How much did slip cordons affect McGrath's and Wasim's records?

[subshakerz]

What's wrong with intimidation?

 

[smash84]

?

 

[capt_Luffy]

What's wrong with intimidation?

Nothing really. Though I think it won't nearly be as effective now as it was in the pre Helmet era.

 

[subshakerz]

?

It's just fun to watch

 

[smash84]

It's just fun to watch

So there's nothing wrong with intimidation? So why is @kyear2 getting his panties in a twist?

 

[subshakerz]

So there's nothing wrong with intimidation? So why is @kyear2 getting his panties in a twist?

Because WI are being singled out for doing it when it was an Aussie thing at first.

And it is wrong if it is excessive bouncer barrage.

 

[smash84]

And it is wrong if it is excessive bouncer barrage.

I think as long as tailenders are not being bounces out,.it's fine.

 

[subshakerz]

I think as long as tailenders are not being bounces out,.it's fine.

So a bowler can bounce six times an over?

 

[smash84]

So a bowler can bounce six times an over?

Yeah, I personally don't see the problem.

It isn't easy bowling too many short balls though. Bouncers require a lot of effort.

 

[shortpitched713]

What's wrong with intimidation?

Ask Bradman's bitch-ass:

"
Omission for South Africa
edit
After returning to Australia, Miller played against Bradman in a testimonial match in 1948–49. Miller bowled three consecutive bouncers at Bradman, dismissing him with the last of the short-pitched deliveries for 53.[332][333][334] Bradman was angered by Miller's bowling.[333][334] One week later, the squad to tour South Africa in the following season was announced, and Miller was omitted,[83][334] despite being ranked as the best all rounder in the world.[335] During the Australian season, which was a purely domestic one, he had scored 400 runs at 33.33 and taken 11 wickets at 24.09.[83][335] He scored one century against Queensland during the season, as well as a 99 against Victoria at the SCG.[336]
"

That + the reaction to Bodyline, when it was a perfectly legal tactic, to me are the only asterisks on Bradman's otherwise impossibly great sporting career. Made even more hypocritical by Bradman being willing to utilize short pitched intimidation as a tactic when he was post war captain, and had the personnel in Lindwall and Miller to do so.

Thank God we moved away from the "spirit" of the game, and started writing and following actual written laws, to create an actual rule of law. And thank God for the West Indies (and Australian and other sides as well), for not feeling bound by the "mores" of an amateur Era and said spirit, in order to help advance those laws.

 

[the big bambino]

There’s nothing wrong with intimidation as a tactic.

It wouldn’t be as successful now.

The WI are not being singled out.

But relying on that tactic makes a team vulnerable when the game changes and tactics don’t adapt.

Just because other teams used intimidation doesn’t mean the WI weren’t the masters at it.

This post is necessary to correct several enduring misunderstandings and I’ll quote it back to anyone who persist in making them.

Thank you for your time.

 

[kyear2]

Nothing really. Though I think it won't nearly be as effective now as it was in the pre Helmet era.

Marshall's entire career was in the helmeted era.

 

[kyear2]

What's wrong with intimidation?

Not a thing, but the post you liked, and so I assume agreed with was full of lies and misrepresentations. Almost to the point that Benaud used to spout.

Short pitched intimidation was used for years, from post war Lindwall and Miller through Lillee and Thompson. But only after the advent of helmets and we started using it, that it was a problem. We were singled out.

We were no. 1 in the world and they had to try to find ways to end it.
And they found multiple, four that I can think of immediately.

Guys like Greenidge, Richards, Garner, Marshall and many others leaned and refined their craft in England, apparently too well.

The post was ignorant and went down the path of, what was assumed to be long discredited tropes and stereotypes and was as subtle as a train. You would see it too of your ever present biased weren't showing.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Marshall's entire career was in the helmeted era.

Very early helmeted era. Like have you seen the things they were wearing back then? Here's a clip of Sachin's first 50 in 89 with a broken nose, while wearing a "helmet":

But really, I don't mean that WI bowlers would do much worse with helmet, especially the likes of Marshall and Garner; just that the intimidation tactic won't be much useful and they have to change that.

 

[kyear2]

There’s nothing wrong with intimidation as a tactic.

It wouldn’t be as successful now.

The WI are not being singled out.

But relying on that tactic makes a team vulnerable when the game changes and tactics don’t adapt.

Just because other teams used intimidation doesn’t mean the WI weren’t the masters at it.

This post is necessary to correct several enduring misunderstandings and I’ll quote it back to anyone who persist in making them.

Thank you for your time.

Thankfully I don't expect any better from you.

Yes the WI declined because they couldn't bowl bouncers.

Don't get me wrong, those were the first attempts, they weren't the last. Over rates were to reduce the viability of 4 man pace attacks. Restrictions on foreign players, smaller governments with less resources to be able to entice talented youngsters into the game, and to build an infrastructure around them.

But yeah, it was about bowling bouncers. Wonder how that impacted the batsmen, whose line has died up. Having a board with insufficient resources to pay players enough to at least consider refusing the riches of franchise cricket.

Resources and access.

 

[kyear2]

Very early helmeted era. Like have you seen the things they were wearing back then? Here's a clip of Sachin's first 50 in 89 with a broken nose, while wearing a "helmet":

But really, I don't mean that WI bowlers would do much worse with helmet, especially the likes of Marshall and Garner; just that the intimidation tactic won't be much useful and they have to change that.

I was watching film from the 84 England series, And Haynes was wearing a helmet with a grill, different players chose different options. Smith and others of late have also been felled while wearing helmets.

That aside, some of Marshall's most successful tours were from pitching up the ball and relying on swing and seam, most of their wickets were caught behind the wicket. Marshall was also one of the most cerebral of bowlers, so to portray that his effectiveness was based purely on hitting people is ludicrous.

But pace is pace, and they were fast, helmet or not, it can be intimidating. Allan Donald and the like still made batsmen jump, post helmets.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I was watching film from the 84 England series, And Haynes was wearing a helmet with a grill, different players chose different options. Smith and others of late have also been felled while wearing helmets.

That aside, some of Marshall's most successful tours were from pitching up the ball and relying on swing and seam, most of their wickets were caught behind the wicket. Marshall was also one of the most cerebral of bowlers, so to portray that his effectiveness was based purely on hitting people is ludicrous.

But pace is pace, and they were fast, helmet or not, it can be intimidating.

Firstly, it wasn't even about Marshall but the WI strategy, used previously by Australia and even before England.

Secondly, of course a good fast ball from a good spot towards the body will still be intimidating, but with helmet and proper protective gears, it will be significantly less effective. Can't see it as a viable option in the modern game.

 

[the big bambino]

Ask Bradman's bitch-ass:

"
Omission for South Africa
edit
After returning to Australia, Miller played against Bradman in a testimonial match in 1948–49. Miller bowled three consecutive bouncers at Bradman, dismissing him with the last of the short-pitched deliveries for 53.[332][333][334] Bradman was angered by Miller's bowling.[333][334] One week later, the squad to tour South Africa in the following season was announced, and Miller was omitted,[83][334] despite being ranked as the best all rounder in the world.[335] During the Australian season, which was a purely domestic one, he had scored 400 runs at 33.33 and taken 11 wickets at 24.09.[83][335] He scored one century against Queensland during the season, as well as a 99 against Victoria at the SCG.[336]
"

That + the reaction to Bodyline, when it was a perfectly legal tactic, to me are the only asterisks on Bradman's otherwise impossibly great sporting career. Made even more hypocritical by Bradman being willing to utilize short pitched intimidation as a tactic when he was post war captain, and had the personnel in Lindwall and Miller to do so.

Thank God we moved away from the "spirit" of the game, and started writing and following actual written laws, to create an actual rule of law. And thank God for the West Indies (and Australian and other sides as well), for not feeling bound by the "mores" of an amateur Era and said spirit, in order to help advance those laws.

Tbf I think that match was an instance justifying the spirit of cricket. It was a testimonial match played for enjoyment sans the hard edge of a test or first class match.

The English season ended with festival matches where players could let off steam and enjoy the game after a long season.

Bowling a series of bumpers in a match like that is a bit **** and Miller was a jerk for doing so and especially for the reason he did.

 

[the big bambino]

Thankfully I don't expect any better from you.

It might be a shock to your overwrought sense of self importance but not every comment is directed at you. Neither does anyone have to mollycoddle your fragile ego when they are.

 

[ankitj]

@trundler another thread for you