Starc Bowling Bouncers to Yadav

[BlueBee]

****ing HTBs. Lose to Pakistan, thrashed to be precise and says we suck.

[CSK Fan]

****ing HTBs. Lose to Pakistan' date=' thrashed to be precise and says we suck.[/quote'] India lost the last bilateral series to Pak too #justsaying

[Crookbond]

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.

Did you read my post? If not, go through it once again. I didn't say Starc should NOT DO it. All I said was, the OP is saying that Starc "may have" done that to hurt Yadav physically apart from getting the wicket. Similarly, Randiv bowled a NO Ball to hurt Sehwag cricket wise. Both might be legitimate tactics, however - if someone says that it was in "poor taste" that's fine, no big deal.

[Shivaji bhonsle]

Stop this nonsense and close this useless thread.

[HippoSucks]

Did you read my post? If not, go through it once again. I didn't say Starc should NOT DO it. All I said was, the OP is saying that Starc "may have" done that to hurt Yadav physically apart from getting the wicket. Similarly, Randiv bowled a NO Ball to hurt Sehwag cricket wise. Both might be legitimate tactics, however - if someone says that it was in "poor taste" that's fine, no big deal.

But how can you read the bowler’s mind? You can make that argument for anyone bowling a bouncer. Yadav bowled bouncers, although not to tail enders, and his intention may have been to harm the batsman. There are incidents, such as the one you mentioned, where the clear intention was to hurt the batsman. No one encourages that, but this was much different.

[Crookbond]

But how can you read the bowler’s mind? You can make that argument for anyone bowling a bouncer. Yadav bowled bouncers, although not to tail enders, and his intention may have been to harm the batsman. There are incidents, such as the one you mentioned, where the clear intention was to hurt the batsman. No one encourages that, but this was much different.

Exactly - you can't; so it goes either ways. Notice my use of the word "may be" in the earlier post and stress on it. The other incidents could also be called as a "tactic".

[CSK Fan]

I can see people conveniently ignoring my post. The same people who will be first ones to ask why Indian players don't have killer instinct, why we cannot dominate for long time, ec

[Crookbond]

Most responses have already been answered. If people keep on making the same points again and again, don't expect responses. The world revolves, just not around you.

[CSK Fan]

Most responses have already been answered. If people keep on making the same points again and again' date=' don't expect responses. The world revolves, just not around you.[/quote'] So responses on long term team strategy has been answered? Must have been with invisible online ink then. Any idea how to see them?

[Crookbond]

So responses on long term team strategy has been answered? Must have been with invisible online ink then. Any idea how to see them?

Remove your jaundice eyed glasses. FWIW, no one said that it isn't an effective strategy. So basically, straw man.

[sage]

MCGGG still struggling with the English I see.

[moniker]

Did you read my post? If not, go through it once again. I didn't say Starc should NOT DO it. All I said was, the OP is saying that Starc "may have" done that to hurt Yadav physically apart from getting the wicket. Similarly, Randiv bowled a NO Ball to hurt Sehwag cricket wise. Both might be legitimate tactics, however - if someone says that it was in "poor taste" that's fine, no big deal.

What I gather from the OP is that he doesn't expect a bowler to bowl bouncers at tailenders as they aren't skilled enough to negotiate them and that it could hurt them. Don't see him okaying the tactic if the intention is just to take the wicket, looks like he's against bowling bouncers to tailenders irrespective of the intention of the bowler.

[zep1706]

MCGGG still struggling with the English I see.

Lahori English. :giggle:

[zep1706]

I think some of you are not getting the point of this thread. It is not about what's within the rules. Even underarm was not illegal when it was bowled. But was it the right thing to do? A bowler generally warns a batsman before mankading him, he doesn't have to. Dhoni called back Ian Bell when he did not have to. The point is-- when the game was already over (let's not kid ourselves by saying it was not)--some of us are questioning the intention of bowling back to back bouncers to a #11 batsman, especially when you have the best yorker in the game. All of us know that it was legal.

[Ultimate_Game]

I think some of you are not getting the point of this thread. It is not about what's within the rules. Even underarm was not illegal when it was bowled. But was it the right thing to do? A bowler generally warns a batsman before mankading him' date=' he doesn't have to. Dhoni called back Ian Bell when he did not have to. The point is-- when the game was already over (let's not kid ourselves by saying it was not)--[b']some of us are questioning the intention of bowling back to back bouncers to a #11 batsman, especially when you have the best yorker in the game. All of us know that it was legal.

It's a World Cup semi-final. I would expect my fast bowler to bowl bouncers at opponent's no. 11 if he shows weakness for the short stuff. Having a good yorker is all the more reason to pepper a batsman with short stuff to push him back and soften him up for the yorker. I say well bowled by Starc and I hope Yadav and other bowlers have learnt something from the experience.

[zep1706]

It's a World Cup semi-final. I would expect my fast bowler to bowl bouncers at opponent's no. 11 if he shows weakness for the short stuff. Having a good yorker is all the more reason to pepper a batsman with short stuff to push him back and soften him up for the yorker. I say well bowled by Starc and I hope Yadav and other bowlers have learnt something from the experience.

The world cup semi final was already over by that time. If India had even a minuscule chance of winning it I would not have questioned it. Also he did not stop after the batsman was hit. The following ball was also short. That forced me to wonder what his intention was.

[Ultimate_Game]

The world cup semi final was already over by that time. If India had even a minuscule chance of winning it I would not have questioned it. Also he did not stop after the batsman was hit. The following ball was also short. That forced me to wonder what his intention was.

As I said earlier all power to Starc for bowling bouncer or anything else he wished. My only wish is that our pacers learnt from that experience and develop a mean ruthless streak of their own. It doesn't matter whether you are up by 10 or 100, you need to be ruthless all the time and this is what makes Aussies the team they are - they never let up. Hopefully our pacers learnt from that experience and rely on it in the future. Maybe this lack of ruthlessness in our bowlers is what allows our opponents' lower order to score loads of runs. You hardly see that happen against Aussies and maybe Starc's bowling provides a clue.

[zep1706]

As I said earlier all power to Starc for bowling bouncer or anything else he wished. My only wish is that our pacers learnt from that experience and develop a mean ruthless streak of their own. It doesn't matter whether you are up by 10 or 100, you need to be ruthless all the time and this is what makes Aussies the team they are - they never let up. Hopefully our pacers learnt from that experience and rely on it in the future. Maybe this lack of ruthlessness in our bowlers is what allows our opponents' lower order to score loads of runs. You hardly see that happen against Aussies and maybe Starc's bowling provides a clue.

Starc, or any Australian bowler for that matter is more skillful at bowling short deliveries than our bowlers. He has bowled all his life on wickets that assist that kind of bowling, whereas it is completely opposite with our bowlers. I am not sure it has anything to do with ruthlessness.

[Ultimate_Game]

Starc' date=' or any Australian bowler for that matter is more skillful at bowling short deliveries than our bowlers. He has bowled all his life on wickets that assists that kind of bowling. [b']I am not sure it has anything to do with ruthlessness.

I think it does. Haven't you generally seen that when we have nearly won the game and the match's in the bag we sort of let off. We let the opponents carry on we ease off a bit and let them score easy runs. I think it's a cultural thing and we become complacent too soon and in some cases it comes back to bite us in our @$$. I sincerely hope Yadav and our other pacers learnt something from the experience and when they are in Starc's shoes they do the same thing which Starc and Aussies did, i.e., never to let up no matter what the situation. Every game, especially losses, teaches you something provided you want to learn and get better. I think this loss and the ruthlessness with which Aussies played the match and generally throughout the series against India is a great learning opportunity. Wishing our team management and all the players made note of that and do the same when the shoe's on the other foot.

[Crookbond]

What I gather from the OP is that he doesn't expect a bowler to bowl bouncers at tailenders as they aren't skilled enough to negotiate them and that it could hurt them. Don't see him okaying the tactic if the intention is just to take the wicket' date=' looks like he's against bowling bouncers to tailenders irrespective of the intention of the bowler.[/quote'] OK - for now, lets assume my interpretation of the OP is correct.