Should Thirimanne have been sent off?

[Ultimate_Game]

Of course. The funny thing was opposition had no respite. The only players who succeeded were those who didnt wait for these bowlers to tire and were on the top of their game from ball 1. Which is why Sunny, Border, Lamb, Gooch succeeded against them. And really what kind of respite would you expect? There were 4 of these gentlemen. And if they would get injured (which opposition hoped for), you had folks Sylvester Clarke, Wayne Daniel and Winston Davis to walk in! lol. Sylvester Clarker was considered the maddest of the lot. Very strong, very fast, very drunk lol..Who would wanna face him? Winston Davis once took 7 wickets in LOI game in an age when Imran, Kapil, Botham huffed to get to 5 wickets (not like today where Afridi probably has 10 of these). Wayne Daniel was big lad, with a double barrel chest and awkward angle and as fast as anybody else. And these 3 lades were 2nd tier :giggle:

Yup read about Sylvester Clarke and others in a book. They played their entire career in county cricket, and were in the same boat as rajinder Goel in India where he had to wait behind the spin quartet even though he was the highest Ranji wkt taker. Any other era or any other country those 2nd tier WI pacers would have walked into the national XI. As for players who are positive succeeding against WI, it holds true even today. A batsman like Sehwag would have averaged in 30s had he been defensive and a guy like Manjrekar would have averaged in 50s had he been a bit more positive. Even Tendulkar's more memorable knocks came when he was positive from get go and generally failed when he was defensive and smply playing out time.

[Lurker]

[chichorapanti kee shuruat karoge' date= then be ready to take it back.]

First up, did you see me complaining about it or something? So why even bring it up. I have no problems doing a civil or non-civil discussion. Que sera sera.

so, considering the quality of fast bowling faced - how would you compare Gavaskar and DGB?

Hate to make this as another comparison thread. Sunny was great. I have seen him play. Used to be a one-man for most of his life. Played against most teams and scored best against the West Indies. His chink in the armor would be Australians and he never got better of Dennis Lillee, which he admitted readily in his books. But was great against West Indies, Pakistan, England etc. Bradman as such didnt have any chinks. The lowest he ever scored was in the Bodyline series, which was still a pretty healthy 56 runs. So it is hard to not put DGB ahead of Sunny.

[Raghav_12]

Jaahil and jahalat(or jahaala) is lafz' date= its not gaali-galauz. Maybe time for some Urdu education as well?? :blink::blink:

Oh Yeah.. You can copy paste stuff once again..

[Lurker]

As for players who are positive succeeding against WI' date=' it holds true even today. A batsman like Sehwag would have averaged in 30s had he been defensive and [b']a guy like Manjrekar would have averaged in 50s had he been a bit more positive. Even Tendulkar's more memorable knocks came when he was positive from get go and generally failed when he was defensive and smply playing out time.

Man I am not sure if I agree on Manjrekar. He had the technique but rarely had the shot. He carried the Manjrekar name tag that both helped and hurt him. However batting wise I was not majorly impressed. He had one great series, in Pakistan, but aside from that he was a decent bat with a lot of promises. Very bad runner between wickets and fielding was tripe too. I did enjoy watching him bat though, very classy. To be fair some of my criticism is down to the fact that he would show up as a middle order batsman in LOIs, get bogged down seriously, then leaving for Kapil, Jadeja and later batsmen to repair the damage.

[Lurker]

Oh Yeah.. You can copy paste stuff once again..

:hysterical: Dude dont take it personally, but you do qualify as a jaahil. In 2 days you have made 2 ignorant comment - 1) Bobby Simpson. 2) jaahil. And in both cases when told otherwise instead of maybe admitting it you start alleging ke saamne waala is doing copy paste google yada yada. Kuch logon ko kuch cheejon mein shayad tumse jyaada aata hai. Its no big deal. You may know more than me in most things SRT. I wouldnt have a problem with that. Not every knowledge comes out of Google yet (thankfully :winky: ) Sorry didnt mean to berate you.

[akshayxyz]

Hate to make this as another comparison thread.

Trust me you don't. Which is why you could not resist jibing - "I wonder what...".

Sunny was great. I have seen him play. Used to be a one-man for most of his life. Played against most teams and scored best against the West Indies. His chink in the armor would be Australians and he never got better of Dennis Lillee, which he admitted readily in his books. But was great against West Indies, Pakistan, England etc. Bradman as such didnt have any chinks. The lowest he ever scored was in the Bodyline series, which was still a pretty healthy 56 runs. So it is hard to not put DGB ahead of Sunny.

To find chinks in an armor, it has to be bombarded by a wide range of "astra-shastra", in variety of conditions.

[Sachinism]

In Baseball, the batter gets a hit and gets on base. While on base, he is allowed to get a lead off the base as the pitcher winds up and makes a pitch at the batter on home plate. The base runner on first base (or second or third) attempts to get to the subsequent base without having the need of the batter at home plate to get a hit or make a ground out to advance to the next base. When the base runner attempts to advance or lead off from one base to another without the ball being batted and then is tagged out by a fielder while making the attempt, he is declared out “caught stealing”. There are a couple of reasons why a base runner might attempt to steal a base. If the base runner can advance from first base to the second without a hit from the batter at home plate, he has put himself in a scoring position and can come home on a hit that goes out of the infield. Hits are hard to come by as Baseball is predicated on the fact the batters fail more often than not, to get a hit. Roughly, a batter that gets a hit every third time he steps to the home plate is considered to be performing superbly. Another reason is that it breaks the rhythm of the pitcher on the mound. Just by even pretending to steal, the base runner will ensure the pitcher pays him attention by throwing to the first baseman. Caught Stealing A pitcher will make throws to the first baseman occasionally (or as often as is required) to make sure the base runner does not get a big lead off the base. The pitcher is allowed to “pick off” the base runner or if the base runner had already made his move towards the second base, the pitcher can throw to the second baseman (or first baseman) and get the runner in a “run down”. These are allowed as long as the pitcher has not made a move decidedly towards the home plate, with the intention of delivering the pitch. If he has, then, if the catcher catches the ball, can throw to second base and get the runner out, “caught stealing”, provided the batter at home plate has not made contact with the ball. When the base runner is tagged at second base, the umpire calls the runner out and the runner makes his way to the dug out. It is one of the ways of “making an out” or if you will, “mode of dismissal”. It is in the rules of the game. The umpires do not ask the fielding team’s captain whether he wants to persist with the appeal. There is no emotional guilt, perceived or otherwise, associated with it. A player is out according to the rules of the game and hence has to make his way out of the field. Similarly, in Cricket, Law 42(15)* states “The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker.” This law is in place to prevent unfair play by the non-striker. There was a time when this law was banished but was brought back in to the sport during the ICC Conference in Hong Kong, in 2011. Once the fielder has appealed, after effecting the run out, it is the job of the umpire to enforce the law of the sport. The umpire need not and more importantly should not, put the burden of emotional guilt on the fielding team’s captain by asking him whether he really wants to appeal. This exactly was what transpired at Brisbane during Match 9 of the Commonwealth Bank Series between India and Sri Lanka. The incident can be seen in the video below. As R Ashwin ran out the over eager Thirimanne, backing up too far, he appealed to the Umpire (Paul Reiffel) and walked away towards his captain (Sehwag). Umpire Reiffel instead of declaring the batsman out (according to the law), had a discussion with the other on-field umpire Billy Bowden, who then had a discussion with Sehwag. In the mean time, Sachin Tendulkar seemed to give his input to Sehwag and they withdrew the appeal. [ame=http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xoxr46_shameful-act-by-r-ashwin-india-vs-sri-lanka-21-02-12-hq-mediafire-download_sport]SHAMEFUL ACT BY R ASHWIN & INDIA vs SRI LANKA 21-02-12 HQ(MEDIAFIRE DOWNLOAD) - Video Dailymotion[/ame] This is ridiculous on many levels. The non-striker Thirimanne was trying to gain an advantage by unfairly backing up. However, as soon as Ashwin had taken the bails off and appealed to the umpire, the umpire needed to enforce the laws of the game. Once Thirimanne had indulged in an unfair practice, in my point of view, he does not deserve a second chance. If his excuse was, if anything, he did not know of the change in the law, I do not see why ignorance should be rewarded. Secondly, Umpire Reiffel needed to adjudicate based on the events that unfolded right in front of his eyes, rather than get in a discussion with Umpire Bowden. Was there any doubt in Umpire Reiffel’s mind as to what had transpired in front of him? It was all very plain to see. I do not see any reason why Reiffel would have had any doubts, which would have led him to discuss it with Bowden. If indeed Reiffel had doubts of what he had to do, that actually makes him an incompetent umpire. To top it all off, Sehwag’s reasoning as to why he withdrew the appeal, as he mentioned it in the post-match press conference was, “because if we appealed and umpire gave him out, then somebody will criticise that, you know, that was not spirit of the game.” How is then, what Thirimanne was doing in the spirit of the game? Sehwag has actually gone on and rewarded a player who was shortchanging the opponent by playing unfairly, while pussyfooting around the situation. Just so you know, Thirimanne continued to back up after this incident for bowlers other than Ashwin. Michael Jeh, writing on ESPNCricinfo commends the gesture, “cool-headed wisdom [of Sehwag and Tendulkar], coupled with sensible umpiring, avoided creating an incident that would inevitably have polarised two close neighbours and would almost certainly have led to bad blood that would have lingered on for some time.” Really Michael? How long did the bad blood from when Randiv bowled a no ball to prevent Sehwag from getting a century last? If the “Spirit of Cricket” is going to be invoked as and when it is convenient, why even bother to have laws of the game for specific situations? Why bother having officials who are entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing the laws of the game? It has become acceptable for players to appeal for catches even when they know for a fact the batsman has not edged it. Bowlers appeal for LBWs when it is plain to see the batsman has got an inside edge. How can these practices be reconciled with the Spirit of Cricket? Sachin Tendulkar, who played the mediator here and convinced Sehwag to withdraw the appeal, almost never walks. Baseball has this vagueness and the gray area of morality covered pretty well. The umpires do their jobs with out forcing the players to make decisions based on supposed guilt, and the players do theirs. It is about time Cricket sheds its cloak of morality. It is just a convenient place for those that are playing the game unfairly to hide in. —- * – Update: The MCC Law 42(15) has been replaced by ICC’s Standard One Day International Match Playing Conditions 42(11) (Page 29 of the document) which is shown below. http://thecricketcouch.com/blog/2012/02/22/caught-stealing/

[MCcricket]

Something about this guy is repulsive, another Lankan cheat, Dilshan, Randiv, Jaywardene now have one their ilk.

[Raghav_12]

:hysterical: Dude dont take it personally, but you do qualify as a jaahil. In 2 days you have made 2 ignorant comment - 1) Bobby Simpson. 2) jaahil. And in both cases when told otherwise instead of maybe admitting it you start alleging ke saamne waala is doing copy paste google yada yada. Kuch logon ko kuch cheejon mein shayad tumse jyaada aata hai. Its no big deal. You may know more than me in most things SRT. I wouldnt have a problem with that. Not every knowledge comes out of Google yet (thankfully :winky: ) Sorry didnt mean to berate you.

Everybody has difference tolerance level of abusing. To many Jahil may sound a word from normal conversation, based on the culture one is coming from, but nonetheless it is derogatory word. You are definitely out of your limits when you are using an offensive word for some person who just doesn't agree with your line of thinking. You rate or berate me, I don't care much of ratings from a random guy. It was your wrong assumption that I don't know anything about Bob Simpson. If i did not, how I would have picked immediately that Bob Simpson worst name you could have used in context of discussion? But you under illusion that only you have done PhD on Simpson kept posting stuff which a guy who don't even know what Cricket is, will find out over net in couple of minutes. Coming back to Jahil, it's definitely name calling and a word I won't use for somebody just for not agreeing with me. But nobody is stoping you from doing this "jahil"giri, you can very well continue.

[Lurker]

To find chinks in an armor, it has to be bombarded by a wide range of "astra-shastra", in variety of conditions.

So continuing with Sunny G theme pray do tell me what astra-shastra did Dennis Lillee have that the arsenal of Andy Roberts, Garner, Marshall, Croft, John Snow, Imran Khan, Ian Botham, Bob Willis, Richard Hadlee, Thomson etc...and if you include Sunny's stint in county cricket - Mike Procter, Sylvester Clarke, Wayne Daniel, Garth Le Rouxe etc. did not have. I am all ears mate. :nervous:

[Lurker]

Everybody has difference tolerance level of abusing. To many Jahil may sound a word from normal conversation, based on the culture one is coming from, but nonetheless it is derogatory word. You are definitely out of your limits when you are using an offensive word for some person who just doesn't agree with your line of thinking.

Words are contextual, I concur with that. But jaahil is NOT a gaali. Now if you think otherwise thats fine. But nobody does so thats that. With regards to Bobby Simpson. It was a weird reason to start with. Border and Simpson rebuilt Australia in 80s and this approach made Aussies what they become in 90s and 2000s. Simpson was a coach for crying it loud. And on that point you picked Simpson as a player who played till he was 42. Nevermind the fact that he retired at 31 and came back to lead Australia due to Packer crisis. Your argument was so weird, I still dont know why you are contesting it? As for you caring whether I berate you or not. You shouldnt. But what you should perhaps care about is that you may meet people who know more than you do in certain areas and it doesnt hurt to acknowledge that instead of shoving the google-copy-paste routine. But hey if thats what you want, its your life buddy. xx

[Lurker]

This exactly was what transpired at Brisbane during Match 9 of the Commonwealth Bank Series between India and Sri Lanka. The incident can be seen in the video below. As R Ashwin ran out the over eager Thirimanne, backing up too far, he appealed to the Umpire (Paul Reiffel) and walked away towards his captain (Sehwag). Umpire Reiffel instead of declaring the batsman out (according to the law), had a discussion with the other on-field umpire Billy Bowden, who then had a discussion with Sehwag. In the mean time, Sachin Tendulkar seemed to give his input to Sehwag and they withdrew the appeal.

The whole incident is effed up on all levels. a) The umpire (Paul Reiffel) had no reason to consult with Billy Bowden. Kapil Dev had run out Peter Kirsten in early 1990s series against South Africa. Watch the clip. TBIiZBsBTOQ b) Bowden and Reiffel should have no reason to consult with Sehwag. c) WTF were motu and Sachin thinking?? Both have played ample cricket. And Sachin was played the game in which Kapil dismissed. xxx

[Ultimate_Game]

Man I am not sure if I agree on Manjrekar. He had the technique but rarely had the shot. He carried the Manjrekar name tag that both helped and hurt him. However batting wise I was not majorly impressed. He had one great series, in Pakistan, but aside from that he was a decent bat with a lot of promises. Very bad runner between wickets and fielding was tripe too. I did enjoy watching him bat though, very classy. To be fair some of my criticism is down to the fact that he would show up as a middle order batsman in LOIs, get bogged down seriously, then leaving for Kapil, Jadeja and later batsmen to repair the damage.

The reason I said he would have averaged in 50s if he had been a bit more positive as he had a pretty solid defense and technique. His problem was that he didn't even try hitting or scoring against the "hit me" balls. He would pat the half volleys and leave short and wide stuff and would eventually get a good ball and get out. If he had been a bit more positive, he would have scored lot more runs. In fact after retiring he did admit that he was way too defensive and probably he could have done better by being a bit more aggressive.

[CG]

Dude phir wahi? When SRT faced Ambrose, Wasim, Waqar, Mcgrath & Donald he averages 36. And none of these would be as good as Marshall. So SRT would be averaging in low 20s (maybe). No wonder Sunny Gavaskar is considered the better batsman by those who have watched both Sunny and SRT. That should be enough for SRT-Bradman discussion for this thread, no?

Stats do not show the whole picture against wasim and waqar he played very few matches and that too half when he was 18 ,Against those bowlers sachin also scored runs pitch conditions,team situations also affect your stats . Here are sachin averges against individual bowlers- AMbrose and walsh- Sunfiltered 1989-2012 188 15470 248* 55.44 51 45 3/10 54.33 0 113 0 Profile filtered 1994-1997 8 691 179 62.81 1 0 - - 0 10 0 as you can he averages 62 against these two great fast bowlers Waqar and wasim- Span Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100 Wkts BBI Bowl Av 5 Ct St unfiltered 1989-2012 188 15470 248* 55.44 51 45 3/10 54.33 0 113 0 Profile filtered 1989-1999 7 395 136 32.91 1 4 2/35 22.00 0 1 0 Glen mcgrath& gillespie- nfiltered 1989-2012 188 15470 248* 55.44 51 45 3/10 54.33 0 113 0 Profile filtered 1996-2004 12 1001 241* 47.66 3 6 3/31 53.66 0 3 0 averages 47 Alan donald- unfiltered 1989-2012 188 15470 248* 55.44 51 45 3/10 54.33 0 113 0 Profile filtered 1992-1997 7 443 169 36.91 2 1 1/9 32.00 0 7 0 Point to be noted is in more than 5 tests averages innings score was less than 250 As i said stats do not tell the whole story,If you watched all the matches you would not say they owned tendulkar.

[achilles]

Similarly, in Cricket, Law 42(15)* states ŵhe bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker. This law is in place to prevent unfair play by the non-striker. There was a time when this law was banished but was brought back in to the sport during the ICC Conference in Hong Kong, in 2011. Once the fielder has appealed, after effecting the run out, it is the job of the umpire to enforce the law of the sport. The umpire need not and more importantly should not, put the burden of emotional guilt on the fielding teamÃÔ captain by asking him whether he really wants to appeal. This exactly was what transpired at Brisbane during Match 9 of the Commonwealth Bank Series between India and Sri Lanka. The incident can be seen in the video below. As R Ashwin ran out the over eager Thirimanne, backing up too far, he appealed to the Umpire (Paul Reiffel) and walked away towards his captain (Sehwag). Umpire Reiffel instead of declaring the batsman out (according to the law), had a discussion with the other on-field umpire Billy Bowden, who then had a discussion with Sehwag. In the mean time, Sachin Tendulkar seemed to give his input to Sehwag and they withdrew the appeal. SHAMEFUL ACT BY R ASHWIN & INDIA vs SRI LANKA 21-02-12 HQ(MEDIAFIRE DOWNLOAD) - Video Dailymotion This is ridiculous on many levels. The non-striker Thirimanne was trying to gain an advantage by unfairly backing up. However, as soon as Ashwin had taken the bails off and appealed to the umpire, the umpire needed to enforce the laws of the game. Once Thirimanne had indulged in an unfair practice, in my point of view, he does not deserve a second chance. If his excuse was, if anything, he did not know of the change in the law, I do not see why ignorance should be rewarded. Secondly, Umpire Reiffel needed to adjudicate based on the events that unfolded right in front of his eyes, rather than get in a discussion with Umpire Bowden. Was there any doubt in Umpire ReiffelÃÔ mind as to what had transpired in front of him? It was all very plain to see. I do not see any reason why Reiffel would have had any doubts, which would have led him to discuss it with Bowden. If indeed Reiffel had doubts of what he had to do, that actually makes him an incompetent umpire. To top it all off, SehwagÃÔ reasoning as to why he withdrew the appeal, as he mentioned it in the post-match press conference was, ÅÃecause if we appealed and umpire gave him out, then somebody will criticise that, you know, that was not spirit of the game. How is then, what Thirimanne was doing in the spirit of the game? Sehwag has actually gone on and rewarded a player who was shortchanging the opponent by playing unfairly, while pussyfooting around the situation. Just so you know, Thirimanne continued to back up after this incident for bowlers other than Ashwin. Michael Jeh, writing on ESPNCricinfo commends the gesture, ÅÄool-headed wisdom [of Sehwag and Tendulkar], coupled with sensible umpiring, avoided creating an incident that would inevitably have polarised two close neighbours and would almost certainly have led to bad blood that would have lingered on for some time. Really Michael? How long did the bad blood from when Randiv bowled a no ball to prevent Sehwag from getting a century last? If the Å´pirit of Cricket is going to be invoked as and when it is convenient, why even bother to have laws of the game for specific situations? Why bother having officials who are entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing the laws of the game? It has become acceptable for players to appeal for catches even when they know for a fact the batsman has not edged it. Bowlers appeal for LBWs when it is plain to see the batsman has got an inside edge. How can these practices be reconciled with the Spirit of Cricket? Sachin Tendulkar, who played the mediator here and convinced Sehwag to withdraw the appeal, almost never walks. ? * Update: The MCC Law 42(15) has been replaced by ICCÃÔ Standard One Day International Match Playing Conditions 42(11) (Page 29 of the document) which is shown below. http://thecricketcouch.com/blog/2012/02/22/caught-stealing/

The video is titled "Shameful act by Ashwin". Seriously, that is what the Lankans think? I would like to know what they think about Sangakarra constantly claiming absurd catches and Dilshan intructing Randiv to bowl a no-ball to Sehwag to deny him the 100. And who can forget the shameful fiasco by Kumar at the World Cup final. These Lankans are a bloody disgrace!

[TheWall]

bloody lankans - big cheaters, chuckers....

[Crookbond]

was the audio heard live by the tv audience or did Fox Sport showed it later. it'd be great to hear more of these types of convos between players on the field

Focused more after the incident.

[akshayxyz]

So continuing with Sunny G theme pray do tell me what astra-shastra did Dennis Lillee have that the arsenal of Andy Roberts, Garner, Marshall, Croft, John Snow, Imran Khan, Ian Botham, Bob Willis, Richard Hadlee, Thomson etc...and if you include Sunny's stint in county cricket - Mike Procter, Sylvester Clarke, Wayne Daniel, Garth Le Rouxe etc. did not have. I am all ears mate. :nervous:

aaye haaye, itna bholapan... Where did I question variety faced by Sunny G?

[The Outsider]

That particular test match being called a bodyline test is something I have read only in your posts. That was dangerous bowling for sure but there were many other instances of dangerous bowlings from 70's and 80's, though I never heard of diplomatic crisis followings those pieces of dangerous bowling. Search on Youtube with keywords of Michael Holding and Brial Close. In resulting video, you'll see all balls of that over were targetted at Close's head. I wonder how you can uniquely define what is bodyline bowling and can say that particular over from Holding doesn't confirm to that definition of Bodyline. All hue and cry about Bodyline was because with all that short pitch stuff, it that was kind of departure from prevalent notion of international cricket which was of some fun activity in which some middle-aged guys would indulge.

You're not doing justice to your favorite tool of "Google" because if you did you would know Bodyline was much more than intimidating or dangerous bowling: 1. There were no restrictions on the fielders on the leg side. 2. There were no restrictions on the fielders on the leg side behind the stumps. If you have played cricket to any level you would realize how much more difficult things become with such a field placing. It was called the "Leg Theory" to start off with and was rightly got rid of because it would kill the game of cricket - only someone as great as Bradman would be able to score off such tactics, maybe a handful more. In that Sabina Park test, West Indies still could not operate with fielders on the leg side and with a fairly above average attack (the only great bowler in the line up was a rookie Holding) were able to make India forfeit the test. Now couple that with unlimited fielders on the leg side and you have got Bodyline. Here is something more which you might or might not find on Google - Bradman pioneered the upper cut in the Bodyline series to counter the tactics by taking a guard on his leg stump and carving the ball through vacant slips and gully. He played a high risk game which is reflected in his average of 60 and a strike rate of 75.

[Raghav_12]

You're not doing justice to your favorite tool of "Google" because if you did you would know Bodyline was much more than intimidating or dangerous bowling:

I think you are legendary enough on this forum to take on novice like me. You don't need to "team up" with other legends for that.

1. There were no restrictions on the fielders on the leg side. 2. There were no restrictions on the fielders on the leg side behind the stumps. If you have played cricket to any level you would realize how much more difficult things become with such a field placing. It was called the "Leg Theory" to start off with and was rightly got rid of because it would kill the game of cricket - only someone as great as Bradman would be able to score off such tactics, maybe a handful more. In that Sabina Park test, West Indies still could not operate with fielders on the leg side and with a fairly above average attack (the only great bowler in the line up was a rookie Holding) were able to make India forfeit the test. Now couple that with unlimited fielders on the leg side and you have got Bodyline. Here is something more which you might or might not find on Google - Bradman pioneered the upper cut in the Bodyline series to counter the tactics by taking a guard on his leg stump and carving the ball through vacant slips and gully. He played a high risk game which is reflected in his average of 60 and a strike rate of 75.

Fielders on leg side or behind the square on leg side is only strategic part. Main motive behind such bowling is intimidation and that doesn't come from seeing many fielders on leg side. India forfieted that test because of balls aimed that batsmen bodies, fielders on leg side wouldn't have made any difference. Even today bowlers make batsmen fear for their physical safety through bouncers or short-pitch bowling, though in limited measures. Point I am trying to make is bouncers trigger same kind of fear in batsmen mind irrespective of field placements. In 70's and 80's, all these fast bowlers were allowed to run amok with their short pitch stuff and nobody cried that time. Batsmen came up with genuine ideas to counter this kind of bowling with things like Helmets etc, instead of creating controversies involving government and demonising fast bowlers for doing that. Last paragraph is irrelevant to this discussion. But credit to Bradman for countering something which was something new for cricket of that time, in a manner relatively better than his teammates.