Print

[Seniorplayer]

Good couple of posts Karl infortunatly  there are bowlers who will deliberately bowl short at the body in an attempt to hurt batsman and then when they do say sorry and call  it as an accident. But you are right not taking the risk of an injury and to take evasive action when not comfortable playing the short stuff.

[KarlPennington]

Vitas Cricket, I definitely understand your point of view. What I would say though is when you said.

"Yes it is great when someone boshes yet another hundred on a lifeless Asian wicket against some medium pace and spin. I'm not saying it is 'worth' more to score a hundred on a quick bouncy pitch against Dale Steyn or Mitchell Johnson etc, as of course paying spin comes with its own set of challenges. But i find it more entertaining, and i feel overcoming a lethal quick bowler and getting that ton is certainly a braver thing to do."

Isn't it interesting then that cricket on the sub-continent is the number 1 spectator and participator sport? It's their national sport in fact where in Australia, South Africa and England it has some fierce competition. I suppsoe the point I'm making is the appeal of cricket for you might be the risk factor, the demon fast bowler vs the brave fearless batsman but that isn't the only appeal and the sub-continent proves cricket doesn't need the danger element to be a much loved sport.

It's an interesting point you make though when comparing to F1 and Boxing. Where do you think cricket places itself? Is it a sport for adrenalin junkies and thrill-seekers? Is it a sport where the risk of danger is it's unique selling point. Is that what attracts the youth to the sport or is that just an element of the sport you have to accept if you want to play the sport for the numerous other skills that are required?

I admit when I first got back into the nets after Phil Hughes I was nervous but I felt excillerated afterward (and I wasn't facing 80+ mph bowling) but that's me. I do enjoy it. I'm a sportsman and I accept the risks. I suppose I'd rather die on the playing field than wrap myself in cotton wool and bore myself to death. Yet I'm sure for every one like me there are five who would like to play but aren't willing to risk injury. Would making the game more batsman friendly encourge more participation I wonder?

Is cricket a dangerous game only for the brave
Or a skillfull game for everybody?

[edge]

You don't have to bowl short to hurt someone though, on a quick track a tall bowler is perfectly capable of getting someone in the gloves or body just bowling length balls, or break your toe with a yorker. Bowling short is (mostly) a tactic to get people out, whether caught or pushing a batsman back before getting them with a full a ball. In any case, a beginner amateur player is very unlikely to be playing on a quick enough track with fast enough bowlers to get hit in the head too often! People bowling fast at you with a very hard ball is a pretty central part of cricket, I don't think I've ever seen anyone seriously into the game put off by it (the only articles/comments I've seen seriously suggesting banning the bouncer after Hughes have come from non-cricketers). It's a test of courage as much as anything else, leaving and dodging bouncers well still requires the courage to watch the ball closely and keep calm. If you do those things, bouncers don't pose a threat and you won't see the bowler sending too many more of them down! This will come with experience I should add, I remember being as scared of the ball as anyone else as a young kid, but the more you see of it the less it bothers you. Batting is more than a physical skill, it's about finding the balance - between attack and defence, between forward and back, between playing and leaving. If you make the bowling predictable and full only, that is killed off completely and it would quickly become more like baseball. I certainly wouldn't enjoy the game, the physical threat and short reaction times is a much of a key component of the battle against fast bowling as turn is to spin - removing the seam from the ball so it wouldn't move off the pitch would be as much of a disaster as banning the bouncer.

Also, how on earth would you enforce a ban on bouncers? Bowlers get things wrong, sometimes they bowl a wide, sometimes they dig one in when they don't mean to. I'm a pretty tall guy, on a quick pitch the difference between my normal length and a ball that would be shoulder/head height to a shorter batsman isn't much more than a yard or two. There's many guys out there taller and quicker than me too, what do you do when they miss their length and bowl one at the body - ban them from bowling? That would lose you players as quick as anything I could think of, you'd kill fast bowling completely.

[ProCricketer1982]

Personally I love short pitched bowling, it gets the beans going and is a test of a true batsmans skill (far too many are front foot bully's now and seriously struggle against good quality quick short pitched stuff).


However, I can also see why players might enjoy the game more of you had a back of the length line on the wicket like in indoor cricket. Make it a no ball if you bowl any shorter etc. Would have the advantage of making it safer and potentially make it more likely to attract more players.

I honk this is something that could be done lower down the leagues but as you get towards the top leagues you should play 'properly' and play draw crixket of course 😜😜.. Seeing as draws should be played by good players/teams

[lazza32]

Getting hit in the nuts is my number 1 concern. A box can only do so much.

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk