Could Jeff Thomson have been the greatest?

[vic_orthdox]

Humilation only comes with backing away.

 

[Goughy]

So uhh a batsman getting battered and bruised in the entire torso ( Close + his partner took atleast 30 balls on the body-most of them not bouncers but 'rib ticklers') and avoiding certain decapitation repeatedly at the last moment is not humiliation ?!?

Close took many balls on the body as he did not want to get out. Rather than play balls he got hit or took evasive action.

It is generally a very highly regarded innings and not prone to being described as humiliation.

Taking everything thrown at you and still being there is something to be proud of rather than have it denegrated.

 

[archie mac]

If you saw the spell, you'd realise that Holding, Dereyck Murray and the first slip were smiling the whole time. Holding's plan was not to out the batsman then ( as Holding himself admitted later on and Lloyd said about that match) but to hurt them. It was 'pace like fire' philosophy at its nascent stages in the windies team of that time. It is definite distortion to say Holding got increasingly frustrated coz he couldnt out Close - he was toying with Close and that was the plan all along ! When you are bowling perfume balls after perfume balls and bouncers after bouncers that the batsman is copping on his body, it isnt about outing the batsman-its about humiliating him.
Nobody said the bowler has to out the batsman as soon as he can, particularly if he's got all the time in the world to play with and the batsmen cant score off of him but keep taking body blows. Actually,that is one of the scenarios every fast bowler enjoys in his heart and i dont see it as a battle lost.

Bowling bouncers at middle age men (not wearning helmets), not to get them out but to hurt them? Even the bodyline bowlers were trying to get the batsman out.

The Windies and Holding in particular are losing my respect, each time you post on this subject.

 

[C_C]

Close took many balls on the body as he did not want to get out. Rather than play balls he got hit or took evasive action.

False.
Closey simply wasnt good enough or quick enough that day. Many a time he copped it on the hips and legs, he was back,on his toes and attempting a defensive prod but the ball was too quick for him.
A few on the chest he copped was when he tried to pull the ball but got beaten for pace.

Taking everything thrown at you and still being there is something to be proud of rather than have it denegrated.

Not when you are a bloody mass of bruises and the plan of the opposition was to hurt you in the first place.
I honestly dont see how it was anything more than humiliation for Close and his partner- repeatedly copping blows after blows, jerking their heads away at the last possible instant to bouncers and repeatedly attempting a stroke and getting beaten for pace. If that isnt humiliation, if that isnt as obvious a message of 'you arnt good enough', i dunno what is.
You aer distorting the picture by trying to potray it like Close hung on heroically- if you wanna see that,see Gooch's innings in the late 80s/early 90s vs WI or a couple of Mohinder Amarnath innings. Thats what hanging on heroically is like- you cop a few and you smash a few. Close was completely out of his depth that day and nothing he tried was good enough. Holding could've got him anytime he wanted- which he did next day by just pitching the ball full and fast( After Lloyd told him that enough is enough-England has been bruised enough,its time to pick up the wickets). What Holding was doing there was toying with Close and his partner. Repeatedly reminding them that they arnt good enough to be out there and that display is one of the most humiliating ever i've seen for a batsman.

 

[C_C]

Bowling bouncers at middle age men (not wearning helmets), not to get them out but to hurt them? Even the bodyline bowlers were trying to get the batsman out.

The Windies and Holding in particular are losing my respect, each time you post on this subject.

Nothing different than what Lillee and Thommo did- it doesnt take a genius to figure out that if you are bowling perfume balls and rib ticklers while having the offside packed, its not about getting the batsman out but about hurting him. thats what Lillee and Thommo did too. only difference is that Lloyd and Holding were honest about it when asked and openly said what they were intending to do, instead of lying through their teeth. Yeah, Lillee and Thommo were trying to 'out the batsmen' in the 74-76 period when they were bowling like the wind aiming at the batsman's body with the offside packed. If they said that or claim that, they must think cricket fans are idiots.
It is nothing different than what pacers worldwide did back in those days- only difference is that West Indies were the only team to field three, sometimes four alltime great bowlers and did it better than anybody out there. If anything, i respect Holding and Lloyd more because they were honest about it, instead of conviniently saying the same old tired spiel ( we wernt trying to hurt him, we were trying to out him) like so many others did and still do- which, if anyone had watched the matches in question would know is nothing more than a categoric lie and a puss-out.

 

[marc71178]

What's the problem with high speed cameras not been at least as accurate as radar guns?

Because technology has moved on a tad since that day?

 

[marc71178]

Definite slant to Bill Frindall's commentary there.

Says the person who reckons Close was "humiliated"...

 

[C_C]

Says the person who reckons Close was "humiliated"...

As i said, repeatedly copping it on the body while trying to play a shot because you are too slow is humiliation.

 

[marc71178]

And you could say it another 100 times, it wouldn't make it any more true.

 

[C_C]

And you could say it another 100 times, it wouldn't make it any more true.

And you can say that a 100 times but it still wont change the fact that its humiliating when you are caught totally out of your depth.

 

[archie mac]

Nothing different than what Lillee and Thommo did- it doesnt take a genius to figure out that if you are bowling perfume balls and rib ticklers while having the offside packed, its not about getting the batsman out but about hurting him. thats what Lillee and Thommo did too. only difference is that Lloyd and Holding were honest about it when asked and openly said what they were intending to do, instead of lying through their teeth. Yeah, Lillee and Thommo were trying to 'out the batsmen' in the 74-76 period when they were bowling like the wind aiming at the batsman's body with the offside packed. If they said that or claim that, they must think cricket fans are idiots.
It is nothing different than what pacers worldwide did back in those days- only difference is that West Indies were the only team to field three, sometimes four alltime great bowlers and did it better than anybody out there. If anything, i respect Holding and Lloyd more because they were honest about it, instead of conviniently saying the same old tired spiel ( we wernt trying to hurt him, we were trying to out him) like so many others did and still do- which, if anyone had watched the matches in question would know is nothing more than a categoric lie and a puss-out.

Bowling a couple of good bouncers to soften a good batsman up, and then bowling a yorker or away swinger to take the batsman's wicket, now that is legitimate fast bowling tactics.

But just trying to hurt batsman for the sake of it, when you could dismiss them at any time that is a disgrace. The reason the Aussies do not admit to that (apart from the fact that it is not true), because that would be considered cowardly in this country (and most others I would think)

 

[C_C]

But just trying to hurt batsman for the sake of it, when you could dismiss them at any time that is a disgrace. The reason the Aussies do not admit to that (apart from the fact that it is not true), because that would be considered cowardly in this country (and most others I would think)

You mean to say, that when Australia had Lillee and Thommo or even Hogg as their pacers, they didnt bowl just for the sake of hitting batsmen ? This, in favour of a guy who openly said that he enjoys the sight of blood on pitches ? Look- nobody is saying that fast bowlers are mean or badass people - i used to be that in my teens myself btw- but in the days before bouncer limits went into effect, almost every quality fast bowler went out in the middle with the intention of hitting the batsmen black and blue if they could get away with it.
Infact, some of the most feroucious counterratacking innings by Rohan Kanhai or Alvin Kallicharan and Roy Fredericks were precisely this sort of tactic misfiring famously.
So much so that there figures were transformed into overnight legends. There was no difference in the way Holding bowled to Close or the way Lillee bowled to an aeging Sobers. Only difference is, Close couldnt counter it at all and Holding's bowling was particularly vicious that day. He was bowling fast enough to extract vicious bounce from the pitch even when pitching full ( as a result Close was a mass of bruises around the Hip area and limping at one point - the balls were legit good length inswinging deliveries -the sort you either block on the backfoot or pull- only thing is close wasnt good enough in front of Holding's searing pace.
The reason i mentioned Holding is because i consider him, atleast consistently over his career, one of the fastest and greatest bowlers of them all and his spell to Close was of an extremely high callibre- something he's replicated more often (and at Batsmen's terror) than anyone else in my opinion.
This is the last i gotto say on this topic.

 

[archie mac]

You mean to say, that when Australia had Lillee and Thommo or even Hogg as their pacers, they didnt bowl just for the sake of hitting batsmen ? This, in favour of a guy who openly said that he enjoys the sight of blood on pitches ? Look- nobody is saying that fast bowlers are mean or badass people - i used to be that in my teens myself btw- but in the days before bouncer limits went into effect, almost every quality fast bowler went out in the middle with the intention of hitting the batsmen black and blue if they could get away with it.
Infact, some of the most feroucious counterratacking innings by Rohan Kanhai or Alvin Kallicharan and Roy Fredericks were precisely this sort of tactic misfiring famously.
So much so that there figures were transformed into overnight legends. There was no difference in the way Holding bowled to Close or the way Lillee bowled to an aeging Sobers. Only difference is, Close couldnt counter it at all and Holding's bowling was particularly vicious that day. He was bowling fast enough to extract vicious bounce from the pitch even when pitching full ( as a result Close was a mass of bruises around the Hip area and limping at one point - the balls were legit good length inswinging deliveries -the sort you either block on the backfoot or pull- only thing is close wasnt good enough in front of Holding's searing pace.
The reason i mentioned Holding is because i consider him, atleast consistently over his career, one of the fastest and greatest bowlers of them all and his spell to Close was of an extremely high callibre- something he's replicated more often (and at Batsmen's terror) than anyone else in my opinion.
This is the last i gotto say on this topic.

It's not the same, if Lillee new he could dismiss Kalli first ball with a yorker he would not bother with a bouncer. Lillee wanted to first and formost dismiss the batsman. If that involved bowling a few bouncers (or a lot) then that was okay. You are saying that all Holding wanted to do was hurt the batsman, and could not care about getting him out; in fact did not want to get him out.

A huge difference in my opinion, and a disgrace if that was what they (WI) were trying to achieve. I have not read Holding's account of events so I will not label him a coward but if what you say is true, then that is what he is/was.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

This clip has some footage from around the 5 minute mark to 8:20 or so from the Holding spell to Close. He is quite clearly taking evasive action and merely attempting to survive, rather than attempting to hit the ball and failing. Either way, I figure it was worth linking since a few people here said they hadn't seen it.

 

[C_C]

You are saying that all Holding wanted to do was hurt the batsman, and could not care about getting him out; in fact did not want to get him out.

This is the last i am commenting on this : What i am saying is that every pacer in the pre-bouncer rule era bowled every now and then with the intent to hurt the batsman. Lillee, Thommo, Holding, Marshall, everybody. Its ludicrous to pretend otherwise and sometimes people have copped some really nasty blows- regardless of which nation the pacer came from- simply because the pacer wanted to hurt them.
I dont think you can vouch for Lillee's character but as i said- being a fast bowler, i understand the mentality and i've seen enough to know that to be true and no amount of revisionist vouching or backtracking will change that.
By your definition, every fast bowler worth his salt in the pre-bouncer rule era was a coward and well if you think that, i have no problems with it. But its false to think otherwise and very far from reality. I can give you some matches- spread over enough nations to make it a general fast bowler's mentality of the old- where the bowler bowled with the intent of hurting the batsman. It was not uncommon for Lillee and Thommo to bounce west indies tailenders for example before they started getting some of the same treatment-only better due to better firepower available to the windies. When a bowler bowls repeatedly at your body and you are beaten for pace, all he's gotto do is slide in a yorker and you'll be a goner. Yet, the really fast men ALL have a match or two in their record where they bowled continuously into the body, solely for the intent of injuring. As i said, it happened-no point in pretending it didnt. Oh and by the way- i dont feel sorry for the batsmen either who are a mass of bruises. if they arnt good enough to combat the pace, they shouldnt be out there. That was and still is my motto. End of story.

PS: Faaip- there is another video out loose in torrents- showing much more of that match - several times Close was on the backfoot trying to defend yet missing the ball because he wasnt quick enough. Thats not taking evasive action or any sort of bravery-its simply a case of not being good enough or quick enough and a fast bowler mercilessly exposing the shortcomming-both for a psychological victory against the batsman for the next several encounters as well as psychological victory against the opposition team. I can refer you to matches where Thommo did the same, Lillee did the same, Marshall, Trueman, etc etc.

 

[archie mac]

This is the last i am commenting on this : What i am saying is that every pacer in the pre-bouncer rule era bowled every now and then with the intent to hurt the batsman. Lillee, Thommo, Holding, Marshall, everybody. Its ludicrous to pretend otherwise and sometimes people have copped some really nasty blows- regardless of which nation the pacer came from- simply because the pacer wanted to hurt them.
I dont think you can vouch for Lillee's character but as i said- being a fast bowler, i understand the mentality and i've seen enough to know that to be true and no amount of revisionist vouching or backtracking will change that.
By your definition, every fast bowler worth his salt in the pre-bouncer rule era was a coward and well if you think that, i have no problems with it. But its false to think otherwise and very far from reality. I can give you some matches- spread over enough nations to make it a general fast bowler's mentality of the old- where the bowler bowled with the intent of hurting the batsman. It was not uncommon for Lillee and Thommo to bounce west indies tailenders for example before they started getting some of the same treatment-only better due to better firepower available to the windies. When a bowler bowls repeatedly at your body and you are beaten for pace, all he's gotto do is slide in a yorker and you'll be a goner. Yet, the really fast men ALL have a match or two in their record where they bowled continuously into the body, solely for the intent of injuring. As i said, it happened-no point in pretending it didnt.

You seem to be missing the point I am not saying fast bowlers Lillee included did not try and hurt batsman. What I am saying is that they tried to hurt batsman, so that on the next ball (or maybe a few after that) they would not get into line and therefore be easier to dismiss.

The difference with your point is that Holding was not trying to soften up the batsman to then get him out, he was just trying to hurt him for the sake of hurting him. A big difference in my opinion. And a cowardly act.

 

[archie mac]

This clip has some footage from around the 5 minute mark to 8:20 or so from the Holding spell to Close. He is quite clearly taking evasive action and merely attempting to survive, rather than attempting to hit the ball and failing. Either way, I figure it was worth linking since a few people here said they hadn't seen it.

Thanks for that, just confirms him as one of the bravest men to ever pick up a bat. His bio says it all "I don't bruise easily"

 

[Son Of Coco]

170kph is over 105 mph. Thats faster than the fastest baseball delivery every bowled. That is extremely hard to believe.

Note: I am not disputing that he was fast, by all accounts he was probably the fastest ever. But 105mph is a bit over the top. I would say he might have bowled 155kph consistently, which is unbelievably fast.

I've heard reports from a few people he would have been over 160kph (one of them was Thommo himself though)...my old coach used to umpire state games and said he was ridiculously quick (even though it's impossible to estimate with the naked eye).

 

[Son Of Coco]

160 kph at his fastest, and routinely 145+kph is a believable number and one I have no problem with. 170kph is not believable.[/QUOTE
They weren't clocked every ball like they are now though. I think Thommo was tested at the WACA along with some other bowlers and he bowled with little warm up.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Humilation only comes with backing away.

or crying