reddy@ctnews.UUCP (T.S.Reddy) (03/24/86)
In article <10@uscvax.UUCP> baparao@uscvax.UUCP (Bapa Rao) >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 ^^^^^^^^^^ Whoa there! I was merely reprinting the article in the Economist (Mar 8, 1986), and never purported to make any judgement at the point. Perhaps I should have added a disclaimer. While the ability of the English batsmen to take a dose of their own medicine is being debated, I would like to take up the interesting points made in the article about neutral umpiring and about cricket having become such a money spinner. From what I hear, the one day matches (the recent series between Australia, India and New Zealand being an example) are great draws of fans, so I can imagine that international cricket has turned the corner (at least in England, Australia and New Zealand where it had been on the wane) in attracting a fair share of sports fans. Which brings me to the point about neutral umpiring. Where there's money to be made the question of native umpiring takes a back seat. What are needed are neutral umpires who have a strict set of rules to abide by and when they make a decision, it is really final in everyone's mind, most of all in the minds of the sports fan whose money, after all, fuels the game. Where does the bouncer issue fit in? At present the laws are quite vaugue about what constitutes a bouncer and what does not as also whether the bouncer is in itself a legitimate weapon in the bowler's armoury. This vagueness has to be dealt with. I am of the opinion that it be outlawed. Now before the steam from the nostrils of all you pro-bouncer wallahs out there condenses and the froth from the corners of your mouths starts overflowing, let me explain. I make my case based on the 1976 series between India and Australia and the Ewan Chatfield incident in 1978, I believe. In the former case, Clive Lloyd was in a must win position (I am sure it was it was because his captaincy was on the line) after India had leveled the series and there was one more test to go. Hence there was an indiscrimate barrage of bouncers against batsmen and tail- enders alike with the result that Bishen Singh Bedi (then captain of India) had to declare the Indian innings prematurely. I have seen B. S. Chandrashekar bat (luckily he was spared by the declar- ation in that incident) and believe me, a person with his batting skills would stand no chance against the likes of Marshall, Garner in full fury. Ewan Chatfield was the other tail-ender who nearly lost his life due to Peter Lever's bouncer. In a game becoming increasingly commercialized and fairness taking a back seat to winning, do you think that the fast bowler would take into account whether a batsman is a tail-ender or not? Also, the protective helmet should be looked upon as protection against injury, but not as an excuse for bouncers just as in American football wearing a helmet does not mean that the tackler can go for someone's head. So there! I have poured my heart out and all you flamers out there, take it away! Disclaimer: The views expressed above are my own and do not, in any way, reflect Convergent's or my pet rock's opinions on the matter.
S35@PSUVM.BITNET (03/29/86)
I agree that bouncers should not be aimed at the tailenders. But
Lines: 3
at regular batsmen and allrounders -- yes. It is the part of the game.
At any given time, team at the receiving end complaints.