Should the ICC drop the two bouncer law?

[silentstriker]

West Indies was bowling bouncers to Venkatapathy Raju in the early 90s and I remember it vividly. It was ugly and distasteful to watch despite the helmet.

I guess I'm a one man minority here. Why be out there with a bat if you aren't willing to face the same deliveries as the other batsmen? And if your runs count the same as theirs, why should the fielders treat you differently? A four from Raju counts the same as a four from Don Bradman. You shouldn't be bowled at with different standards.

 

[Pratters]

If you have a penis but no sperms, you can't produce babies.

 

[silentstriker]

If you have no sperm, you shouldn't be out there trying to produce babies in the first place. or pretending that you can.


I think. . I don't think I quite got that analogy.

 

[Pratters]

Cricket is the only sport where such a situation arises (tailenders facing the best exponents of bowling). It doesn't occur in baseball for instance.

 

[silentstriker]

Hypothetically, what if a bowler comes along whose bouncers are so good, no batsman is technically good enough to face them? Should he be banned from bowling the bouncers?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Hypothetically, what if a bowler comes along whose bouncers are so good, no batsman is technically good enough to face them? Should he be banned from bowling the bouncers?

Depends what you mean by not technically good enough. If you mean the best batsman aren't able to control their hook shots, then obviously he shouldn't be barred from bowling the delivery but if (and I don't see how it's possible, but hypothetically) his bouncers were putting the very best batsman is genuine physical danger then yes, there would be a case to ban him. The situation is almost analogus with Bodyline, actually except it was a tactical gambit that was too good/dangerous for the best batsmen rather than an individual bowler.

 

[Cruxdude]

I guess I'm a one man minority here. Why be out there with a bat if you aren't willing to face the same deliveries as the other batsmen? And if your runs count the same as theirs, why should the fielders treat you differently? A four from Raju counts the same as a four from Don Bradman. You shouldn't be bowled at with different standards.

That is why cricket is considered a Gentleman's game. The only reason to bowl bouncers to Raju when a straight ball at any speed is going to get him out is spite and a desire to injure him.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Tony Greig decided to bounce Dennis Lillee in the First Test of the 1974/75 series and eventually dismissed him with a bouncer. As Lillee returned to the dressing room he said to his team mates "Remember who started this" (meaning Greig) and the rest is history.

 

[Goughy]

Hypothetically, what if a bowler comes along whose bouncers are so good, no batsman is technically good enough to face them? Should he be banned from bowling the bouncers?

It pains me to answer a hypothetical but my answer is no at Test level and in professional cricket and yes below.

Test cricket is the highest level and if you are paid and selected to bat then it is an occupational hazard.

There are levels of cricket though where I wouldnt personally bowl a bouncer to a top order batsman. At certain amateur levels just because they are top order batsman it doesnt mean they can cope with it. It depends on the level of the cricket and the standard of the player.

 

[Top_Cat]

Two things - think it's really disingenuous and to bring into the argument incidents where tail-enders were hit in pre-helmet and pre-professional days. It's smacks of a emotionalism especially since I don't think they're analogous any more. Sure, with all the protection these days Alex Tudor got hit but that was Brett Lee who hit him - so fast, I doubt any batsman would have been able to avoid that bouncer (or with the addition of a lot of luck) plus Tudor could bat so he doesn't really count as a bunny who needs protection from rules or umpires, in my view. Was an isolated incident, not a sustained barrage of intimidatory bowling he should be saved from because he doesn't bat as well as others in his team.

Second, while we're on the topic of protecting bunnies (of which there are far fewer these days), with better bats, far (far) better protection, better coaching, greater professionalism in the game, etc. I would dispute that any batters need nor should be protected any more. If you can't handle it, find another job (which, sorry, it is). Or get better which is, as I said, what tail-enders have been doing for years now anyway. Tail-enders just aren't the same any more, most can bat and shouldn't be protected because they bat between 8-11 in the order.

Put it this way; with all the Tests tail-enders have scored runs in of late (check any recent scorecard), there's no way they should be protected. If the rule is to go, apply the concept of 'intimidatory bowling' equally to all batters or don't bother. It's a profession, FFS.

 

[Hurricane]

I have not seen a hook shot played consistently by any batsman for the last decade. The reason that bouncers result in a dot ball is because batsmen have gotten used to the fact that they can just ignore the one or two bouncers per over and score off the better length balls. I'd like to see batsmen once again master the hook. There were so many better hookers in world cricket back in the 80s than there are today.
.

My memories of the 1980s of NZ playing the west indies is of our batsman just ducking lots of bouncers. Then Australia toured WI about 1990 and the commentators were irate about one of their batsman having to face two overs of bouncers in a row. The batsman facing all them ducked all of them - except for the last one which out of desperation he backed away outside of his leg stump and tried to lift it over the slips. He missed it.

I am against removing this rule. Good batsman aren't intimidated by bouncers they are like meh. The odd one does give them the hurry up. But for the most part the batsman just ducks. I find that they just slow the game down for the most part so I don't want to see more of them.

I agree with the people who are saying just prepare better cricket wickets to address the balance.

 

[stephen]

Interesting discussion here guys.

What about the hook shot. Noone plays it any more. How do we bring it back into the game?

 

[Athlai]

Definitely need to relax the laws that punish hookers.

 

[silentstriker]

Depends what you mean by not technically good enough. If you mean the best batsman aren't able to control their hook shots, then obviously he shouldn't be barred from bowling the delivery but if (and I don't see how it's possible, but hypothetically) his bouncers were putting the very best batsman is genuine physical danger then yes, there would be a case to ban him.

That, to me, is crazy. That's just having more ability. I guess we'll just disagree here.

 

[Richard]

Whoa. Time-Out.

Exactly who defines a bouncer as a ball that passes over head height? Certainly not anyone that have ever bowled one. That isnt the definition.

Whoever wrote the rule I presume defined it as thus. I myself don't have a problem with the definition.

 

[Richard]

I knew some one would come up with the smart arse reply. Knowing a bowler can bowl only two bouncers makes it highly unlikely that the bowler will bowl a bouncer the next ball. So if you want to score fast runs, you are much more likely to go to attack going on the front foot with a 2 bouncer per over law.

PS - Going on the front foot doesn't necessarily mean going out of the crease so much that you risk being stumped. It is an attacking way of playing which makes more deliveries 'full'.

OK, so how many times have you seen premeditated front-foot play on the basis that the previous ball was a Bouncer so the next one probably won't be? I can't think of many at all.

I wasn't, BTW, suggesting anyone was suggesting front-foot play involved walking down the wicket. Two different things, like cheap car insurance and meerkats.

 

[Goughy]

Whoever wrote the rule I presume defined it as thus. I myself don't have a problem with the definition.

There are a couple of things wrong with that but Ill start with the fact that what you state is not the correct definition.

Secondly the thing you 'define' incorrectly are officially termed 'fast short pitched balls', not bouncers. Both are not the same thing and 'bouncer' has no official definition. For example a bouncer can hit the batsman in the shoulder but a 'fast short pitched ball' cannot.

 

[Richard]

See this is where you lose me.

I have not seen a hook shot played consistently by any batsman for the last decade. The reason that bouncers result in a dot ball is because batsmen have gotten used to the fact that they can just ignore the one or two bouncers per over and score off the better length balls. I'd like to see batsmen once again master the hook. There were so many better hookers in world cricket back in the 80s than there are today.

Even with a good player of the Hook stroke, taking-on a really short ball is still quite some risk and the vast majority of sensible batsmen will just let it go. I don't like the idea of a situation where someone has to be able and willing to Hook regularly to be able to score.

Similarly, since when is placing pressure on a batsman or putting them on the back foot "defensive"? The good bowlers realise that it's generally not the wicket taking ball that takes the wicket, but the 7 or 8 deliveries preceding that ball. Test cricket is all about pressure and by being unable to "intimidate" batsmen consistently bowlers lose one of the tools of their trade.

Test cricket is far from "all" about pressure; pressure is not put on but felt. Pressure is not some sort of aura or field as some like to think of it as; it is a feeling in the mind. Only the batsman can put pressure on himself; the bowler cannot, it is up to the person who is feeling pressure whether it is there or not.

It is true that sometimes a wicket can be the result not of one delivery but of 7 or 8 (or even more) in a row; it is not remotely true that this is the case all or even a majority of the time.

And myself I don't feel intimidation has any part in bowling; however, once again intimidation is not applied but felt. If a batsman isn't intimidated by a barrage of short-pitched deliveries, there's nothing a bowler can do to create intimidation by bowling said barrage. Only some batsmen will feel intimidated by such a barrage, and there is no rule debarring any bowler from bowling consistently short at the current time - they just have to be good at it rather than being any old fool who can just whack it in halfway down and use the tactic with minimal skill.

 

[Richard]

There have been exceptions to the rule though. Wasn't there a famous fast bowler who infamously said that he liked to hurt batsmen? Can't remember who it was.

Around the time he was terrifying all batsmen around the globe (can't remember whether it was in 1974/75 or 1975/76) Jeff Thomson said "I like hitting a batsman more than I like getting him out".

Whether he was joking or not I've never been sure - all I've ever read is the written quote, never heard the actual piece of speech (it may not have been recorded). Nor have I ever heard Thomson reflect on it. It is possible he was joking; it is possible he was not.

 

[Shri]

There were so many better hookers in world cricket back in the 80s than there are today.

And Warne missed out.