Bouncers in the old days

[Richard]

Subba Row would probably be the first British Indian to play cricket for England.

I forgot about him. His career is so anonymous, despite the fact he was a damn good batsman.

I wonder what his story is.

 

[Matt79]

I think you're referring to Sandeep Patil in 1980-81, though he was actually Indian - got clocked by both Hogg and Pascoe IIRC and collapsed, only to come out and bat again in the second innings.

Sounds right. Don't know why I thought he was playing for England.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I swear a young Bangladeshi kid died after getting hit in the head 5-6 years ago.

 

[silentstriker]

I think that was in the field though, not as a batsman.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Didn't Roland Butcher die after being hit in the head?

Edit: Roalnd will be disappointed to read that, no doubt. Apparently he was clocked in the eye which threatened his career.

There was a kid playing in the Riverina about 3-4 years ago who was about 19 - got hit in the chest, apparently just in the wrong spot and at the right moment of his heart beat cycle - killed him.

As to the question - I don't buy that the bowlers were that much slower up to the late 70s than they are now. There were probably, in some eras, a greater number of juicy pitches, but of the ball misbehaves from a length and hits you, well it's not really a bouncer that's done the damage, is it?

I just think that batsmen now take bowlers on more often, in the (more than likely subconscious) knowledge that their helmet will protect them most of the time.

I remember hearing about that actually. It was on the news.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I think that was in the field though, not as a batsman.

Oh yeah, as a short leg I think, I remember.

Recognise my sig, Manan?

 

[silentstriker]

Haha, nerd.

Euron Greyjoy.

 

[bagapath]

Plenty of batsmen pull. There are very few who hook these days.

yup. thats what i think, too

 

[Furball]

Plenty of batsmen pull. There are very few who hook these days.

Genuine question - what's the technical difference between the strokes?

 

[Evermind]

BBC SPORT | Cricket | Skills | The hook shot

 

[Richard]

Genuine question - what's the technical difference between the strokes?

There's a few different definitions around but I've generally just said the hook is to a ball above shoulder height, the pull to one at or below it.

Some say it's to do with where it goes - behind or in front of square; some say it's whether it goes up or horizontal. I guess no-one ever offered a concrete definition until it was too late.

Mostly you just get the two bundled together - I've never heard anyone say "he pulls well but his hook is dubious", it's always "he's really strong on the pull and hook" or "he doesn't hook and pull much so a bouncer is always a dot-ball".

 

[Richard]

I swear a young Bangladeshi kid died after getting hit in the head 5-6 years ago.

I think that was in the field though, not as a batsman.

Oh yeah, as a short leg I think, I remember.

Not sure you're not blurring together the cases of Manjural Islam Rana (a young Bangladeshi who died in a car-crash in 2007) and Raman Lamba (an Indian who switched allegiance to Bangladesh who was killed after being hit on the head at short-leg in 1998).

I know of absolutely no young Bangladeshi, playing at a particularly notable level, who was killed by a blow from a ball.

 

[Goughy]

There's a few different definitions around but I've generally just said the hook is to a ball above shoulder height, the pull to one at or below it.

Some say it's to do with where it goes - behind or in front of square; some say it's whether it goes up or horizontal. I guess no-one ever offered a concrete definition until it was too late.

Mostly you just get the two bundled together - I've never heard anyone say "he pulls well but his hook is dubious", it's always "he's really strong on the pull and hook" or "he doesn't hook and pull much so a bouncer is always a dot-ball".

They are two completely different shots with different technique. It is pretty concrete.

A simple overview would be:

A hook shot has the batsman getting completely inside the line of the ball. Ie the ball is going to pass behind them.

The pull shot take the ball from off the body ie the batsman would likely get hit if they missed the ball.

 

[bagapath]

to add to what goughy has written, the hook is played when the ball has almost passed the right handed batsman's left shoulder (and vice versa). usually this shot comes into play when the bounce is more than shoulder height and it is almost always hit behind square. mohinder amarnath, a great exponent of the shot, used to tell himself hundreds of time everyday "right, duck; left, hook" even when he is not batting. the meaning being if the ball bounces towards his right eye he should leave it or duck underneath it; whereas if it bounces towards his left eye he should hook it.

the pull is played a fraction before the ball reaches the batter, that is when the ball is in front of him. the resultant hit could go anywhere between square leg and mid wicket. it is usually employed when the bounce is less than shoulder height. both are different shots.

i see the hook shot played very rarely these days. the reasons being the limited use of bouncers, lack of bouncy wickets, good protective gear and a safety first attitude taught at the junior level which discourages the youngsters from playing the risky hook shot frequently. i dont even know who are the best hookers (i am going to resist the obvious joke) in international cricket right now. the last one i can remember was aravinda de silva. there are plenty of regular pullers though. sehwag, for example, is a great puller but he cant hook to save his life.

 

[zaremba]

The hook and the pull are pretty much the same shot but the hook is played to a ball above shoulder level, the pull below it. Regardless of the line of the ball.

Maybe I'm being oversimplistic and obviously there will be technical differences between the shots if you want to play them well (as Goughy and bagapath have described). But quite simply you'll never see a pull above shoulder height nor a hook below it.

So I find myself in agreement with Richard, which does happen from time to time.

 

[stumpski]

Agree with that, but also agree that the hook tends to go behind square and the pull (played a fraction earlier?) in front.

This question was posed on TMS's 'Call the commentators' slot a year or two back and that's pretty much what they said.

 

[bagapath]

Maybe I'm being oversimplistic and obviously there will be technical differences between the shots if you want to play them well (as Goughy and bagapath have described). But quite simply you'll never see a pull above shoulder height nor a hook below it.

I am sure you mean the height of the bouncing ball when you mention shoulder height and not the hook shot itself which need not always be airborne and could be played below shoulder height. it is possible to hook (a ball bouncing higher than shoulder) and still keep it flatter and closer to the ground. kapil dev was one of the best in rolling his wrists while hooking bouncers, effectively making sure the ball hit the ground before it crossed the square leg umpire (or backward square leg fieldsman) thus denying deep square leg and deep fine leg any opportunity of catching it. it is all about rotating your hips and wrists to the fullest but controlling the bat swing and turning the bat face down at the point of contact with the ball whizzing close to your eye. it is comparatively easier to do it to slightly slower bowlers. doing this to express fast bowlers like holding, marshall or akhthar would need lightning footwork and wrists of steel.

PS: When I was 14 I top edged a hook and had a black left eye for three weeks. the few times i connected the shot are still some of the proudest moments of my childhood, though

 

[JimmyGS]

Plenty of batsmen pull. There are very few who hook these days.

Probably at least as much caused by bowlers bowling less genuinely short (head height) deliveries than in the past.

Pietersen, Ponting, Guptill are a few off the top of my head who play the hook shot regularly.

 

[JimmyGS]

I think you need to understand the difference between pull and hook.

Hook shot over shoulder height, pull shot under shoulder height. **** that was hard.

Pietersen hardly ever has to hook the ball considering his gargantuan height. He plays the pull well though.

So in the Ashes when he hit a couple of sixes off his nose off Brett Lee they were actually pull shots? Do help me to understand your logic.

So if your tall then you never get balls at head height. I speak from personal experience when I say that that's just flat out not true.

Guppy again whatever little we have seen of him suggests he is a good puller.

Don't bunch us together on that one mate, I've seen a hell of a lot of him and I'm telling you he's a good hooker and puller. It's not a debate. Ask the Indian pace bowlers if you don't believe me.

 

[bagapath]

I wonder what would be the attributes needed by a batsman to dominate good short pitch bowling. i dont know why some good batsmen did well against short pitch bowling and some failed.

the best players of short pitch bowling are a mixed bunch;
technical masters like gavaskar and greenidge. instinctive attackers like de silva, botham, kapil, pietersen. all round aggressors like tendulkar, lara and inzamam (an awesome player of quality pace bowling). and defensive bores like amarnath, shastri and boycott. all were successful against high quality, fast, short pitched bowling. some stylish wizards like viswanath and waugh also handled short pitched bowling well. a few notable names who struggled against bouncers were azharuddin, zaheer abbas and ganguly.

someone who understands batting technique better can explain to us why some good batsmen were crap against this type of bowling.