With each Australia and England adopting a bouncer-barrage within the Lord’s Test at instances for hours collectively, mockingly triggered by an harm to a spinner, it has kicked up the age-old query that when haunted cricket and for which guidelines had been modified twice: Does bowling bouncers persistently makes for tedious watching, with over-rates struggling as effectively, or does it make for an exhilarating contest that assessments the batsmen? First, in 1933 the legal guidelines had been amended to permit umpires to step in to cease intimidatory bowling after which in 1994, they lower down the variety of bouncers (outlined as above shoulder peak) to 2 per over.
Around Saturday midday in London, when England began to repeat Australia’s technique of bumper assault, Australia’s former captain Mark Taylor puzzled if the umpires ought to begin stepping into act, no-balling the bouncers.
“If a batsman doesn’t play a shot, how many bouncers can you bowl in an over? If both teams continue this bumper tactic – and they will for the rest of the series, what will happen? The laws of the game were changed in the early 90s to one bouncer a game; it became 2 bouncers in the mid-90s. But the old law of intimidatory bowling still exists. If the umpire feels it, he can still call it. It will be the same when Australia bowl it. If you keep bowling the same length, even if it’s not about shoulder high, it’s still intimidation. It’s going to put a lot of pressure on the umpires, who can say, I am going to call it ‘no-ball’,” Taylor stated.
YES BROADY! 👊 #EnglandCricket | #Ashes pic.twitter.com/pfKTA1apUU
— England Cricket (@englandcricket) July 1, 2023
Former England captain Andrew Strauss felt whereas the tactic was “legal” and “effective”, it was tedious to look at. “I don’t like watching it. I find it somewhat tedious. A bit predictable. You know where the ball is going to be before he bowls the ball, where the fielders are. You are just seeing what the batsman is going to do. It’s a bit two-dimensional to me. But that does not mean it’s not effective. Nothing wrong with their approach; anything that works, you should give it a go,” Strauss stated.
Mark Taylor would discuss the way it was a bit just like the 70s and 80s in the course of the heyday of West Indian pacers. “You could battle through an hour (against bouncer-barrage) and have just 15 runs. The rules were then changed.”
Speaking to The Indian Express, Michael Holding, a key quick bowler in that West Indian staff and one of many quickest bowlers in cricketing historical past, has a special tackle the difficulty.
Another quick ball.
Another wicket!
YES LADS! 🔥 #EnglandCricket | #Ashes pic.twitter.com/xj5wHLzJ6I
— England Cricket (@englandcricket) July 1, 2023
“I can see both sides of the argument. Yes, it works but it can also be a bit boring. But essentially what they are doing is trying to find a way to win a Test match. As far as I am concerned it’s legal and not against the spirit of the game, I don’t have any foibles with it. Don’t interfere with more rule changes,” Holding instructed The Indian Express. “And by the way, at no stage in my West Indies career, did we bowl bouncers for hours like this. At one point in this Lord’s Test, 98% of the bowling was short-pitched. We never did that. The hypocrisy of it stands out. When West Indies were bowling with four fast bowlers, and bouncing out the batsmen, the cricketing world was up in arms. You think there is going to be any real uproar about this tactic now? I doubt it. It’s England and Australia playing; not the West Indies.”
Is it intimidatory bowling? “What? With 70mph-plus mickey mouse pace bowling like England did? No way it’s intimidatory!” Holding says. “And that’s why they got the shoulder height and all into it. They also have the fielding rule where you can’t have more than 2 fielders behind the stumps on the leg side. And if you are going to allow the umpires to step in, with balls below shoulder height also, then it’s an extremely dicey way. It will come down to the subjectivity of the umpires, and that is never a good thing. Cricket shouldn’t go that route”.
The plan works!
Cameron Green takes on the quick ball and is caught within the deep 🙌 #EnglandCricket | #Ashes pic.twitter.com/jplgdOhYjv
— England Cricket (@englandcricket) July 1, 2023
“You can’t call this intimidating bowling. Perhaps, you can say ‘negative’ bowling. But whatever works to win a Test match.”
Holding believes the tactic was profitable due to the standard of the batting on show. “Some of the batting wasn’t really bright. Let me put it this way. If this bowling was attempted at this pace to Viv Richards, Gordon Greenidge or Desmond Haynes, you would be picking the ball off the stands! Not just them, I can think of many a batsman who would have told the umpires trying to step in, ‘Oh don’t stop them, let them bowl more short stuff’.”
🤩 Another wicket… and it is a massive one!
Steve Smith departs for 3️⃣4️⃣#EnglandCricket | #Ashes pic.twitter.com/E6j6qENQR6
— England Cricket (@englandcricket) July 1, 2023
Holding additionally took a slight dig at England’s batting techniques within the first innings. “When you don’t have the ability to hook pacy balls and when there are fielders at the boundary, then you have to take the call. That’s not entertaining or attacking cricket to get out like that. And if over-using the bouncers was tedious, then what happened to the entertaining brand of cricket that you said you will play?! I know and understand why they did it of course. They were desperate to win the game and changed when it suited them, bowling 98% of short-pitched stuff. That’s fine, then don’t talk about entertaining the fans,” Holding stated.
