*Official* Ashes Series Thread

[Anil]

Originally posted by Neil Pickup
Interesting how bowling short ones at useless batsmen in a dead match in a dead series is fine, but it's totally wrong to bowl short at the best in the world in a very live series is alright.

Larwood & Voce.

No comparison for several reasons:

1. Two totally different eras. Different codes of conduct and different degrees of professionalism.

2. In those days, there was very little protection for batsmen(helmets, guards...) and the pitches were uncovered and often underprepared.

3. Bouncers are restricted by rule in modern cricket, but it was not so then.

 

[royGilchrist]

from Neil...
Interesting how bowling short ones at useless batsmen in a dead match in a dead series is fine, but it's totally wrong to bowl short at the best in the world in a very live series is alright.

Larwood & Voce.

Jeez you guys are really bitter aren't you! This is no comparison. First of all what Lee did, every fast bowler who could bowl fast enough, has done at some point in his career. Bowling a bouncer to late order batsmen. Harmison if he is a total tailender than its kind of wrong to bounce him, but still if he was bouncing lee than he should not accept anything less in return. Wi greats used to get a bit of that stuff all the time.

What Larwood did was totally different. The tactic for the whole series was to not bowl at the stumps but at the body, with everyone on the leg side.

 

[Top_Cat]

Looking at Bodyline objectively, it was tactical genius. It was a hard, professional tactic and most importantly, it worked. The other advantage is that I'm sure Jardine knew the Aussies would be so indignant about it that they'd forget to actually play the game. Needless to say, he was absolutely correct.

What I found amazing is the indignation. It was like it was impossible to score against the leg theory field on the leg-side. Well Stan McCabe's 187* in the first Test with plenty of on-side shots put the theory to rest. But the rest of the Aussie batsmen were so caught up in the 'unsportsmanlike' thing that they forgot to think, "Hey, how can we combat this?".

Like every other tactic, there were ways around it. The Aussie batsmen just didn't look hard enough.

You've also got to give credit where credit is due; Jardine DID score a ton against a team (the WI) who emulated the tactic. That's gutsy.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Originally posted by royGilchrist
Jeez you guys are really bitter aren't you! This is no comparison. First of all what Lee did, every fast bowler who could bowl fast enough, has done at some point in his career...

Fun playing Devil's Advocate, innit?

 

[royGilchrist]

Yeh as a tactic it was brilliant and I guess the same unsportamanlike arguments fits to this as well, everything is fair in cricket as long as its not illegal according to the laws of the game.

Which reminds me, spinners have done this over the years in ODI, most notably Roger Harper, to take a leg side field and then bowl deliveries coming into the batsman, the reverse swep was invented in the process of countering this I think. Not dangerous to the batsman but still the same principle, stopping them from scoring.

So yeh, I agree with you TC, its all fair as long as it works.

Although I still maintain, comparing bodyline with Lee's bouncer is outrageous.

 

[royGilchrist]

Fun playing Devil's Advocate, innit?

Well, that too

Didint bradman still end up scoring at an average of well over 50, with a double century or something. I guess it was still a triumph for Jardine and co.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well if you had an opposing batsman averaging 112 at the time (as Braddles was), you'd want to do somthing about it!

So yes, making him average 56 with only one hundred (103* in the second Test) for the series was definately a relative triumph!

 

[Rik]

Originally posted by Top_Cat
Well if you had an opposing batsman averaging 112 at the time (as Braddles was), you'd want to do somthing about it!

So yes, making him average 56 with only one hundred (103* in the second Test) for the series was definately a relative triumph!

If you think about it, if bodyline had never happened then the Don would have most probably averaged over 100 for his career...

 

[Top_Cat]

If you think about it, if bodyline had never happened then the Don would have most probably averaged over 100 for his career...

Possibly. You could also say that because he was so horrified by the leg-theory tactics, it gave him added incentive to belt the English around so if it hadn't happened, he might not have had the same hunger for runs. Knowing the Don, that's probably crap, though.

 

[anzac]

just catching up on what's been said since my last post.....have to agree with basically all that's been said......

I agreee with the Argo's summations - Langer will keep his position because Hayden likes batting with him, he is getting starts and he is very aggressive which is setting the tone for the rest of the batting to follow, as well as putting the fielding team on the back foot from the get go!!!!

IMO any bowler is entitled to return the favour to anyone who bounces them when they are batting - with interest if possible!!!! The only thing I don't agree with is bouncing the batting bunnies!!!

I remember watching Ewan Chatfield die on the pitch after being struck in the head by a bouncer from an English bowler. In those days they still didn't have the helmets etc so he was a bit of a sitting duck - and I don't recall Chats bowling bouncers during his career!!!!! Luckily for everyone he was able to be revived on the pitch and lived to fight another day!!!!!

'Body Line' was an absolute ripper of a tactical approach to the situation - and some teams and captains need to remember to do something similar!!!! Only Fleming has shown as much innovation in recent times!!!!

I think England will go into the ODI series with a clean slate, but that will get smashed during the first game & they will end up taking a hammering in that series as well!!!!

I'm afraid I don't have much appreciation / respect for their team or game standards at this point, as I think they were mentally beaten b4 they left England, and have not shown any real determination or fight on this tour - just glimpses enough to fool everyone (especially themselves)!!!!

:P

 

[Rik]

Look, England had not been beaten before they came out. They really wanted to try and win that is why they brought Gough along, in hope that he would get fit and then they could play their best bowler. Ok he was injured but they showed that they wanted to win it by bringing him along. England I think will find the ODI series a chance to start to play their shots again. Tresco will definately use it as a chance to find more form and he is a superb ODI batsman. Also remember what happened to Sri Lanka...they got thrashed by England in the Tests and ODIs last summer and looking at their performances against South Africa, it doesn't look like they've recovered either. I think it will be England and Australia in the ODI final. That would be a good boost.

[Edited on 3/12/2002 by Rik]

 

[age_master]

nah Sri lanka are better than england - and they are not at full strength either

 

[Rik]

Originally posted by age_master
nah Sri lanka are better than england - and they are not at full strength either

They were against England earlier this year and they still suffered...

 

[marc71178]

No they weren't, their bowler dislocated his shoulder prior to the tour, missed the 1st Test and had to be pushed into playing the other 2.

Although I still think it looks like he's running scared of us!

 

[The Argonaut]

Just to dispel the myth behind Ewen Chatfield's death on the pitch at the hands of John Lever (or was it Peter). The ball was not a head high bouncer but the ball came off Chatfield's bat and hit him in the head, obviously in a very bad spot. It was not a ball that hit him directly in the head like Tudor the other day.

 

[Tim]

You know why the batsmen in the 40's & 50's were so good?
they didn't have helmets, so they had to watch the ball extremely well against the quicks. Whereas now days, because players have helmets they're not so concerned about being hit on the head because they have protection.

 

[royGilchrist]

Whereas now days, because players have helmets they're not so concerned about being hit on the head because they have protection.

But apparently that protection is not enough, so they are provided with further protection in the form of one bouncer per over or bpouncers no balled, type of rules.

 

[Tim]

Mind you, Tudor almost head-butted that ball. His technique for trying to avoid it was not that good.

 

[marc71178]

What do you expect, he's utter rubbish!

 

[chris.hinton]

did a Former Indian Test Player die whilst playing Cricket in 1998