Ultimate_Game Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 I don't think most of you get the point of the OP. The OP is not questioning the legitimacy of the delivery or the right of Starc to bowl a bouncer. The OP says that the given the match situation - it was in poor taste. The intention wasn't only to get Yadav's wicket. It will be interesting to see the opinions of people who support Starc think about Randiv NO ball when Sehwag was on 99. Bowling a bouncer is a legitimate tactic as it's a legal delivery which a bowler can bowl anytime he wishes to. OTOH bowling a deliberate no-ball to deny the opposition a landmark is being a poor sport. This comparison woul dhave made sense had Starc bowled a beamer (high full toss aimed at upper body or head) at Yadav and not a legitimate bouncer.
MCGGG Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 I don't think most of you get the point of the OP. The OP is not questioning the legitimacy of the delivery or the right of Starc to bowl a bouncer. The OP says that the given the match situation - it was in poor taste. The intention wasn't only to get Yadav's wicket. It will be interesting to see the opinions of people who support Starc think about Randiv NO ball when Sehwag was on 99. Why not walk off then? You do realise Stark like most other players are on performance based contracts above their original contract? They get bonuses, Could be up to 5k a wkt, maybe more, Aussie cricketers aren't kazillionaires like Indian players. Here's a tip, learn how to ****ing bat.
vijay50 Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 I don't think most of you get the point of the OP. The OP is not questioning the legitimacy of the delivery or the right of Starc to bowl a bouncer. The OP says that the given the match situation - it was in poor taste. The intention wasn't only to get Yadav's wicket. It will be interesting to see the opinions of people who support Starc think about Randiv NO ball when Sehwag was on 99. to summarize it all boils down to "spirit of the game".
MCGGG Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 to summarize it all boils down to "spirit of the game". The game doesn't stop until it's over, now FFS we aren't talking about 155k Beamers here.
MK55 Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 There's nothing wrong in the tactic even when the game was almost won. With the protection that batters have got these days, it is very rare to get seriously injured. Yadav was even wearing a neck guard. Starc wanted to finish the game asap. The best way to do that was to bowl a well directed quick bouncer, intimidate the batter, push him on the back foot and then get the yorker right. If the game was perceived to be lost and if we had accepted it then Yadav could have just walked off or walked away from the stumps and got bowled. He wanted to put a fight and that was right. I hope Yadav does the same when he is in a similar position as Starc. If he decides to be less aggressive and changes his game plan depending upon his interpretation of the game's position, then that can result in a lot of confusion. There could be a situation when he'll deliberately become less aggressive even when there are 2 wickets or 3 wickets remaining and so on.
moniker Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 I don't think most of you get the point of the OP. The OP is not questioning the legitimacy of the delivery or the right of Starc to bowl a bouncer. The OP says that the given the match situation - it was in poor taste. The intention wasn't only to get Yadav's wicket. It will be interesting to see the opinions of people who support Starc think about Randiv NO ball when Sehwag was on 99. How do we know the intention wasn't only to get Yadav's wicket? The bouncer would've got him, or set him up for subsequent deliveries (which it probably did). If there's really a genuine intention to hurt the batsman then there's something terribly wrong with the bowler.
Ultimate_Game Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 It was good Starc bowled short at Yadav. Facing the tactic first hand might help Yadav how to get rid of lower order batsmen in the future, which has been our bane forever. We somehow struggle to get rid of the lower order and if Yadav has learnt something from this experience, Starc may well have done us a favor.
Crookbond Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 Bowling a bouncer is a legitimate tactic as it's a legal delivery which a bowler can bowl anytime he wishes to. OTOH bowling a deliberate no-ball to deny the opposition a landmark is being a poor sport. This comparison woul dhave made sense had Starc bowled a beamer (high full toss aimed at upper body or head) at Yadav and not a legitimate bouncer. Bowling a NO ball is a legitimate "tactic" as it will be penalized according to the law and therefore, the bowler can bowl a NO ball any time he wants to. OTOH bowling a bouncer to hurt a batsman when the game is meandering towards a victory is being a poor sport. :wink2: You are drawing the comparison based on legitimacy of the delivery. I am drawing the comparison on the line of bowler's choice. PS - I am trying to play the devil's advocate here.
Crookbond Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 Why not walk off then? You do realise Stark like most other players are on performance based contracts above their original contract? They get bonuses, Could be up to 5k a wkt, maybe more, Aussie cricketers aren't kazillionaires like Indian players. Here's a tip, learn how to ****ing bat. You need to first learn to read and comprehend my point before you dish out ill constructed responses which are difficult to read. I know it's difficult to learn logic, English in Pakistan - ICF can pool in to sponsor some money. Just let us know.
Crookbond Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 How do we know the intention wasn't only to get Yadav"s wicket? The bouncer would've got him' date=' or set him up for subsequent deliveries (which it probably did). If there's really a genuine intention to hurt the batsman then there's something terribly wrong with the bowler.[/quote'] How do we know there was no intention to hurt the bowler? That's my point - it's a grey area with a lot of ifs and buts; not as simple as it is made out to be.
MCGGG Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 You need to first learn to read and comprehend my point before you dish out ill constructed responses which are difficult to read. I know it's difficult to learn logic' date=' English in Pakistan - ICF can pool in to sponsor some money. Just let us know.[/quote'] I suggest you learn to read brother, but I will admit I'm wasted ATM, 2 bottles of scotch gone and a spiffa, had to service the cook as well.
MCGGG Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 You need to first learn to read and comprehend my point before you dish out ill constructed responses which are difficult to read. I know it's difficult to learn logic' date=' English in Pakistan - ICF can pool in to sponsor some money. Just let us know.[/quote'] But still, you didn't reply to my point, you went down the grammar police route, which is the Indian way.
MCGGG Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 Stop playing cricket guys, it's becoming very clear why you suck.
CSK Fan Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 I am with MCGGG on this one. What are we whining about now?
CSK Fan Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 BTW, to OP, these tactics are not for this game only. These tactics are a long term strategy. When Aussies where on the top of the game for decades, they put the fear of God in their opposition. Teams and players used to be scared of them. When they used to win, they used to dominate so much that it used to carry onto every other game after that Smashing and scaring an opposition lasts not only for that match, but every-time the player plays Australia next, they will carry the scars with them. There are many, many players who went to pieces against Aussies. Of course, for some very rare players, these tactics help in motivating them to do better. Then the Aussies will respect such a player. However, they want to completely destroy the mentally weak. Not just take their wickets but make sure they know they are playing a ruthless opposition every time.
MCGGG Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 BTW, to OP, these tactics are not for this game only. These tactics are a long term strategy. When Aussies where on the top of the game for decades, they put the fear of God in their opposition. Teams and players used to be scared of them. When they used to win, they used to dominate so much that it used to carry onto every other game after that Smashing and scaring an opposition lasts not only for that match, but every-time the player plays Australia next, they will carry the scars with them. There are many, many players who went to pieces against Aussies. Of course, for some very rare players, these tactics help in motivating them to do better. Then the Aussies will respect such a player. However, they want to completely destroy the mentally weak. Not just take their wickets but make sure they know they are playing a ruthless opposition every time. Not sure if you've ever watched Aussie rules football, but no matter what the game situation, if you go half cocked it makes national news, and trust me, backing into a pack knowing the power forwards are behind you takes more courage than facing a cricket ball, look up aussie rules hits and you'll see. Great post BTW.
jonas10 Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 I don't think most of you get the point of the OP. The OP is not questioning the legitimacy of the delivery or the right of Starc to bowl a bouncer. The OP says that the given the match situation - it was in poor taste. The intention wasn't only to get Yadav's wicket. It will be interesting to see the opinions of people who support Starc think about Randiv NO ball when Sehwag was on 99. Exactly! People here shiet a storm after that. Even what if he bowled a few wides... Not against his right isn't it?
Crookbond Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 I suggest you learn to read brother' date=' but I will admit I'm wasted ATM, 2 bottles of scotch gone and a spiffa, had to service the cook as well.[/quote']
Crookbond Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 Stop playing cricket guys' date=' it's becoming very clear why you suck.[/quote'] I don't think you understand the meaning of the phrase "you suck".
HippoSucks Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 You need to first learn to read and comprehend my point before you dish out ill constructed responses which are difficult to read. I know it's difficult to learn logic' date=' English in Pakistan - ICF can pool in to sponsor some money. Just let us know.[/quote'] What the...? He raised a valid point which was a proper response to your post. Bowlers are likely given extra income based on the wickets they get. Of course Starc can sit around and wait until Yadav plays a bad shot, but that means he could also get out to Johnson. It doesn’t matter if the opposition is 8 down chasing 300 or 2 down chasing 100. A bowler’s objective is to get wickets in any manner possible given it is within the regulations of the game.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now