From: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Pak win by 33 runs - the swing demons do it again
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:36:03 GMT
Reply-To: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Organization: Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.

In article <1993Jan9.015016.11181@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
mcbean@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
	[of the WI]
>(and that despite being the biggest draw in world cricket).

	Those days are long past.  In the 50's, 60's and 70's, WI were
worth going to see, win, draw or lose.  In Worrell, Sobers and [initially]
Lloyd, they had captains who wanted to play cricket.  But Lloyd became
obsessed with winning, and Richards likewise.  Well, they succeeded, and
it cannot be denied that they had teams of massive talent;  but they also
succeeded, over the last decade or so, in alienating the public.  I hope
that Richardson is successful, not only in re-building another great team,
but also in re-kindling the spirit of Worrell and Sobers.

>So proposed by England, and supported by the spineless and sniveling
>administrations of  Australia, NZ, India and Sri Lanka, we got the notorious
>one bouncer rule.

	Suggest another rule that is enforceable.  Do you *really* want to
see cricket reduced to batsmen encased in kevlar from head to foot swatting
at head-high balls over after over?  The old rule about "persistent bowling
of short-pitched deliveries" fell into disrepute because umpires were not
willing to draw the line;  unlike the otherwise comparable case of throwing,
where a bowler who was called had to change his action [or else], the short-
pitching bowler could start quoting statistics ["But that was only my second
bouncer this over, and I didn't bowl any two overs ago, and *their* bowler
was allowed to get away with it."].  How do you feel about Devon Malcolm
being selected, apparently, not because he was a particularly brill bowler,
but to be played as a deterrent, to prevent Ambrose, Bishop, etc bouncing
*our* tailenders into hospital for fear of his bowling *your* tailenders
there as well?

	The Pakistani fast attack has shown how talented bowlers can use
late swing to undo even the best batsmen.  Only untalented bowlers *need*
to use physical assault as a weapon -- great bowlers such as Garner, Roberts,
Marshall and Ambrose should have nothing to do with it.

>								    I'd like to
>see the Englishmen wilt in Perth or Bridgetown trying to maintain 15 overs/hr.

	Are Perth and Bridgetown hotter than they were 20, 30 or 60 years ago?
Are Ambrose, ..., less fit than their counterparts of then?  Such great fast
bowlers as Hall, Griffiths and Sobers, or Tyson and Statham, or Lindwall,
Miller and Johnston, or Larwood, Voce, Allen and Bowes maintained that sort
of rate, and better.  When the "20 overs in the last hour" rule was first
introduced, 20 overs/hr was thought to be slow, just about OK if only fast
bowlers were being used;  not the sort of belting rate that only spinners
can get anywhere near.

>Or better yet they can send some spinners to be hit out of the park for easy
>runs-:)

	Most of the great spinners, including WIndians such as Ramadhin,
Valentine and Gibbs, would have been very happy to see you try!

>PS How many of you could go to a test match and tell

	No, I try to keep it quiet.

-- 
Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket