From: mcbean@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: WI Physical Assault? - Not! (was Re: Pak win by 33)
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:48:06 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1993Jan20.184041.14786@maths.nott.ac.uk>, anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) writes:
> 	<1993Jan15.174537.28814@maths.nott.ac.uk>
> 	<1993Jan18.041159.11353@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
> Reply-To: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
> Organization: Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
> Lines: 192
> 
> In article <1993Jan18.041159.11353@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
> mcbean@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:

> which is erected for Tests.  But in addition, many, if not most, of the other
> reserved seats also go for hospitality -- small local companies buying 2 or
> more seats for the delectation of their customers.  I would guess, and it can
> only be a guess, that fewer than half of the spectators have paid for their
> own entertainment.  Since the unreserved seats are cheaper, a reasonable guess
> might be that 75% or more of the "gate" income comes from hospitality.

I don't think a small company buying two reserved seats can be distinguished
from a family of four booking reserved seats.  Hospitality as I meant it
includes the wining and dining aspect rather than simply watching cricket.

> 
> 	The complaint was made in respect of at least the '88 and '91 WIndies
> tours that cricket lovers were being put off by the higher prices, driven by
> the needs of corporate hospitality.

And to ram home my point about the "non-alienation" of spectators, this
illustrates it perfectly!

> 	Few people "pay".  Members [most of the cricket lovers] get in free.
> I certainly went hoping to see an exhibition, and came away disappointed.
> As for the potential mismatch, Notts, like many county teams, have a number
> of past, present and future Test players, including overseas, whereas the
> visitors will rarely put out the full Test side, hoping to keep their
> reserves in some sort of practice.  In my youth, these matches were often
> very keenly contested;  over the years, they have become almost totally
> meaningless, as was recognised by the introduction of the Tetley trophy
> to give them some point.  Perhaps things will improve.

Not true.  One of the complaints from the WI was the second-string sides
counties put out nowadays, and is a point generally made by the TCCB about
county sides facing tourists.  At Oxford I know that the Parks were full for
the two days with lots of autograph hunters.  A friend of mine was with the
touring party, and we could scarcely exchange five words without
interruptions.

>>			  But I have been sick of the utterances of CMJ, Colin
>>Cowdrey and co. saying how we were killing off the spirit of the game with our
>>pace attack.  I could take you through the archives of the Times and Telegraph
>>especially, and read the comments when WI were playing. Backtrack through
>>Wisden and read the comments bordering on racism by characters like EM Welling,
>>and you tell me that you do not recall *any* vituperative missives from the
>>Establishment? Please.
> 
> 	E. M. Wellings is scarcely an Establishment figure.  I think you are
> using "establishment" in several different senses, which is confusing the
> issue.  You sometimes use it to mean the ICC/TCCB/MCC administrators,
> sometimes to mean the selectors, sometimes reporters in general, sometimes
> commentators for the BBC or in the Times/Telegraph or Wisden, sometimes
> for the UK upper classes.  Individuals are fully entitled to their opinions,

Establishment means the cricketing fraternity which administer the game, the
commentators who are close to the administrators, Wisden and their columnists,
BBC TMS, Times and Telegraph, in general the collection of inbred mutants from
the era of gentlemen & players who are closely involved with the game.

> even if racist.  I assumed that you were referring to VMs from some official
> source, like chairman of the selectors, or secretary to the TCCB.

The TCCB giving a directive to umpires to observe strictly Law 42, as there are
expected contraventions is just one off the top of my head.

> 
>>			 The obvious point of all of these was to imply that we
>>were not playing fairly, and that's why England lost 14 out of 15 test matches
>>up to 1988.
> 
> 	England lost 14/15 because we had a modest team, and WIndies had a
> great team.  This is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the
> play was fair or unfair.  In sport after sport, there are great players
> and teams who are completely and utterly fair, and players and teams who
> are absolute turds.  Also great players and teams who play in an entertaining
> and attractive way, and those who are obsessed only by their results.

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

> 
> 	WIndies have had a great team for most of the time since the war.
> For most of that time, they have also been attractive and entertaining.
> I just think it's a pity that the '84 team, for example, became [in my
> opinion] too obsessed by results, and resorted too freely to bouncers
> and to time-wasting.  England were not entirely fault-free in this
> respect either.  Again, I cannot speak for others, but I certainly
> became less and less interested in the proceedings, and resorted more
> and more to watching only the recorded highlights.  My impression is
> that my cricket-loving friends felt likewise.  We did not view the
> forthcoming '88 or '91 tours with the sort of enthusiasm that we had
> felt earlier.

Yes. England had receding chances of winning,  Funny how that dulls the
appetite.  A compilation of bouncers was done for the '84 and '88 tours, and
England bowled a surprisingly high number compared to the WI.  The difference
was that while Botham, Willis et al were being dispatched to the boundaries
with monotonous regularity (no wonder you got bored-:), Englishmen clearly were
inept at handling anything short-pitched.

> 
>>So if the commentators and administrators can perceive that there is a problem
>>with short-pitched bowling, and the law *exists* to cope with that, I don't buy
>>the arguments that the umpire who after all is in charge of the game on the
>>field, cannot step in and enforce the rule.
> 
> 	The umpires, apparently, felt that the concept of "persistent"
> short-pitched bowling was too vague, too open to differing interpretations,
> and too uncertain for all, including the bowler.  Suppose that Ambrose
> (say) bowls two consecutive bouncers to Hick (say).  If he bowls a third,
> is the umpire going to say "that is now persistent, you are hereby warned"?

If in the opinion of the umpire, yes.  If you bowl consecutive bouncers to
tail-enders you would be warned under Law 42, so the interpretation was and
still is available to umpires.

Remember the Aaquib/Devon Malcolm incident.  Roy Palmer took action under Law
42.

> He won't know unless he tries it.  If he thinks that the third bouncer is
> too risky, how long does he have to wait?  If he leaves off for two overs,

If he bowls three then he is warned.  Good umpires have a quiet word to the
bowler advising him that if another is bowled he would be warned.  That simple
really.

> is the slate wiped clean?  Does it matter how much of the strike Hick is

Commonsense is called for.  If every over Hick is persistently bounced, you
warn the bowler every over.  After three warnings he's off!

> receiving -- can he "persistently" bounce Hick as long as he bowls a full
> length at Gooch?  Hence the more clear-cut rule [for all its faults].

Non-starter.  Balls bowled at Gooch have nothing to do with Hick.  Thenew law
is a wimpish way of protecting deficient batsmen.  You will never see the WI
pitching short to get out Gooch or Lamb or Gower.  Know why?  its a waste of
time.

> 
>>As far as I know, umpires are not being threatened with lynchings or GBH for
>>doing their job, so it falls down to one of two things.
> 
> 	There have been several incidents of umpires being jostled or
> threatened, including death threats.  There have been actual riots when
> home-team batsmen were given out LBW or run out.
> 

If you want to take isolated incidents and try and make it appear as if they
happen with alarming regularity then I refuse to discuss this with you.  You
really do specialise in red herrings and smoke-screens.

>>I'll propose a simple rule which I first heard mmoted by Tony Cozier.  If the
>>intention is to get rid of balls above head height [...]
> 
> 	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?

> 
>>What the new rule forbids is the testing of a batsman with a sequence of
>>bouncers, something as old as fast bowling.
> 
> 	An occasional bouncer is, by custom and convention, an accepted
> way to unsettle the batsman.  A sequence of bouncers can have no other
> purpose than to intimidate the batsman into fear for his physical safety.


Up to 1991 this was legal to bowl a sequence of bouncers.  In 75-76 when Lille,
Thompson & co. demolished the WI with short-pitched bowling, we were laughed at
for our inability to play the stuff.  I don't remember any such arguments then.
 Talk about double-standard.

> Up to 1932, this was "not cricket", but legal.  Following its use by
> England and WIndies in 1932-4, it was banned, somewhat ineffectually
> as we have seen in the last 20 or so years.


Don't include the Windies in bodyline.  It's your opinion that the WI were
practising bodyline.

> 
> 	Something else to think about.  We have seen in UK football (all
> codes) recently incidents where players deliberately fouling others have
> been taken to court.  The occasional cricketing accident is inevitable,
> given the hard nature of the implements, and must be part of the accepted
> risk of playing.  But I wonder how long it will be before someone is
> seriously injured by a deliberate bouncer, and the bowler is sued?  We

Helmets, padding?> familiar with those implements?  I asked you for examples
not to speculate on some likely incident.

> could write the judge's summing up for him:  "When a player steps onto
> the pitch, he accepts the risk of accident.  But he is not required to
> give up all his civic protections, and opposing players are not entitled
> to assault him in a way which would be illegal on the street, by aiming
> a missile at his person."

more rambling....

> 
>>The laws introduced before did not have as penalties the banning of a bowler
>>for the rest of the innings for repeated transgression.
> 
> 	I think you must have been looking at a different set of Laws.  The
> "warn, WARN, OFF" progression applies also to throwing and to persistent
> short-pitched bowling.

None which left no interpretation up to the umpires discretion.  I apologise
for wording that badly.

> 
>>The WI attack is in no way comparable to bodyline, and it is scurrilous and
>>perverse of you to even suggest a link.  I hope you withdraw that comment.
> 
> 	In your previous paragraph [deleted], you reminded us that under
> the new rule, Ambrose and his friends would find it difficult to bowl a
> succession of bouncers at Hick, as they had done in '91.  How do you
> distinguish Ambrose's attack from that of Larwood in '32?  Well, the
> field setting is different, and the actual point of attack is different
> [Hick's nose v. Bradman's chest], but the intention is the same;  to
> induce a batsman who is hopefully in a state of intimidation eventually
> to misjudge his attempts to evade the ball and to snick or lob up a catch.

Law 42 was introduced to give the umpire the power to cut out intimidatory
bowling.  Even the most ardent critics of the WI were forced to concede that
there was nothing remotely illegal or resembling bodyline in the WI tactics.

The umpires job is to step in and stop Ambrose from bowling in this way.  The
law is on the books.  Ambrose was testing Hick with the ball just short of a
length to the ribs, mixed up with bouncers to let Hick know that he couldn't
just get on the front foot.  It's called intelligent bowling.

All the commentators on Hick, never said Ambrose was intimidating Hick.  Rather
they commented on the obvious deficiences of Hick.  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.  By a logical extension of your
argument, all bouncers should be banned, since the only purpose they ever serve
is intimidation.

> 
>>Which batsman has the WI intimidated and bounced out of cricket?  Which batsmen
>>do the WI set out to hit intentionally?
> 
> 	England Test batsmen who have been *seriously* injured either in a
> Test v WIndies or on tour there include, in the last decade, Lloyd, Terry,
> Gatting, Randall, Gooch and ?? [Smith?  I forget].  Perhaps others I've
> forgotten.  I don't recall how all those injuries happened, but that seems
> more than chance would explain.  If Hick, Atherton, Lamb and others have
> not been similarly injured, it's not because they have not received any
> bouncers.

I'll go through your list (and you have yet to provide me with the list of
tailenders the WI have bounced)

Gatting - totally misreads a ball short of a length from Marshall, and ducks
into it shattering his nose.  Marshall to blame?  I think not.

Randall I cannot remember so I'll take your word for it.

Terry got hit on the forearm by a sharp rising delivery (probably next on the
list of balls to be banned)

Gooch had his finger broken by a sharp rising delivery, just short of a length
from Ezra Moseley, another illegal delivery.  Same sort of delivery breaks
Robin Smith's fingers.

I can't completely remember about LLoyd, but I think he also had a broken
forearm.

A bouncer hits you in the chest (protected nowadays) or on the helmet, if you
are an inept batsman.  I guess coming from the WI where bouncers are easily
evaded or hooked to the boundary, or get you out caught, I find it hard to
sympathise with batsmen at test level who can't play the short ball; a view
held by G Boycott.

> 
>>> 	Which English batsmen have whinged?
>>Brian Close for one, but I was more concerned here with the administration
>>whingeing.
> 
> 	(a) If BC has said anything [I haven't seen it], then things *must*
> be getting out of hand.  If you had to nominate one single cricketer as the
> most fearless of all time, BC must be a strong contender.  (b) Which
> *administrator* has whinged?

Colin Cowdrey.

> 
> [injuries to tailenders:]
>>You haven't answered my question, please do!
> 
> 	Yes I did.  I pointed out that Malcolm was, reportedly, played as
> a deterrent to the unfair bouncing of tailenders, and that the deterrent
> apparently worked.  [Not quite so well last summer.]  Sides lacking a

What deterrent?  He was there to prevent it (according to you) so there must
have been a precedent (as any reasonable man would assume).  I ask you to list
the precedent of the WI bouncing tailenders, and you repeat yourself?  I want
*facts*.  List the matches and tailenders, in other words put up or ...

> sufficiently hostile fast bowler, such as Sri Lanka, have, again reportedly,
> faced more than their fair share of bouncers aimed at tailenders.

As we have never played Sri Lanka in a test match I fail to see the relevance
of this. I fEnglishmen bounce the Sri Lankans don't blame it on us.

McBean.

P.S.  If four fast bowlers are so evil and contravene the laws of cricket, why
has every other test team from Australia to Pakistan (and including the
moralistic Englishmen) sought to emulate the WI success?  Or horror of horrors,
maybe we weren't the only ones "obsessed with winning".  Personal I find
nothing attractive about perpetual sub-standard, losing performsnces.
> 
> -- 
> Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
> anw@maths.nott.ac.uk