Print

[uknsaunders]

I was reading the cricinfo article on removing the 2 bouncer rule, and as I was writing a comment it reminded me about some youtube clips of the 70s/80s. Watching now, it appears a number of test batsman had a pretty ropey technique against the short ball. Whether it was the lack of helmets or the lack of bowling machines to practise against I wasn't sure. What do others think?

[charlie15]

I'd say you're probably right, given that most players nowadays have been bought up with it they have learnt how to play it, that and also the amount of cricket that is played now as well, they'll face far more short stuff.  I think having a lid help and makes you feel more comfortable in deciding whether to play a shot or take evasive action.

[joeljonno]

The pitches are a lot better too, there is a lot more even bounce.

[Buzz]

most people struggle against fast short pitched bowling

quite a few more decent quicks around in the 80's than there are now.

quite a lot less decent body armour too.

[uknsaunders]

here's an interesting video:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eym816XG2vc

They were quick but it suggests they weren't so different to today's bowlers in terms of pace. A good bouncer is still a good bouncer but I think pro's now practise against it far more.

[Vitas Cricket]

I don't think defensive techniques against short stuff are getting better, I think attacking shots are.

I don't recall the last time I saw a youngster drop his hands and swerve out the way of a short one during a coaching session in my net, they all want to launch it like their T20 heroes.

I actively encourage leaving both short and good length balls during a session, kids can get just as much value (in terms of education) from leaving a few balls as they can from nailing a massive hook or pull.

[joeylough]

I got called quite a bit for the swerve in a match. I bit pop it out a bit in an over as out of 6 balls 4 were chin music and it was my first over the face...

[Vitas Cricket]

To add further backing to my point. A kid was practising the hook in a net with me on friday, cant have been older than 13, 55mph short stuff, missed one, smashed straight into his grill, i stopped the machine, rushed over to check he was fine etc, he said:

'why have you stopped feeding the balls? I'm getting into a nice rhythm.'

Then carried on whacking them like nothing had happened.

I'd have been rolling about for a while, and probably would ask for gentle half volleys for the rest of the session!

[Chad]

To add further backing to my point. A kid was practising the hook in a net with me on friday, cant have been older than 13, 55mph short stuff, missed one, smashed straight into his grill, i stopped the machine, rushed over to check he was fine etc, he said:

'why have you stopped feeding the balls? I'm getting into a nice rhythm.'

Then carried on whacking them like nothing had happened.

I'd have been rolling about for a while, and probably would ask for gentle half volleys for the rest of the session!

Tough as nails! If that had happened to me when I was 13, I would have probably asked for you to slow it down to 40 and pitch it wide of off so I could just leave the ball all the time. Mind you, I didn't start playing cricket till I was around 14, but still!

[Cys1]

Irrespective of his natural talent, I think that kid might make it far, simply based on his attitude. Sounds like the type that will work endlessly at getting things right. Combine that with natural talent and you've got the makings of a First Class cricketer.

[Manormanic]

I wouldn't get too suckering into believeing that the pace of fast bowling is the same now as it was in the late 70s and through the 80s; aside from changes to the quality of speed guns which give artificial comparator speeds, there were much faster, bouncier pitches back then than the deadened Chrief Exec specials that we are dealing with nowadays. 

[Chad]

Just read that comment on the cricinfo article about how the rules should be changed:

They should allow 3 or 4 bouncers per over. Batsmen have it far too easy. In fact I would go as far as saying that if a ball strikes any part of protective wear, apart from the leg pads, and thigh pad, and the ball is caught it should be out. The protective wear you find today is too much. The batsman need begin fearing bowlers who bowl 140km+. Not too long ago to average 40 in test matches was an achievement and spoke of the quality of the batsmen. To average 40 nowadays means nothing. Fearing the fast bowler was a vital past of test cricket and since the bouncer laws changed and the rise of protective wear test cricket has lost its spice.

I find this pretty extreme, as it would perhaps encourage people to wear less protection, which I wouldn't recommend. I feel that as much protection as practical should be worn, ie helmets and armguards. I would much rather see batsman get tinned trying to play a bouncer than get hit in the head without protection when crapping it to be honest. And I am pretty sure that batsmen do fear the fast bowlers, but feel the need to take them on to stamp their authority on the game. I do agree that an extra bouncer per over may give a bowler a little bit more of an edge though! (Assuming they utilise it properly!)

[tim2000s]

I'm all for completely rescinding the rule. The umpires always have the "Intimidatory Bowling" rule and it should be used at their discretion, as the rest of the article says. If a batsman can have body armour, why shouldn't a bowler be able to try and hit him?

[Cys1]

Let's face it guys, spectators and TV rights play a huge part in decisions made on the rules in 1day and T20 games these days. The paying public, be it at the ground or sitting at home watching TV, want to see 4's and 6's and therefore the rules will most of the time be adjusted in favor of the batsman. How many bouncer's actually end up being left alone in 1day and T20 cricket? Very few I would say. The point is, to be a successfully 1day or T20 batsman you really do not have to have a great technique when playi g the short ball, just a decent eye. Also keep in mind that 1day cricket has lead to more development of skills with regards to batting and bowling than seen in the pervious decades.

Test, 4day and 3day cricket is where guys with poor technique in playing and avoiding the short pitched stuff really fall short. Facing 145+km/h bowling when you know that this guy can bowl short at you and try and take your head off whole day long is not very pleasant. Bowlers can almost bowl whatever line or length they prefer without any fielding restrictions at batsman for days on end. Surely the tables are turned in this format?

Wonder if the article was written by a bowler?

[tim2000s]

Test, 4day and 3day cricket is where guys with poor technique in playing and avoiding the short pitched stuff really fall short. Facing 145+km/h bowling when you know that this guy can bowl short at you and try and take your head off whole day long is not very pleasant. Bowlers can almost bowl whatever line or length they prefer without any fielding restrictions at batsman for days on end. Surely the tables are turned in this format?

But you'd have to be a compelte tool to do this. You don't get wickets by incessant short bowling, you get wickets by variation and (trying) to make the batsman make mistakes. 3 bouncers and a yorker (assuming the batsman is a bunny) is not an option with the current rules.