Most angry cricketers

[howardj]

Brad Williams.

This.

 

[Furball]

I always find it funny reading about Jeff Thompson, given that Australians have bitched like little girls for 80 years about Bodyline.

 

[Sir Alex]

Shame Watson.

 

[Top_Cat]

Stuart MacGill. Frustrated fast bowler, tbh.

 

[Noble One]

Does Gavaskar fit the category of angry? I still laugh at his attempt to take his partner and stage a walk-off over a disputed LBW decision.

Rodney Hogg was an angry cricketer. Had a heap of run in's with cricketers in the Sheffield Shield and infamously kicked over the stumps in Bangalore after his spate of no-balls.

Another Australian pace-bowler from the same era in Len Pascoe fits the bill too. Angry, angry man. Had some great contests with I think Kim Hughes in the Shield. Pretty sure the two of them don't exchange Christmas cards.

 

[jeevan]

Yeah definitely angry men.

Pretty funny when they're side by side to easy going Nehra.

Nehra going easy on ...

From the current Indian side, Gambhir will get votes from Afridi and from Watson, Katich as well

 

[Richard]

I always find it funny reading about Jeff Thompson, given that Australians have bitched like little girls for 80 years about Bodyline.

Reasons for bitching about Bodyline and reasons for bitching about Thomson's rather unacceptably (IMO) crude apparent attitudes to inflicting injury are rather different. Bodyline was dangerous and unsporting; Thomson's conduct was merely dangerous.

 

[GIMH]

It's still a massive double-standard though, whichever way you look at it

 

[Richard]

It depends. Those who bitch purely about Voce and Larwood bowling short and hitting Woodfull and Oldfield (which of course both came when Bodyline was not being bowled) and then champion Thomson and Lillee are indeed engaging in huge double-standards. But those who purely moan about the unsportingness of the leg-theory fields aren't doing anything of the sort.

 

[fredfertang]

Unsporting?

Don't understand that one

A batsman has a bat and a bowler has a ball - he hits you for four and what a mug you are - you give him one in the ribs - it keeps him honest

 

[Richard]

Nothing unsporting about bowling short deliveries - the unsporting part is having six or seven fielders in a leg-trap and bowling consistently short and leg-side. This monotony gives the bowler an unfair advantage - in terms of containment. The possibility of injury is merely an added matter. And as the Woodfull and Oldfield incidents show, the possibility of injury is there as much without a leg-theory field as with it.

 

[fredfertang]

McCabe and Bradman in particular demonstrated leg theory certainly wasn't monotonous

 

[SJS]

Gilchrist. Right on top of the pile.

 

[BoyBrumby]

There was nothing "unsporting" about leg theory; the strategy had been around for at least two decades before the Bodyline tour. And it could be successfully countered if a batsman had the eye and the nerve; as fred points out McCabe & Bradman (and also Jardine himself the following summer) proved that beyond a doubt.

 

[Top_Cat]

Rodney Hogg was an angry cricketer. Had a heap of run in's with cricketers in the Sheffield Shield and infamously kicked over the stumps in Bangalore after his spate of no-balls.

Haha, yeh. Cousin played with him at Woodville (many, many years ago), said he was a **** to face at 7:25pm in the nets with the wind at his back and a skinfull.

Have been told by many Tim Zoerher was a prick. Michael Bevan could charitably be called 'intense'. Bev attacks still legendary at Adelaide Oval.

 

[honestbharani]

Haha, yeh. Cousin played with him at Woodville (many, many years ago), said he was a **** to face at 7:25pm in the nets with the wind at his back and a skinfull.

Have been told by many Tim Zoerher was a prick. Michael Bevan could charitably be called 'intense'. Bev attacks still legendary at Adelaide Oval.

He nearly got into a real fight with Lara once in an ODI in Australia.. Ponting had to come in and cool Lara down.. Ponting and Lara were good mates, I believe..

 

[Richard]

McCabe and Bradman in particular demonstrated leg theory certainly wasn't monotonous

Bradman's tactics to combat it of course were as unconventional as the leg-theory itself; McCabe's knock to counter it - once only - was well-described I think as a once-in-a-lifetime innings. To most lesser-quality players, however, there was no way out.

 

[Richard]

There was nothing "unsporting" about leg theory; the strategy had been around for at least two decades before the Bodyline tour.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with anything anyone said (no-one claimed it was only conceived for the '32/33 tour) and makes no impact on whether it was sportsmanlike or not.

And it could be successfully countered if a batsman had the eye and the nerve; as fred points out McCabe & Bradman (and also Jardine himself the following summer) proved that beyond a doubt.

It could be countered if you were a superb batsman (as Bradman, McCabe and Jardine all were) and prepared and able to bat in a wholly unconventional manner. If you weren't, it couldn't.

 

[fredfertang]

C'mon Rich look at the scorecards - all the main Australian batsmen had at least one decent knock in 32/33 - they were beaten by the better team - end of - after 77 years they ought to just take it on the chin rather than use it as a smokescreen to cover up the fact they got hammered in 28/29 as well

 

[Richard]

Personally I think it's just a shame that the leg-theory tactics were used - because that series was indeed the one time during Bradman's career where England potentially had a side that might've been a full match without using unorthodox (whether illegitimate or not) tactics. However, as to the point about all the main Australian batsmen making a decent-ish score at some point - well the leg-theory was not bowled non-stop was it?

England of course were the better side throughout that series - if Australia had wanted to respond in kind then they could have done, somewhat uncharacteristically they elected instead to put being able to claim the moral high ground ahead of fighting fire with fire.

As for the hammering in '28/29 (and of course England's victory in '26) that had, did it not, little to do with the series' between 1930 and 1948? Belonged to a different era. England won both '26 and '28/29 fair-and-square for certain. The '32/33 series will, however, always have an asterisk next to it for mine. Certainly one of the most fascinating parts of cricket history, but not I don't think a series that should be taken alongside any others. In so many ways it was unique.

As I've said a good few times, I don't think there's any reason to consider the use of leg-theory fields (forget the consistently short bowling) aught bar unfair. They were outlawed for a reason. The point of the tactic had always been to make scoring difficult, same as the point of spinners bowling long spells outside leg-stump. I don't condone either tactic, and welcome the fact that both are now outlawed.

But as I said at the start of the whole exchange, anyone who complains about the Bodyline escapade from the POV of the short-pitched bowling then champions Thomson\Lillee and indeed anyone else who's engaged in such activities (which numbers one hell of a lot of bowlers with any decent pace) is indeed a hypocrite.