NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/rec/sport/cricket/19931

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-27 | 6.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!unipalm!uknet!keele!nott-cs!piaggio!anw
From: [e-mail] (Dr A. N. Walker)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: WI Physical Assault? - Not! (was Re: Pak win by 33)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:39:38 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Dr A. N. Walker)
Organization: Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
Lines: 129

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes [and writes and writes -- more than 300 lines ...]:

    This discussion is in danger of going round in circles.  I'll
attempt to restrict myself to new points.

>I don't think a small company buying two reserved seats can be distinguished
>from a family of four booking reserved seats.

    Yes it can.  The family has to weigh up value for money *of the
cricket*;  the company giving freebies to valued customers has to weigh
up its prospects of increased business.  Typically, the company has much
more financial muscle than the family in these circumstances, and TCCB
and other marketing is much more geared these days to company than to
private business.

>Because we hammered England out of sight we are "obsessed with results"?  A
>clear case of sour grapes if I ever heard one.

    I didn't say that, and it cannot be inferred.  "You" hammered
"us" because you had a much better side.  Full stop.  No sour grapes,
no whingeing, no complaints.  And it has absolutely nothing to do with
whether the play was fair or unfair, boring or entertaining.

>Yes. England had receding chances of winning,  Funny how that dulls the
>appetite.

    I supported Notts through the '50s and '60s;  I don't need any
lessons on appetites through lean times.  The entertainment value of a
game of cricket depends much more on the attitudes of the players than
on the predictability of the result.

>>    Balls *above* head height are no problem, and can scarcely be
>> described as the WIndian "attacking potency" [your phrase].
>Isn't that what we are accused of?  Sending down balls at or above head height
>to intimidate?

    There is an important difference between balls *at* head height
and balls *above* head height.

>Up to 1991 this was legal to bowl a sequence of bouncers.

    No it wasn't;  at least, it wasn't legal to pitch short and at the
batsman "persistently".

>                I don't remember any such arguments [in '75-6].

    We weren't on the Net then!  Certainly *my* appreciation of Lillee
and Thomson as great bowlers was always tinged with regret that they felt
it necessary to pursue that macho line ["I like to *hurt* the batsman"].
To be fair to L&T, I think that they too felt in their later life that
they had been rather immature in their earlier attitudes.

[about 1932-4:]
>Don't include the Windies in bodyline.  It's your opinion that the WI were
>practising bodyline.

    I wasn't there, but it is generally agreed that Constantine and
Martindale bowled deliberate bodyline at, in particular, Jardine;  I know
of no observer who disputed it.  At the time, it was, of course, perfectly
legal.

[re: the prospect of a deliberately-injured batsman taking the bowler to court]
>Helmets, padding?> familiar with those implements?  I asked you for examples
>not to speculate on some likely incident.

    Batsmen have been gravely injured despite helmets and padding.  An
accident is part of the game;  but cricket is not, of its nature, a blood
sport, and deliberately bowling a ball at around 90mph at the batsman
rather than at the wicket is actually a criminal offence in this country.
Footballers have now discovered that deliberately kicking an opponent is
not just a footballing offence, but also something the police can become
interested in.  Cricketers may well be next.

>The umpires job is to step in and stop Ambrose from bowling in this way.

    Here is, in a nutshell, the nub of our difference.  You see as
"fair" anything which the umpires are not prepared to stop, and presumably
Ambrose's "job" as being to explore those limits and become steadily nastier
and more aggressive *until* [just before] the umpire steps in.  You are
certainly not alone;  that seems to be the way in which nearly all modern
professional teams conduct themselves, in many other sports as well as
cricket, and to be fair there have *always* been cricketers of this type.
But the more general view until the last 15 or 20 years has been that the
play is expected to conform to a moral code, with the umpires mostly
confined to adjudicating on matters of fact where their view is better than
that of the players;  although the umpires are "the sole judges of fair and
unfair play", the players had the responsibility of not putting the umpires
into a position where they had to make such moral decisions.

>               Ambrose was testing Hick with the ball just short of a
>length to the ribs, mixed up with bouncers [...]

    In other words, he usually bowled at Hick's chest, but occasionally
at his head ....

>                             Now if you can't see the
>difference between that and Larwood bowling 6 balls an over at `Bradman's chest
>then its useless continuing this argument.

    Well yes, I can.  Assuming that by "6" you mean "8", Ambrose is
plainly bowling more dangerously than was Larwood, is bowling bodyline,
and should be banned.  Perhaps your description was too lurid?

>                         By a logical extension of your
>argument, all bouncers should be banned, since the only purpose they ever serve
>is intimidation.

    Indeed, and if cricket were being re-invented from scratch no
doubt they would be, and cricket none the worse for it.  WI (and Pakistan)
would still have a great collection of fast bowlers, they would get just
as many wickets, and we would be spared the sight of medium-paced hacks
trying to imitate them.

>A bouncer hits you in the chest (protected nowadays) or on the helmet, if you
>are an inept batsman.

    Ironically, we read only yesterday about the Australian battering.
Boon, scarcely inept or lacking in moral fibre, was hit on the arm and
lucky to suffer only bruising.  More seriously, according to reports, new
batsman Langer was hit on the helmet and concussed [the helmet split];
next ball, Bishop bounced one at his head, and was roundly booed by the
crowd.  If the reports are substantially true, I don't think *anyone* who
was involved [Australian physio, who should have got Langer to hospital
for observation, Bishop or the umpires] comes out of that with much credit.

--
Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
[e-mail]