How do Larwood fans explain this?

[Crookbond]

It seems he also retired in 1938 due to medical conditions Source : Wisden

[mishra]

Sir Harry still feels strongly that the idea that Larwood was bowling at the body was quite wrong and "grossly exaggerated by The Times cricket correspondent .... He was simply bowling at the leg stump."

Sir Harry was English doc who checked Larwood before the Round the wicket tour he was just bowling round the wicket and on to stumps

[Crookbond]

So now we need to believe a British Orthopedic professor but we can't believe cricketers like Benaud, Hobbs, Miller et al. :nice:

[Tapioca]

Sir Harry was English doc who checked Larwood before the Round the wicket tour he was just bowling round the wicket and on to stumps

Mishraji, Larwood did not bowl around the wicket.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Tapioca]

I thought you didn't have time for such discussions .. No ? :hmmm: lol at the " removed out of context" post ... I mean since when did you begin to care about context ? :cantstop:

The out of context post was another one liner. Removed it because of the serious posts that followed :winky:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

And the incident involvingBert Oldfield that you mentioned was a result of the batsmans own error.

Obviously it was Oldfield's error but it's not hard to conjure up that it may have been a side-effect due to bodyline bowling.

[mishra]

So now we need to believe a British Orthopedic professor but we can't believe cricketers like Benaud' date=' Hobbs, Miller et al. :nice:[/quote'] Yes.. If it was about purists then he wasnt even happy players hugging each other... BTW Its Benaud who has been mascot of mis representaion in world cricket. He is just a fanboy. Nothing more

[Crookbond]

:facepalm:

[mishra]

Mishraji' date=' Larwood did not bowl around the wicket.[/quote'] :winky: Untill u popped up some experts did argue with me...:hatsoff: icfers BTW despite all the bodyline ho haaa.... No one was injured.... But it was dangerous :facepalm: while they could easily face bouncers. So did they used to ball wide bouncers (IF they could)? Why keep the legstump then. If you cant bowl to the legstump

[tothepoint]

WTF has this to do with the situation of Larwood being hounded out for doing absolutely no wrong ? It is not even something that realtes to a onfield incident like the Bodyline series. BTW 18 tests vs Pakis is a small number now ? And last time I checked the Aussies were the big team in the last 20 yr .. No ? why don't you tell us what written rule was broken by Larwood ? And hell ya Bradman did everything in his powers to ban Bodyline bowling. I can't be bothered to go thru this again. ohhh bhai people were not used to the concept of cricket as being a intimidatory aggressive sport. Even legside bowling was frowned upon and bowlers sternly discouraged from indulging in such bowling never mind intimidatory short pitch bowling. And the incident involvingBert Oldfield that you mentioned was a result of the batsmans own error.

So averaging 42 in 18 tests against your main adversary is a big deal now! And in b4 you will ask which is the better team between the two. Here we are talking of ATG pace bowlers in TEST matches and while Pak had Wasim and Waqar ,Aussies had just McG. I am sure you can do your math. Aur Bossbhai, as Sachin has nothing to do in both cases(infact I believe he would have improved his record against Pak had he got more chances), similarly Bradman played no role in banning bodyline other than he showed his displeasure to some local administrators and warned beforehand that this wouldn long last. Later, after the series with West Indies at home was over and the truth of bodyline came in front of the british public, the MCC, which was like 100 times more powerful than the present day BCCI, asked Harold Larwood to sign an apology and making his selection for England conditional upon it. Was he made a scapegoat? Yes. Was it because of Bradman? A big NO. You make sweeping statements with no proof just like I did for Sachin. Cricket in 1932-33 was not all about one man. This Bradman bhaisaab made his debut 3 years earlier in 1928 and was only 24 years old, quite a young chap to plan/ban so many things! And its not like Bradman failed miserably, he still averaged 56, all the while suffering from ill health and missed the first test, but I guess you would rather believe Jardine the hero who said it was due to nervous breakdown. As far as bodyline is concerned, I am sure you are well aware of the rule changes caused due to bodyline and its illegal now so one can never be so sure of how the modern day greats would have performed either. Yes, Bert Oldfield top edged a non-bodyline delivery and admitted that it was his own doing later on but the main point was that the watching public were pissed because of the pure stupidity of poms, having 5-6 fields behind the square and bowling bouncers after bouncers. And if this happens in today's mentalman game, their reaction will be no different.:P And as far as the million dollar question "how fast was larwood" is concerned. I think he or for that matter any other fast bowler in the 30s could bowl faster(and is a greater bowler) than the gully mohalla cricketers(who regularly clock mid 70s), Sourav Gangulys(fitness freak), Joginder Sharmas(FC average 20) and even Ashish Nehras(genuine fast-medium bowler) of our times. You dont. To each his own :) As you have said you rate any modern day batsman greater/better than the likes of Hammond,Hobbs,Headley,Hutton etc. I dont. I hope you understand. TIA :)

[Lurker]

:winky: Untill u popped up some experts did argue with me...:hatsoff: icfers BTW despite all the bodyline ho haaa.... No one was injured.... But it was dangerous :facepalm: while they could easily face bouncers. So did they used to ball wide bouncers (IF they could)? Why keep the legstump then. If you cant bowl to the legstump

Mishir-ji the word you are looking for is धीट. Yaar hadh aadmi ho. Your premise is based on Larwood bowling from round the wicket. Some people leave that as is, Tapioca takes you to task and your response, which ideally should have been - My mistake, thanks for correcting...is a rather stubborn - Oh but experts did argue with me? Kuch bhi bak dete ho miyaan??? What kind of a stubborn atitude is that man? Just makes me wonder if any of your further posts are worth a read, or response??

[Crookbond]

Mishir-ji the word you are looking for is धीट. Yaar hadh aadmi ho. Your premise is based on Larwood bowling from round the wicket. Some people leave that as is, Tapioca takes you to task and your response, which ideally should have been - My mistake, thanks for correcting...is a rather stubborn - Oh but experts did argue with me? Kuch bhi bak dete ho miyaan??? What kind of a stubborn atitude is that man? Just makes me wonder if any of your further posts are worth a read, or response??

When you do that, your credibility goes for a toss.

[zep1706]

larwood fans are long dead

True that :haha: