Holding's double standards.

[Ram]

When Sreesanth bowled the beamer and the really bad no-ball , Holding commented saying that people would led to think that there were deliberate actions considering Sreesanth's actions in the rest of the match. He was doubting Sreesanth apology to the batsman and was indicating that the bowler was trying to deliberately harm the batsman , which was a bad thing. Now , see this video. w-f5pfBgpNE It is blatantly obvious that Holding had only one intention throughout the entire over- Hurt the batsman physically . Its ridiculous to state that beamers are deliberate attempts to hurt the batsman and exempt bouncers aimed at the batsman's face from those allegations. Holding is no saint either. He is a very slick talker, thats it.

[Predator_05]

What an incredible over. He had such a beautiful action. ...and who was the batsmen ? I'd give mad props to that guy for facing that kind of bowling WITHOUT A HELMET ! In modern day cricket, batsmen are such p*ssies that they won't even take off the helmet to face spinners.

[Ram]

Its Brian Close. Its almost insane to think any batsman would do that today. And coming back to the point , how can any person , who has so willfully tried to harm the batsman physically , accuse someone else of doing the same ?

[fineleg]

Its Brian Close. Its almost insane to think any batsman would do that today. And coming back to the point , how can any person , who has so wilfully try to harm the batsman physically , accuse someone else of doing the same ?

If u read through Holding's statement on SS, he has said that He (MH) has made mistakes in the past, and he realizes it now and would not want SS to make the same things he (MH) has done in the past. Something to that effect - he said this on commentary - if you look in the Internet you will find this.

[Predator_05]

Its Brian Close. Its almost insane to think any batsman would do that today. And coming back to the point , how can any person , who has so willfully tried to harm the batsman physically , accuse someone else of doing the same ?

Conjecture. Why incriminate Holding for something he did so many years ago ? For all you know, he may regret bowling deliveries like those. Cricketers aren't always proud of their actions.

[Ram]

Conjecture. Why incriminate Holding for something he did so many years ago ? For all you know, he may regret bowling deliveries like those. Cricketers aren't always proud of their actions.

Are you saying we shouldnt question anybody at all ? based on their past actions. If he regrets bowling such deliveries , well and good. But honestly , it will look a like a big joke if he is going to question someone who does the same.

[Ram]

If u read through Holding's statement on SS, he has said that He (MH) has made mistakes in the past, and he realizes it now and would not want SS to make the same things he (MH) has done in the past. Something to that effect - he said this on commentary - if you look in the Internet you will find this.

He said that ? really ? I doubt it.

[CC1981]

Yeah, i agree with fine leg- Holding isnt being a hypocrite exactly since he's said he regretted doing so. But at the same time, i didn't mind Sreesanth/Holding's antics one bit. I personally enjoy that kind of bowling, especially when its to the openers ( i don't have a problem with someone bowling at the head of openers off the pitch- they are supposed to deal with stuff like that) and in the context it was done. That was the same series, before who's start the English Captain, a South African Tony Greig ( with SA BANNED from cricket for its apartheid) had said they'd make the West Indies 'grovel'- an extremely sensetive word to those in Africa/new world who have familial history of slavery. It'd be much like the Pakistani captain, before the India series says ' we'd show those Indians what this muslim nation can do- our anscestors showed them well too' or something to that effect. In such a case, i say its no longer a game, it is war. Declared by the host captain no less. If i had a bowler as accurate and as quick as Holding, i'd do exactly the same, especially to the captain. What is often missed is that the West Indies brutally targeted Tony Greig in that series but unlike Closey, Greig kept running away to square leg before the ball had even been bowled, giving a simple catch or a simple waft for lbw/bowled and quickly running away. Nothing like Karma comming to bite you in your ar$e in the most embarassing of ways. It was only after the Old Trafford test ( due to the above posted spell generating a lot of controversy) that the West Indies relented their bodyline bowling and Greig played a gem of an innings in the fourth test, when Lloyd restrained both Holding and Roberts from bowling at Greig for any period of time. But in the very next game after, Greig again ran away when he was greeted on crease by the Roberts & Holding pair. If you declare war,have the guts to face the consequences. If you sledge a fast bowler and ridicule him a bit, don't be surprised he's gonna come back and bowl a beamer or a big front foot no-ball. Otherwise, it makes you a whiner. Simple as that. Sree took the ridicule and turned it around pretty good imo. It could've been better if his bowling figures reflected this, but his response was a very good 'don't eff with me' response. Unless he lets this go to his head and get a dadagiri attitude, it'll serve him well.

[CC1981]

He said that ? really ? I doubt it.

Yes, he has. i've heard him once on a sky-sports program saying so and pretty sure he wrote a crickinfo article on this some years ago as well.

[Predator_05]

I personally enjoy that kind of bowling

I hope you aren't referring to the beamers. No bowler in his right mind would ever bowl one of those

[ludhianvi]

If I saw correctly, Holding didnt bowl a single beamer in that over. Sure those were bouncers, but they were well directed bouncers. Not the rubbish we see these days. It was hostile bowling, that's all. The coaches teach this sort of stuff these days: well directed bouncers right in the ribcage. Sreesanth, on the other hand, bowled a beamer. I think there is a difference.

[Chaos]

If I saw correctly, Holding didnt bowl a single beamer in that over. Sure those were bouncers, but they were well directed bouncers. Not the rubbish we see these days. It was hostile bowling, that's all. The coaches teach this sort of stuff these days: well directed bouncers right in the ribcage. Sreesanth, on the other hand, bowled a beamer. I think there is a difference.

use ur brain, those bouncers without helmet's is as dangerous as 2day's beamers. No wonder Windies rode their luck with bouncers:hysterical:

[eternalhope]

Windies during their heydays did this to every other team. Even Aussies did the same when Lille and Thommo were at their peak. I don't understand whats so wrong in it. For me, I have developed great respect to batsmen of the pre helmet days seeing the video. If they felt it was bad for the game or some one could get hurt by bowling bouncers, ICC should have restricted the number of bouncers per over, like they did several years later, restricting it to one and increasing it to two. Wasn't the restriction of two fielders behind the square on the legside brought after the Bodyline series or wasn't the legside negative bowling rule brought after Giles spell against Sachin in India. If you want to blame anybody for it, blame the ICC not individuals. Don't give room for speculation, if they feel something is dangerous, just deal with it and get rules which don't allow it, but don't blame the players or captains for it. And what fun is it watching cricket without the bouncers.

[observer1]

If I saw correctly, Holding didnt bowl a single beamer in that over. Sure those were bouncers, but they were well directed bouncers. Not the rubbish we see these days. It was hostile bowling, that's all .

I brought this issue up in a thread which I think I called 'rich comments on sreesanth's beamer'. I am in agreement that the 1976 bowling was legitimate. However, the same MH, in 1976 bowled bouncers at tailenders (against the spirit of the game) forcing Bedi to declare. And, the same Holding bowled, not one but two beamers at SMH Kirmani in this match - take my word for it, I saw it live on TV. Kirmani disdainfully asked the umpire for a guard a huge distance away from the stumps, and pointed them to Holding and said that is where he should be bowling

[Donny]

Sorry Rawal. Way off beam. Check the facts mate. :regular_smile:

[Donny]

Ok. Since you insist. :regular_smile: "Many of you would raise question that these are bouncers and the one that Sreesanth bowled was a beamer" No question about it. One delivery bounces off the wicket. The other bounced off the batsman (in this case, KP. One is legal. The other isn't. Bouncers were legal before and after bodyline. The action taken, after that series, was to restrict the placing of more than two fieldsmen behind square on the legside.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Donny]

I wasn't debating that point. Just the legality. There has always been umpires discretion about 'intimidatory bowling'. Law 42 (Fair and unfair play) 6. Dangerous and unfair bowling (a) Bowling of fast short pitched balls (bumpers or bouncers) (i) The bowling of fast short pitched balls is dangerous and unfair if the umpire at the bowler's end considers that by their repetition and taking into account their length, height and direction they are likely to inflict physical injury on the striker, irrespective of the protective equipment he may be wearing. The relative skill of the striker shall be taken into consideration. (b) Bowling of high full pitched balls (beamers) (i) Any delivery, other than a slow paced one, which passes or would have passed on the full above waist height of the striker standing upright at the crease is to be deemed dangerous and unfair, whether or not it is likely to inflict physical injury on the striker. 7. Dangerous and unfair bowling - action by the umpire (a) As soon as the umpire at the bowler's end decides under 6(a) above that the bowling of fast short pitched balls has become dangerous and unfair, or, except as in 8 below, there is an instance of dangerous and unfair bowling as defined in 6(b) above, he shall call and signal No ball and, when the ball is dead, caution the bowler, inform the other umpire, the captain of the fielding side and the batsmen of what has occured. This caution shall continue to apply throughout the innings. (b) If there is any further instance of dangerous and unfair bowling by the same bowler in the same innings, the umpire at the bowler's end shall repeat the above procedure and indicate to the bowler that this is a final warning. Both the above caution and final warning shall continue to apply even though the bowler may later change ends. © Should there be any further repetition by the same bowler in that innings, the umpire shall (i) call and signal No ball. (ii) direct the captain, when the ball is dead, to take the bowler off forthwith. The over shall be completed by another bowler, who shall neither have bowled the previous over nor be allowed to bowl the next over. The bowler thus taken off shall not be allowed to bowl again in that innings. (iii) report the occurrence to the other umpire, the batsmen and, as soon as practicable, the captain of the batting side. (iv) report the occurrence, with the other umpire, as soon as possible to the Executive of the fielding side and to any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and bowler concerned. 8. Deliberate bowling of high full pitched balls If the umpire considers that a high full pitch which is deemed to be dangerous and unfair, as defined in 6(b) above, was deliberately bowled, then the caution and warning prescribed in 7 above shall be dispensed with. The umpire shall (a) call and signal No ball. (b) direct the captain, when the ball is dead, to take the bowler off forthwith. © implement the remainder of the procedure as laid down in 7© above.

[Donny]

He wasn't particularly making a big issue of it at all. In fact, he was pointing out how he used to be young and hot headed as well and, when you reach the level Sree has, you just let your captain and team down with those antics. He was referring more to the ridiculous no ball Sree bowled than the beamer.

[observer1]

He wasn't particularly making a big issue of it at all. He was referring more to the ridiculous no ball Sree bowled than the beamer.

Donny: Can you clarify on what basis you make that statement? Rawal seems to have made his/her comment based on the Sky TV feed. Can I assume that your almost dismissive statement is also based on your watching of the Sky feed, either live or recorded highlights, with Michael Holding commentating?