***Official*** 4th Test at the MCG

[Burgey]

Yeah fair point that.

 

[stephen]

Yep. Probably the most regrettable targeting of a tail ender until Barry Knight bowled a Beamer to Jeff Thomson in grade cricket in 1972.

I don’t have an issue with a bit of short stuff at tail enders, but where do you draw the line is the tough question to answer. Lee to Tudor in Perth was a disgrace, but I suppose the fielding team would say the bloke has a test 90. Same with Broad I guess - he has a test 160, but he looks clueless nowadays.

Just read the wisden article on the Thompson/Knight thing. Now THAT was dangerous bowling. I can't believe no one was killed in those pre-helmet days.

 

[TheJediBrah]

They weren’t bowling 4 or 5 bouncers an over.

Really? I just assumed since people are make such a big deal about it

Yep. Probably the most regrettable targeting of a tail ender until Barry Knight bowled a Beamer to Jeff Thomson in grade cricket in 1972.

I don’t have an issue with a bit of short stuff at tail enders, but where do you draw the line is the tough question to answer. Lee to Tudor in Perth was a disgrace, but I suppose the fielding team would say the bloke has a test 90. Same with Broad I guess - he has a test 160, but he looks clueless nowadays.

How on earth do you figure that? Because he happened to get hit and retire hurt? Otherwise it's no different from anyone getting bouncers bowled to them.

Tudor batted in the middle order in First-class cricket even. Weird from you

 

[Burgey]

Because it became apparent pretty early in that innings he wasn’t up to it. He was treading on square leg’s toes time after time and lee just kept following him with short stuff until he hit him when all three stumps were open to hit. It was designed to do nothing else but hit him and hurt him rather than get him out.

 

[Spark]

Yeah I've been a bit uncomfortable with the stuff to Broad in this regard, particularly when it's so clear that you're an even money chance of knocking him over just by aiming at the base of leg peg.

 

[Starfighter]

Yeah I've been a bit uncomfortable with the stuff to Broad in this regard, particularly when it's so clear that you're an even money chance of knocking him over just by aiming at the base of leg peg.

This is what gets me. It's so obvious that Broad is vulnerable to a good yorker and that they could save themselves a lot of time. But they prefer the macho approach.

 

[wpdavid]

Tudor batted in the middle order in First-class cricket even.

I'm pretty sure he didn't. Probably number 9 or 10 for Surrey at that stage of his career. Maybe batted a bit higher when he was older, but that's irrelevant unless Lee was remarkably prescient.

 

[Starfighter]

Just unintentionally watching the news (someone else is in my presence) and saw Starc say about their bowling 'it's professional sport, we dish it out and we expect to get it back'. But there's no way we would have taken the short ball tactic as far if the opposition had bowlers of similar or greater pace and ability. Yes Cummins can handle a bat although I feel Starc would be vulnerable but Haze would be in trouble. The fact is we don't really expect to get it back in a threatening manner, so we can get away with it.

 

[Gnske]

Also, don't bowl yorkers to tall dudes because they can't reach and they might break their little toes.

 

[TNT]

Yeah I've been a bit uncomfortable with the stuff to Broad in this regard, particularly when it's so clear that you're an even money chance of knocking him over just by aiming at the base of leg peg.

But its more than just taking his wicket, cricket is 50% mental and Australia are shaking their confidence, making them uncomfortable and asserting their dominance. This not about getting Broads wicket its about taking him out of the match and giving Australia the edge over him.

 

[Compton]

Can we get away from the rhetoric that people are trying to injure other players? Clearly that’s not what short bowling is in 2017.

It’s about invoking fear/uncertainty in your opponent, scramble their head so they get themselves out by staying on the back foot.

 

[Compton]

Plus Stuart Broad has 11 50s, a ton, and a batting average over 20.

We can’t seriously be discussing limiting the lengths you can bowl to a player with those stats?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Also, don't bowl yorkers to tall dudes because they can't reach and they might break their little toes.

And don't bowl with too much swing or seam movement because when they get out it makes them sad, and make sure you give them a few bad balls so they can score some runs and feel good about themselves

 

[fredfertang]

Just unintentionally watching the news (someone else is in my presence) and saw Starc say about their bowling 'it's professional sport, we dish it out and we expect to get it back'. But there's no way we would have taken the short ball tactic as far if the opposition had bowlers of similar or greater pace and ability. Yes Cummins can handle a bat although I feel Starc would be vulnerable but Haze would be in trouble. The fact is we don't really expect to get it back in a threatening manner, so we can get away with it.

Always been the way - only time I can immediately recall when two sides had genuinely fast men was West Indies and Pakistan in the late 80s/early 90s - might be wrong but I don't recall any controversy about the bouncer being overdone then

 

[wpdavid]

I read somewhere that Tom Curran is likely to be picked for this test.

 

[anaksr]

"When you consider they have won all three tosses, lost by 10 wickets in Brisbane, everything that could have gone their way in Adelaide went their way and they lost by 120-odd runs and then an innings and 40 runs in the next Test. They have been completely blown away and blown off the park. Unless you can find some drastic ways to get better, I'm not sure how they are going to improve." Quote: Pointing

Ref:-http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21852852/england-need-little-boy-joe-root-step-ricky-ponting

So true. Can't agree more.

 

[Debris]

Just unintentionally watching the news (someone else is in my presence) and saw Starc say about their bowling 'it's professional sport, we dish it out and we expect to get it back'. But there's no way we would have taken the short ball tactic as far if the opposition had bowlers of similar or greater pace and ability. Yes Cummins can handle a bat although I feel Starc would be vulnerable but Haze would be in trouble. The fact is we don't really expect to get it back in a threatening manner, so we can get away with it.

Your memory is being a bit selective here. You need to go back and watch Glenn McGrath against the West Indies in 94/95. There was no holding back due to opposition having bowlers of similar or greater pace and ability and I don't think anyone is claiming McGrath is a great batsman. The Australian bowlers (and SA bowlers) were also not shy about bowling bouncers last time SA was here.

 

[SteveNZ]

This is what gets me. It's so obvious that Broad is vulnerable to a good yorker and that they could save themselves a lot of time. But they prefer the macho approach.

Yeah, this. I get it - if you're Australian and involved in cricket, you have to adhere to the company policy of jingoistic support and sycophancy, embarrassingly personal sledging and unnecessary short bowling. Otherwise you're un-Australian or whatever, or you get called a nancy.

But the ball to Anderson first nut was dick swinging of the highest order, completely unrequired. Yes, the argument is it's a big man's game and Anderson has played 10+ years of international cricket so should be able to defend himself. It was just a bit piss weak, the opposite of what I bet Cummins thought it was.

 

[Starfighter]

In other news Starc's missing out on yet another Boxing Day test. Dissappointing for him but that heel has been the source of all his problems and aggravating it could be serious again, so it's best he lets it heal properly.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, this. I get it - if you're Australian and involved in cricket, you have to adhere to the company policy of jingoistic support and sycophancy, embarrassingly personal sledging and unnecessary short bowling. Otherwise you're un-Australian or whatever, or you get called a nancy.

But the ball to Anderson first nut was dick swinging of the highest order, completely unrequired. Yes, the argument is it's a big man's game and Anderson has played 10+ years of international cricket so should be able to defend himself. It was just a bit piss weak, the opposite of what I bet Cummins thought it was.

Bah. Bowling a bouncer first up is fine. Bowling three or four in a row is a dick move