Point, here is another incident where Kanhai was refused a runner, most likely causing WI the game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_cr ... E2%80%9360West Indies needed 230 in 245 minutes if they were to win. Hunte began in attacking fashion, scoring 40 out of 48 in an hour before he was the second man out. Wisden felt the turning-point came when Sobers was run out when looking dangerous, to make the score 86/3. West Indies continued to chase the target, but scoring was never easy. At tea 115 were still needed in 90 minutes. When Kanhai was out at 152/6 West Indies gave up the chase and England tried to get the four remaining wickets in the forty-five minutes that were left. May refused to allow Kanhai a runner near the end, when he had developed cramp. In fact Kanhai was entitled to a runner under the laws. May apologised to Kanhai and Alexander after the match for his mistake. The umpires and Alexander himself had also been unsure about the position.