Crookbond Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 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 assist that kind of bowling, whereas it is completely opposite with our bowlers. [b']I am not sure it has anything to do with ruthlessness. The answer is NOT binary - clearly, Starc was trying to get Yadav out; I do not disagree. But, it doesn't mean Starc wasn't looking to (quite unnecessarily in fact) hurt Yadav. It was ruthlessness - possible but hurting another batsman (physically or via the scorecard) is generally off limits. If this was fine, so was Randiv's NO ball.
Zero_Unit Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 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. Let's look at it this way, there was a very slight (very very slim chance) that india would have won from that stage. Yes the chance of that happening was very very low but it has happened in international cricket before where the bottom feeders won their respective team matches. Once in a bluemoon the science and statistics goes down the drain and all outcomes of a match comes out as WTF did I just watch. Bowlers has won their teams matches with their bats ! A perfect example of this would be when Malinga won Srilanka a match with his bat against Australia or when Bangladeshi bowler (sorry i don't remember his name) won them a match against England last world cup. My point is why take a chance. Finish it off asap. This is not your weekend cricket where you go play, laugh it off and go watch a movie after. This is the effing world cup. There is not point of playing sensitive, play hard or gtfo. If the batsmen is scared of his life, by all means, no one is shackling his legs. Walk away!
Crookbond Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 Let's look at it this way, there was a very slight (very very slim chance) that india would have won from that stage. Yes the chance of that happening was very very low but it has happened in international cricket before where the bottom feeders won their respective team matches. Once in a bluemoon the science and statistics goes down the drain and all outcomes of a match comes out as WTF did I just watch. Bowlers has won their teams matches before! A perfect example of this would be when Malinga won Srilanka a match with his bat against Australia or when Bangladeshi bowler (sorry i don't remember his name) won them a match against England last world cup. My point is why take a chance. Finish it off asap. This is not your weekend cricket where you go play, laugh it off and go watch a movie after. This is the effing world cup. There is not point of playing sensitive, play hard or gtfo. If the batsmen is scared of his life, by all means, no one is shackling his legs. Walk away! All I'm trying to say that Starc wasn't just trying to get Yadav's wicket.
MK55 Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 The best way for Starc to get Yadav was to shake him up a bit. Target his body and push him back. So I'm assuming (the most likely case) the bouncer was to simply get him out early and more easily.
David Boon Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Shame on Starc for bowling bouncers to tail enders. What exactly is the point of it? Tail enders are not skilled enough to negotiate bouncers. As a result Yadav got hurt and even bleeded. Then the Aussies pretended to care only for Starc to comes back and bowl a bouncer again. That's against the spirit of the game. Starc also kept sledging Wahab Riaz while bowling to him. He must think bullying and bowling out tail enders is some kind of achievement. Starc can thank his stars that he never faced Wahab's bowling later. Looking at how clueless Watson was against Wahab's bouncers, Starc would've ended up bleeding. What a douche. I cant tell if your serious or not, this is the most idiot and ridiculous post ive ever seen from anybody on here, in fact its so stupid you should refrain from posting any more.
Ultimate_Game Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 I cant tell if your serious or not' date=' this is the most idiot and ridiculous post ive ever seen from anybody on here, in fact its so stupid you should refrain from posting any more.[/quote'] Most probably a frustrated fan who's simply venting out his frustration :giggle:
MCGGG Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 All I'm trying to say that Starc wasn't just trying to get Yadav's wicket. Hang on a minute, are you saying a fast bowler actually wanted to hurt someone? Well I'll be, what is the world coming too? :giggle:
Ultimate_Game Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Hang on a minute' date=' are you saying a fast bowler actually wanted to hurt someone? Well I'll be, what is the world coming [b']too? :giggle: For a native English speaker you sure make a lot of errors which are normally made by sub-continental folks. Yup you sure are an Aussie... maybe in a green colored jersey :giggle:
HippoSucks Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 All I'm trying to say that Starc wasn't just trying to get Yadav's wicket. A few posts back you pointed out that you used the word "may", because you can not know what his intentions were. But now you have made a very affirmative statement. Have you become a mind reader overnight?
Crookbond Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 A few posts back you pointed out that you used the word "may"' date=' because you can not know what his intentions were. But now you have made a very affirmative statement. Have you become a mind reader overnight?[/quote'] Read the last post with may as well. Does that rock your boat?
HippoSucks Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 The answer is NOT binary - clearly' date=' Starc was trying to get Yadav out; I do not disagree. But, it doesn't mean Starc wasn't looking to (quite unnecessarily in fact) hurt Yadav. It was ruthlessness - possible but hurting another batsman (physically or via the scorecard) is generally off limits. If this was fine, so was Randiv's NO ball.[/quote'] A bouncer always has a chance to hurt a batsman. He can be a specialist batsman or a #11. So whenever a bowler throws a bouncer, we can extrapolate without any evidence that he could have the intention of hurting a batsman. Yes, they were 100 runs behind. But with these batting favorable conditions, anything is possible. If you need two wickets to win, you get $2000 bonus if you get a wicket, you are going to get that wicket. Not bowl defensively and wait for the #11 to play a bad shot.
Crookbond Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 A bouncer always has a chance to hurt a batsman. He can be a specialist batsman or a #11. So whenever a bowler throws a bouncer, we can extrapolate without any evidence that he could have the intention of hurting a batsman. Yes, they were 100 runs behind. But with these batting favorable conditions, anything is possible. If you need two wickets to win, you get $2000 bonus if you get a wicket, you are going to get that wicket. Not bowl defensively and wait for the #11 to play a bad shot. I think I lost you there - of course anything was possible in favorable conditions Yadav and Shami would have scored 97 runs in 24 balls. :facepalm:
HippoSucks Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 I think I lost you there - of course anything was possible in favorable conditions Yadav and Shami would have scored 97 runs in 24 balls. :facepalm: Obviously they had no chance of winning... What I meant was there was a possiblity of bringing down the margin by which Australia won. A 100 run win over defending champions doesn't sound as dominating as a 50-60 run win.
Crookbond Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Obviously they had no chance of winning... What I meant was there was a possiblity of bringing down the margin by which Australia won. A 100 run win over defending champions doesn't sound as dominating as a 50-60 run win. Absolutely. Yadav and Shami would have scored at 10 RPO in the remaining 4 overs against Australia's best bowlers which the top order batsmen couldn't. All that, without losing a wicket. Also, TIL it has to "sound dominating" to win a game or the next one.
HippoSucks Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Absolutely. Yadav and Shami would have scored at 10 RPO in the remaining 4 overs against Australia's best bowlers which the top order batsmen couldn't. All that' date=' without losing a wicket. Also, TIL it has to "sound dominating" to win a game or the next one.[/quote'] Let us say they score at 1 an over for the last 4 overs. The win is 4 runs less and 4 overs delayed. Why would you prolong a victory if you can pick up the wickets early? Why is it so hard for you to understand that whether the opposition is at 200/0 or 200/9, a bowler wants to pick up wickets?
Crookbond Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Let us say they score at 1 an over for the last 4 overs. The win is 4 runs less and 4 overs delayed. Why would you prolong a victory if you can pick up the wickets early? Why is it so hard for you to understand that whether the opposition is at 200/0 or 200/9' date=' a bowler wants to pick up wickets?[/quote'] Right - not bowling bouncers == not picking up wickets. Bouncers HAVE TO BE bowled to pick up wickets. You are trying too hard.
HippoSucks Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Right - not bowling bouncers == not picking up wickets. Bouncers HAVE TO BE bowled to pick up wickets. You are trying too hard. As stated above, yorkers can hurt the poor tailender's foot. Not bowling yorkers doesn't mean you can't pick up wickets either, so let's not bowl yorkers as well. The faster a ball, the more chance it has of hurting the tailender. Not bowling fast doesn't mean you can't pick up wickets either, so let's bowl very slowly. If you need two wickets to win' date=' you get $2000 bonus if you get a wicket, you are going to get that wicket. Not bowl defensively and wait for the #11 to play a bad shot.[/quote'] There is no point in waiting for the batsman to gift you a wicket if you have methods that can let you get the wicket earlier.
SLICKR392 Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Stop whinging over everything. Wasn't like he was committing a foul or bowling an illegitimate delivery.
Deleted_User_1 Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 Quit yer *****ing because we are weak and they bullied us. It's over. Take it like a man and move on. Excuses are for losers.
Temujin Khaghan Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 mohit sharma said he'd like to be a dale steyn but without the aggressive body language thats like wanting to be sean connery without the voice
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