Message Board Archives

Quite a few teams greatly improved their performances and competetiveness when these new measures were introduced into the game. I shall attempt to name a few, please feel free to add.

India
England

In reply to Runs

Both India and England were shytty teams all throughout the 80's and almost all of the 90's. When was the 1 bouncer rule per over legislated?

In reply to SnoopDog

Am going to guess in 90’s or around the same time we saw improvement from these “shitty” teams
It was a well orchestrated plot against the strongest side s.

Inferior batsmen used to run before these rules were introduced to water down the game. Today the same types are superstars, hence my argument that one cannot “EVER” compare batsmen from this era.

It's TWO bouncers per over yah dingbat!!

In reply to Larr Pullo

Kerry yuh lampy pampy skunt so n thank you
Nothing meaningful to add to the debate as usual

In reply to Runs

Both of those teams started to win more consistently in the 2000's. In the case of England, after Hussain took over the captaincy around 2000 and in the case of India after Ganguly took over from Tendulkar at about the same time 2000/2001.

Helmets and other body protection equipment were at a pretty good standard from the latter part of the 80's through to the end of the 90's. It didn't make either England or India better at playing fast short pitch bowling on fast pitches during that time.

We saw both of those teams selecting batsmen who had the techniques to cope and play fast bowling during the 90's and 2000's. Guys like Dravid, Tenduklar, Laxman, Alec Stewart, and even Thorpe played short pitch bowling pretty well. At around that time guys like Walsh and Ambi were retired or on their last legs. Wasim and Waqar, and Donald the same. Brett Lee and Shoaib were the only real quicks at that time.

In reply to SnoopDog

Fair assessment, how about the introduction of the 2 bouncers per over rule? Did it have an impact?

In reply to Runs

It did, but I don't think it by itself shifted the balance of power from one set of teams to the next.

In the case of the Windies, they just simply ran out of fast bowling talent after Ambi and Walsh. Guys like Nixon McClean, the Benjamins, Reon King, Rose were okay but they were nowhere near the class of Ambi, Walsh, Patterson, Marshall, Bishop, Garner, Holding etc.

The 2 bouncer rule wasn't in my opinion responsible for the decline in fast bowling talent in the West Indies. That was due to incompetent administration, lack of developmental programs at grass roots level, and slow pitches all throughout the Caribbean.

Then you had teams using technology like bowling machines and video analysis to develop and produce batsmen like Dravid and Laxman who had the techniqe to play fast bowling.

In reply to SnoopDog

So better facilities, coaching, technologies led to their being competetive. WI lacked all plus the exposure of her players to gain invaluable experience and techniques in English conditions.

In 10 posts we have identified decline and improvement in teams and contributory factors, pro and con. I have seen grown men, argue for years over this.

In reply to Runs

I would say so.

In my opinion you could give guys like Dillon, Rose and King unlimited bouncers on the fastest pitch and they would still bowl shyte all day long.

The 2 bouncer rule was really legislated to protect tail-enders. I recall seeing a video of Maco nearly decapitating Bishen Bedi (I think) with short stuff.

Moderators you can now close this thread. Thanks

In reply to Runs

For many years in this very Forum I have stated that the 2 Bouncers per over Rule was aimed solely against Our
Pace Bowlers , who were the fastest in the World when that Rule was inaugurated .

The current changing of the Rule regarding Cricket Bats is also aimed mainly at our Players . You can
always depend on England to be at the heart of all Schemes .

Who can forget the fact that a few years ago the 4 Top Teams in Cricket Colluded to take the Lion Share of the ICC Money .

The fact is that England is always at
the center of Schemes designed to benefit a Few .

In reply to Runs

For what its worth I never liked watching intimidatory bowling as opposed to enjoying watching genuine fast bowling.

I think a line is crossed when the intention of the bowler is to deliberately hurt the batsmen, instead of getting the batsmen out. That is not to say the bowler shouldn't used short pitch bowling or bouncers but if the intention is to get the batsman out instead of hurting him. Especially so if the batsman is a tail-ender.

I have no problem with the 2 bouncer rule. The rule clearly protects the batsman from excessive deliveries above shoulder height. In other words, it protects the batsman's head and face - his most vulnerable area.

In reply to SnoopDog

If intimidatory fast bowling is used to soften up the batsman with the goal being his gifting his wicket then am all for it.

In reply to Runs

I get your point.

A good fast bowler can soften a batmen up with short quick deliveries below shoulder height aimed at the ribs. No violation of the 2 bouncer rule there. Guys like Walsh and Ambi were experts at it. And they prospered during the 2 bouncer rule period.

In reply to Runs

bowlers gotta have brains to employ such a tactic!

In reply to SnoopDog

If you really looked at the WI when they had the four prong they never really bowled over the batsmans head. They did bowl most deliveries aimed at the rib cage. The sole exception was probably Croft who wasn't above head hunting. Roberts was very accurate and could hit batsmen at will.

In reply to Larr Pullo

I agree. Which is why I believe the 2 bouncer rule didn't really impact too much on West Indies cricket as some people are saying.

Maco, Holding, Roberts, Garner, Walsh, Ambi, Bish etc would still have been great fast bowlers if the law was 0 bouncers per over. Conversely, guys like Dillon, King and Rose would still have been ordinary fast bowlers if the law was unlimited bouncers per over.

India
EnglandIn reply to Runs


affirmative action saved cricket on the subcontinent....imagine dat....