Cricket stuff that doesn't deserve its own thread

[Starfighter]

They're also for getting top edges to be caught.

Retired hurt isnt a wicket

And? Not sure that's a reason the bowling side should negotiate a second innings.

Basically it boils down to substitutions are there to reduce the incentive to lie during the concussion test in order to keep playing on

 

[OverratedSanity]

it's fast bowling. retired hurt is a goal.

idk why people just don't admit what bouncers are for - hitting batsmen, and the fear of being hit causing them to do stupid things.

But it shouldnt be the goal which is the whole point here. Getting batsmen out and making them uncomfortable with intimidatory bowling should be rewarded and is. Intimidatory bowling that doesnt even lead to a legitimate dismissal and just leads to the batsman being unable to physically continue playing shouldnt count as an actual wicket (which in a no-subs rule world it effectively is).

In football, crunching physical tackles are a legitimate tactic to force opposing players to play differently which is fine, but if it leads to a broken leg, the player can be subbed out. Cricket is dumb and doesnt allow this for whatever reason. Plus, the defender is often punished even if it wasnt a malicious act. Now, do I think bowlers should be banned if they hit a batsman and he gets injured? No, but atleast we can acknowledge there's some cuplability there instead of just going "batsmen should git gud and learn to play bouncers better" like Starfighter is

 

[cnerd123]

Outside of fielding, a cricket team does not need 11 (or whatever fixed number of) players the way football/hockey/rugby/etc does.

The nature of cricket also means it's quite difficult to have like for like substitutes anyways.

Allowing sub players for game-ending external injuries is an interesting idea, provided it could be regulated properly to prevent abuse. Definitely need independent doctors and teams to announce subs for each player pre-toss.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Outside of fielding, a cricket team does not need 11 (or whatever fixed number of) players the way football/hockey/rugby/etc does.

The nature of cricket also means it's quite difficult to have like for like substitutes anyways.

Allowing sub players for game-ending external injuries is an interesting idea, provided it could be regulated properly to prevent abuse. Definitely need independent doctors and teams to announce subs for each player pre-toss.

You think so? If its a batsman (which is what we were talking about since it was a discussion about bouncers), then its a massive disadvantage having one fewer wicket/partnership to work with.

 

[Flem274*]

im for concussion subs because players will hide or try to nurse injuries during a game, and a player hiding a concussion is light years more dangerous than hiding any other injury. someone hiding an injury that could end their career if left alone is one thing, a player hiding an injury that could kill them another.

completely disagree retired hurt isn't a legit dismissal though. the bouncer exists to break men. it's just as legit as an lbw or edge to slip and a lot more legit than a wog to deep midwicket or a lofted cut to deep point.

 

[honestbharani]

The insensitivity in this thread inspite of the Phil Hughes incident is amazing, tstl.

 

[harsh.ag]

completely disagree retired hurt isn't a legit dismissal though. the bouncer exists to break men. it's just as legit as an lbw or edge to slip and a lot more legit than a wog to deep midwicket or a lofted cut to deep point.

Take a spell. Wagner love has made you forget what cricket is about

 

[Flem274*]

get off your high horses. what do you think the bouncer exists for? do you think they get bowled after a front foot slogged six as a cute little variation like some impotent offspinner varies his flight?

cricket is about fun bro, and it's fun to bounce people and i assume it's fun to hook a quick for a massive six. i wouldn't know, i love a top edge into the gap for two or more commonly wearing it.

people doing cartwheels to avoid admitting what bouncers are for because we're meant to be a gentlmanly game invented by punishing imperialist wankers with top hats and trousers is bemusing.

 

[harsh.ag]

"Get off you high horse", proceeds to climb a high horse. Take a spell.

 

[cnerd123]

You think so? If its a batsman (which is what we were talking about since it was a discussion about bouncers), then its a massive disadvantage having one fewer wicket/partnership to work with.

It's a disadvantage to have just 10 players, sure, but how big a disadvantage it is will vary with the situation and team. Realistically not all players bowl and not all will score substantial runs. Losing Chahal during a run chase is less of a drawback than losing Steyn in the first session of a test. In that sense it's different to other team sports, where it's ridiculously hard to cover for a lost player on the field. It makes more sense to allow for substitutes in other sports than it does for cricket due to that reason.

I am also of the belief that part of Test cricket is to test the durability of the players. It lasts 5 days and some players are more likely to break down than others. I think that the injuries over the course of a game or a series is part of the appeal, rather than something that detracts from the spectacle.

Wouldn't be against substitutes for game-ending injuries in limited overs cricket I guess.

 

[honestbharani]

people doing cartwheels to avoid admitting what bouncers are for because we're meant to be a gentlmanly game invented by punishing imperialist ****ers with top hats and trousers is bemusing.

Which "people" are you talking about? I dont have a problem with any team bowling bouncers but to suggest they do it only to hurt batsmen seems pretty far from the truth.

 

[cnerd123]

Take a spell. Wagner love has made you forget what cricket is about

I think I agree with Flem. At the highest level cricket has always been about courage and threat of physical harm. It's why we play with a ball that's like a rock rather than something like a tennis ball. Fast bowlers break their bodies down hurling the ball at speed, and batters occasionally have to risk theirs to protect their wicket. The fact that one sport can encompass skill, mental toughness and then physical bravery too is why cricket is special.

It might be tasteless for a bowler to revel in hurting a batsman, or to build their bowling strategies around hurting batters, but it's as legitimate a strategy as any. We've come a long way since bodyline, and ideally as time goes on the game will get even safer.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think I agree with Flem. At the highest level cricket has always been about courage and threat of physical harm. It's why we play with a ball that's like a rock rather than something like a tennis ball. Fast bowlers break their bodies down hurling the ball at speed, and batters occasionally have to risk theirs to protect their wicket. The fact that one sport can encompass skill, mental toughness and then physical bravery too is why cricket is special.

It might be tasteless for a bowler to revel in hurting a batsman, or to build their bowling strategies around hurting batters, but it's as legitimate a strategy as any. We've come a long way since bodyline, and ideally as time goes on the game will get even safer.

I think its completely unhinged of you to suggest that building bowling strategies specifically to hurt batters should be looked at as a legitimate tactic. The aim of bowling bouncers is never to actually cause injury, and if it is, then its pretty despicable. Bowling bouncers is threat of physical harm (in addition to a legitimate examination of a batsman's technique) with the hope that it leads to the batsman ****ing things up and getting himself out ... as in actually being dismissed according to what the rulebook defines as a wicket. If the actual goal in any fast bowler's mind when he's bowling is not "I want to get this guy out by giving him a working over and screwing up his footwork and confidence" and is instead ,like you're suggesting, "I hope this ball hits the guy bad enough that he's physically unable to continue", then it is supremely ****ed up. And I honestly think you'd be hard pressed to find any bowlers who actually think that.

Also to @Starfighter 's point that if an injured batsman getting substituted is unfair on the bowling team because they need to deal with a new batsman's innings, I dont think its unfair. If anything they're now getting to bowl to a batsman new at the crease instead of one who, let's assume in this case, was well set. And whose wicket wasnt actually taken.

 

[cnerd123]

I agree with you that bowling to hurt batters a tasteless tactic, but it's clearly a legitimate one. It was the whole thought process behind Bodyline. The laws and playing conditions have since been altered to neuter this tactic, and modern day cricketers don't really attempt it, but that doesn't mean it's illegitimate.

Even if you aren't sending back a player retired hurt, you are softening them up by having them cop a few blows. It doesn't have to be bouncers at the head - you can accomplish it by bowling short balls at the hands and chest, yorkers at the toes, or even bowling at the legs if a batter isn't wearing a thigh guard. The strategy of dismissing a batsman by means of causing them pain has been a part of cricket forever.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Can a batsman try to harm a bowler by hitting it straight back at him?

I mean strategy.

 

[OverratedSanity]

As an aside, what exactly is the problem with just having subs as a tactic in tests? We agree that its fine for certain injuries, but why not just have a set number , say 3, available for use even for non injury situations. You're all saying physical endurance is a part of the game (although I'd argue it barely contributes to the actual viewing pleasure of a test match experience), which is fine, but imo cricket is probably missing out by not giving teams the flexibility to switch things around if things arent working. I think it could make for a far more fun and potentially higher quality sport if they were an accepted part of cricket and teams were given the opportunity to bring on a super sub if one of their starting XI is stinking things up.

Just give everyone 3 subs to use as they fit across the 5 days, regardless of the like for like thing imo. If you want to change team composition, so be it. Want to rest one of your bowlers after a gruelling two days in the field and sub in a batsman, yeah why not? I think the downside of some of the players not being tested on all aspects of the game fully is massively outweighed by a potentially more interesting game to follow, good players on the verge of breaking down being given rest so they can actually play more games later leading to an overall higher level of quality.

Physical endurance is probably the single least interesting thing that test cricket actually tests.

 

[Victor Ian]

If you know the action you take has the possibility of inflicting mortal danger, how can you 'not mean' to hurt the other player, except by delusion. This is like driving your car at excessive speeds down the roads. "I'm sorry officer - I didn't mean to run over Granny. I thought she would get out of the way".

I accept bouncers being part of the game, but I think those trying to say bowlers are not trying to hurt the players are playing with words. There is no intimidation factor at all, if there is no real possibility of being hurt.

 

[harsh.ag]

I agree with you that bowling to hurt batters a tasteless tactic, but it's clearly a legitimate one. It was the whole thought process behind Bodyline. The laws and playing conditions have since been altered to neuter this tactic, and modern day cricketers don't really attempt it, but that doesn't mean it's illegitimate.

Even if you aren't sending back a player retired hurt, you are softening them up by having them cop a few blows. It doesn't have to be bouncers at the head - you can accomplish it by bowling short balls at the hands and chest, yorkers at the toes, or even bowling at the legs if a batter isn't wearing a thigh guard. The strategy of dismissing a batsman by means of causing them pain has been a part of cricket forever.

Don't think I or OS would disagree with you if you bring the degree of hurt to a lesser level because there is clearly a lot of nuance here. But the discussion was centered around concussions and any bowling tactic harbouring intent towards that is not legitimate and should definitely not be rewarded if the concussion does happen.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

If you know the action you take has the possibility of inflicting mortal danger, how can you 'not mean' to hurt the other player, except by delusion. This is like driving your car at excessive speeds down the roads. "I'm sorry officer - I didn't mean to run over Granny. I thought she would get out of the way".

I accept bouncers being part of the game, but I think those trying to say bowlers are not trying to hurt the players are playing with words. There is no intimidation factor at all, if there is no real possibility of being hurt.

If a batsman’s weakness is against the short ball...bowlers will attempt to pepper him with short balls. That’s strategy...and it does come with the knowledge that that plan might inflict harm to the batsman.

 

[Engle]

When Andy Roberts was asked why they peppered Brian Close with bouncers, his response was " If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen ".