elmer (06/18/82)
Question, Isn't a cricket a wittle quitter that you'd feed a wittle fish?
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (06/06/85)
Australia won the Texaco Trophy by two matches to one -- James C Armstrong, Jnr. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa The Boss gave me one of these, ten seconds, he said. Let's see if it works...
reddy@ctnews.UUCP (T.S.Reddy) (03/18/86)
While we are on the subject of intimidatory bowling and Marshall and
Company's attempts to bounce the English team out of the game,
I came across the following related article in the Mar 8th issue of
The Economist. By the by, the contents page title of this article
was "Head before wicket".
Nasty, brutish and short
For millions of Englishmen, the issue has been what to do about
fast, short pitched bowling. England's cricket team, presently battling
in Trinidad, have been ducking-or, in the case of Mr. Mike Gatting, who
has been invalided home with a broken nose, failing to duck-the West
Indies' attack. So violent was the bowling in the recent test match in
Jamaica that some English newspapers called for the team's return.
Whingeling whiteys? Possibly; at least in Fleet Street. The
cricketers themselves have not complained (they won a one day
international this week). Moreover, fast short-pitched bowling,
rearing towards a batsman's chest or face, has long been a weapon in
any succesful team's armoury. It has been controversial before, most
notoriously in the 1932-33 series betwen England and Australia, when
"bodyline" (in Australia) or "leg-theory" (in England) bowling threat-
ened to strain the ties between Oz and the mother country. What is new
is that any team facing the West Indies now gets no respite. Once the
90-mph thunderbolts from Mr Malcom Marshall and new-discovery Mr. Pat-
rick Patterson have been seen off, the 80-mph torpedoes of Mr Joel Gar-
ner and Mr Michael Holding replace them.
That is to be done? In many international series, the laws of
cricket are supplemented by regulations that stipulate a mazximum
number of fast short pitched deliveries per so many balls. But the West
Indies do not agree to such additions-they play just by the laws.
These state that such bowling is unfair if any umpire thinks it's
intimidatory. It may be prohibited if it is intended or likely to
inflict physical harm on the batsman.
All is then up to the umpire-and West Indian umpires appear to
take a relaxed view. This could be solved by an international panel
neutral umpires applying the rules consistently. Cricket is now the
only internationally played team game in which neutral officials are
not regarded as essential. It has become such a money-spinner that it
should not be difficult to pay for the change.baparao@uscvax.UUCP (Bapa Rao) (03/21/86)
In article <130@ctnews.UUCP> reddy@ctnews.UUCP (T.S.Reddy) writes: > >While we are on the subject of intimidatory bowling and Marshall and >Company's attempts to bounce the English team out of the game, >I came across the following related article in the Mar 8th issue of >The Economist. By the by, the contents page title of this article >was "Head before wicket". > >Nasty, brutish and short > > [etc.] Hmmm. So the chickens have come home to Blighty to roost, have they? As Reddy points out, intimidatory bowling as a matter of policy was pioneered in the 1932-33 Australia tour (and the preceding tour of India) by Douglas Jardine, then captain of the MCC. I used to follow cricket in the '60s and '70s (not any more, thankfully) and recall that the Indian batsmen's inability to deal with the bouncers dealt out by Messrs. Peter Lever and John Snow of the MCC used to be a source of great amusement to British sportswriters and BBC commentators, who spoke of the Indians frequently colliding with the square leg umpire in their attempt to escape the fussilade. And now the big bad brutish (and yes, black) West Indians are unfairly bouncing their lads around, and it is just not cricket, is it old chap? Baloney. The fact is that the West Indian pacemen, from as far back as I can remember (which is from Wes Hall and Charles Griffith through to the sonorously named Anderson Montgomery Everton Roberts), have been, simply outstanding at their craft, and just awesome athletes. Same goes for their brilliant batsmen like I.V.A. Richards. And the British media have always had a problem acknowledging their greatness at the quintessential British game. With them it was always "these flaky, calypso-singing sun-soaked (and I guess, sun-tanned) islanders" (or some such). The English and the Aussies have bad days; the Windies are basically temperamental and inconsistent. Phooey. As far as the British media are concerned, the Windies are either childlike and unreliable in temperament or brutish savages. I dare anyone to tell me they are not racially motivated. Bouncers are an occupational hazard in test level cricket, and any batsman worth his salt has no problem with taking them on. As long as unskilled tail-enders are not threatened, there should be no reason to panic. The only reason to consider "neutral" umpires should be to address concerns about unfair out decisions and the like. --Bapa Rao
guest@paisley.UUCP (03/25/86)
All this garbage about intimidatory bowling is just a feeble excuse for England's poor showing wherever they are playing. Also, in the recent test, the West Indies bowled less bouncers than England, yet still managed to thrash them. England just couldn't make theirs count. Who cares about cricket, anyway?