[ad_1]
With both Australia and England adopting a bouncer-barrage in the Lord’s Test at times for hours together, ironically triggered by an injury to a spinner, it has kicked up the age-old question that once haunted cricket and for which rules were changed twice: Does bowling bouncers consistently makes for tedious watching, with over-rates suffering as well, or does it make for a thrilling contest that tests the batsmen? First, in 1933 the laws were amended to allow umpires to step in to stop intimidatory bowling and then in 1994, they cut down the number of bouncers (defined as above shoulder height) to two per over.
Around Saturday noon in London, when England started to copy Australia’s strategy of bumper attack, Australia’s former captain Mark Taylor wondered if the umpires should start getting into act, no-balling the bouncers.
“If a batsman doesn’t play a shot, how many bouncers can you bowl in an over? If both teams continue this bumper tactic – and they will for the rest of the series, what will happen? The laws of the game were changed in the early 90s to one bouncer a game; it became 2 bouncers in the mid-90s. But the old law of intimidatory bowling still exists. If the umpire feels it, he can still call it. It will be the same when Australia bowl it. If you keep bowling the same length, even if it’s not about shoulder high, it’s still intimidation. It’s going to put a lot of pressure on the umpires, who can say, I am going to call it ‘no-ball’,” Taylor said.
YES BROADY! 👊 #EnglandCricket | #Ashes pic.twitter.com/pfKTA1apUU
— England Cricket (@englandcricket) July 1, 2023
Former England captain Andrew Strauss felt while the tactic was “legal” and “effective”, it was tedious to watch. “I don’t like watching it. I find it somewhat tedious. A bit predictable. You know where the ball is going to be before he bowls the ball, where the fielders are. You are just seeing what the batsman is going to do. It’s a bit two-dimensional to me. But that does not mean it’s not effective. Nothing wrong with their approach; anything that works, you should give it a go,” Strauss said.
Mark Taylor would talk about how it was a bit similar to the 70s and 80s during the heyday of West Indian pacers. “You could battle through an hour (against bouncer-barrage) and have just 15 runs. The rules were then changed.”
Speaking to The Indian Express, Michael Holding, a key fast bowler in that West Indian team and one of the fastest bowlers in cricketing history, has a different take on the issue.
Another short ball.
Another wicket!YES LADS! 🔥 #EnglandCricket | #Ashes pic.twitter.com/xj5wHLzJ6I
— England Cricket (@englandcricket) July 1, 2023
“I can see both sides of the argument. Yes, it works but it can also be a bit boring. But essentially what they are doing is trying to find a way to win a Test match. As far as I am concerned it’s legal and not against the spirit of the game, I don’t have any foibles with it. Don’t interfere with more rule changes,” Holding told The Indian Express. “And by the way, at no stage in my West Indies career, did we bowl bouncers for hours like this. At one point in this Lord’s Test, 98% of the bowling was short-pitched. We never did that. The hypocrisy of it stands out. When West Indies were bowling with four fast bowlers, and bouncing out the batsmen, the cricketing world was up in arms. You think there is going to be any real uproar about this tactic now? I doubt it. It’s England and Australia playing; not the West Indies.”
Is it intimidatory bowling? “What? With 70mph-plus mickey mouse pace bowling like England did? No way it’s intimidatory!” Holding says. “And that’s why they got the shoulder height and all into it. They also have the fielding rule where you can’t have more than 2 fielders behind the stumps on the leg side. And if you are going to allow the umpires to step in, with balls below shoulder height also, then it’s an extremely dicey way. It will come down to the subjectivity of the umpires, and that is never a good thing. Cricket shouldn’t go that route”.
The plan works!
Cameron Green takes on the short ball and is caught in the deep 🙌 #EnglandCricket | #Ashes pic.twitter.com/jplgdOhYjv
— England Cricket (@englandcricket) July 1, 2023
“You can’t call this intimidating bowling. Perhaps, you can say ‘negative’ bowling. But whatever works to win a Test match.”
Holding believes the tactic was successful because of the quality of the batting on display. “Some of the batting wasn’t really bright. Let me put it this way. If this bowling was attempted at this pace to Viv Richards, Gordon Greenidge or Desmond Haynes, you would be picking the ball off the stands! Not just them, I can think of many a batsman who would have told the umpires trying to step in, ‘Oh don’t stop them, let them bowl more short stuff’.”
🤩 Another wicket… and it’s a big one!
Steve Smith departs for 3️⃣4️⃣#EnglandCricket | #Ashes pic.twitter.com/E6j6qENQR6
— England Cricket (@englandcricket) July 1, 2023
Holding also took a slight dig at England’s batting tactics in the first innings. “When you don’t have the ability to hook pacy balls and when there are fielders at the boundary, then you have to take the call. That’s not entertaining or attacking cricket to get out like that. And if over-using the bouncers was tedious, then what happened to the entertaining brand of cricket that you said you will play?! I know and understand why they did it of course. They were desperate to win the game and changed when it suited them, bowling 98% of short-pitched stuff. That’s fine, then don’t talk about entertaining the fans,” Holding said.
[ad_2]
