*Congratulations* Anil Kumble, highest Indian Test wicket-taker!

[marc71178]

Why should a player have to deliberately get himself out to avoid injury?

 

[Pratters]

Why should a player have to deliberately get himself out to avoid injury?

If a few bouncers bowled to tail enders would start injuring players. Many careers would have been finished by now. We do see players bowling bouncers to inept tail enders. And no one has got seriously injured in the last 8-10 years. Your fear is unwarranted.

If a player doesnt want to bat cos he cant face bouncers and is sticking on the wickets, why should he accept any avours fom the bowlers. They wont bowl him full pitched deiveries all through his inning.

 

[Richard]

no its not, as long as its not over used, the bouncer is a very effective way of getting the tailender on the back foot before setting him up for the one thats pitched up. tailenders like hoggard and gillespie are extremely good at getting their front foot forward every delivery and getting their bat behind the ball, so really on an unhelpful pitch you can bowl 200 full balls, you wont get them out.

And it's quite a while since I've seen either troubled by short-balls, incidentally...
Yes, don't start - it may be because the thing's never been done properly - but with plenty of bowlers of good (80mph+) pace bowling at both on plenty of occasions, I find it a little odd that they've never really been forced back that often then getting-out to the pitched-up stuff.
The only time I've ever seen Hoggard (since he's become a capable batsman - summer 2002) bothered by short bowling was McGrath in Australia. I've not seen Gillespie bat in pressure-cooker situations that often, but I've never seen anyone Bounce him out.

 

[Richard]

If helmets weren't around, I'd agree, but they are.

The fact is, it's part of the game and the batsmen (no matter how bad) should learn to accept it.

Helmets don't stop injury - they stop fractured skulls!
Likewise, chest-pads don't stop broken-ribs - they just stop punctured lungs.

 

[Richard]

Using one or two bouncers isnt wasting deliveries.

It is if you've only got a delivery or two when a batsman's farming the strike.

And an umpire has a chance of getting injured like a tail ender. All the straigh shots dont go directly to the umpire. Similarly all the nouncers dont hit the player. I am not being silly. Just showing the unlikelihood of one or two bouncers injuring the tail ender.

There are far, far, far, far, far less straight hits at a height to strike an Umpire at a speed he cannot react to than Bouncers bowled that shouldn't be.

 

[lord_of_darkness]

Congrats to Kumble.. he is a hardworkin man.. and has come back from a lot to get going once again .. he's back into some good rhythm and it is good to see... hope he carries on to do well with the little time he has..!

 

[Pratters]

It is if you've only got a delivery or two when a batsman's farming the strike.

There are far, far, far, far, far less straight hits at a height to strike an Umpire at a speed he cannot react to than Bouncers bowled that shouldn't be.

Yeah if a bowler just keeps bowling a barrage of bouncers it does not do good to the bowling team and so one would imagine a bowling teamcaptain is more intellegent. A few are effective though.

The hitting the umpire thing I mentioned because your point was exactly that a player COULD get hit by a bouncer and dos not have the capability of reacting to it. Similarly an umpire can indeed get hit even though there is a lesser possibility.

Its exactly why there is no rule in cricket to prevent bouncers. It has been restricted because it was used injudiciously by the Windies. Bt it has been brought back to the one day game (one bouncer an over) and surely its not as dangerous as in the past when there was absoulutely no protection for the players.

 

[marc71178]

The hitting the umpire thing I mentioned because your point was exactly that a player COULD get hit by a bouncer and dos not have the capability of reacting to it. Similarly an umpire can indeed get hit even though there is a lesser possibility.

A far far lesser possibility since the bowler isn't bouncing the umpire

 

[Tom Halsey]

Helmets don't stop injury - they stop fractured skulls!
Likewise, chest-pads don't stop broken-ribs - they just stop punctured lungs.

I've seen plenty of hits on helmets in recent years and the vast majority have gotten back pn with it.

 

[Richard]

Is that supposed to be back pain with it, or back on with it?!
Quite different meanings.
If (as I suspect) you mean the latter, yes - they got back on with it. Doesn't mean they've not had nasty injuries - Vincent and Papps are two who immidiately spring to mind who've batted with broken-ribs. There are countless batsmen who've gone on despite broken-fingers which have caused them to miss subsequent matches.
I maintain; protective-equipment is not to prevent injury, it's to prevent serious injury.

 

[Richard]

Yeah if a bowler just keeps bowling a barrage of bouncers it does not do good to the bowling team and so one would imagine a bowling teamcaptain is more intellegent. A few are effective though.

The hitting the umpire thing I mentioned because your point was exactly that a player COULD get hit by a bouncer and dos not have the capability of reacting to it. Similarly an umpire can indeed get hit even though there is a lesser possibility.

Its exactly why there is no rule in cricket to prevent bouncers. It has been restricted because it was used injudiciously by the Windies. Bt it has been brought back to the one day game (one bouncer an over) and surely its not as dangerous as in the past when there was absoulutely no protection for the players.

It's been brought back into one-day-cricket because the law-makers are strange people who are firmly of the opinion that a ball any fool can bowl (and something that's about as much a banker dot-ball as any) is a part of the one-day game.
There are conventions in Umpiring that state that bowling Bouncers at someone without the ability to defend himself should be immidiately stamped on. That was one of the things that made Dickie Bird such a fantastic Umpire - not only did he get more decisions right than most, he conducted the game in the right way.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I maintain; protective-equipment is not to prevent injury, it's to prevent serious injury.

IMO injury is part of sport, you have to learn to accept it.

 

[Richard]

It's a regrettable part that should be avoided wherever possible.

 

[Pratters]

It's a regrettable part that should be avoided wherever possible.

So a bowler shoundt bowl a few bouncers to unnerve a tail ender?
A footballer should not dive cos it may result in a foul?
Rugby should be banned?

 

[Tom Halsey]

A foul is an injury how exactly?

 

[Pratters]

It's been brought back into one-day-cricket because the law-makers are strange people who are firmly of the opinion that a ball any fool can bowl (and something that's about as much a banker dot-ball as any) is a part of the one-day game.
There are conventions in Umpiring that state that bowling Bouncers at someone without the ability to defend himself should be immidiately stamped on. That was one of the things that made Dickie Bird such a fantastic Umpire - not only did he get more decisions right than most, he conducted the game in the right way.

Thats your perspective on the one ball bouncer per over. If a bowler bowls a bouncer, it doesnt mean it will be a dot ball. The bouncer cant be above the head in the one dayers if you do not know.

Regarding the conventions of umpiring you are speaking about, I seriously doubt if some thing of such a nature exists which prevents a few bouncers bowled. Show me some conventions on umpiring regarding this if indeed they exist.

 

[Pratters]

A foul is an injury how exactly?

A foul i snot an injury. A dive may cause an injury though.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Don't see how.

 

[Pratters]

Don't see how.

Often players dive in football and it causes the other players to get injured (on whom the tackle is made). By the logic of Richard that bouncers shouldnt eb bowled to tail enders, even players should stop diving in football.

 

[Richard]

There's a reason that diving in two-footed is a straight-red offence, y'know.