No. 36 December 18, 2010

The bouncer rule

West Indies' intimidatory tactics and painfully slow over-rates prompted the lawmakers to take away the fast bowler's most lethal weapon
  shares 34


3
Mike Gatting's broken nose courtesy Malcolm Marshall © PA Photos

1991

Somewhere along the way - between Paul Terry's broken arm and Mike Gatting's pulped nose - the West Indies pace quartet of the 1980s picked up a reputation for intimidatory bowling. Other teams, when they weren't complaining about the blows inflicted on their bodies and psyche, started to point at West Indies' over-rate, which sometimes crawled along at just 70 a day.

Something had to give, and when it did it tilted the balance completely the other way. In 1991, the ICC introduced the "one bouncer per batsman per over" rule in an attempt to end the intimidation, and buck up the over-rates. Flat-track bullies rejoiced but fast bowlers, already condemned to bowling on shirtfronts in most parts of the world, weren't amused, and vociferous protests saw the law amended in 1994 to incorporate two bouncers per over. One-day cricket took much longer to listen to the bowlers' pleas, and it was only in 2001 that once bouncer per over was allowed.

Dileep Premachandran is an associate editor at Cricinfo.This article was first published in Wisden Asia Cricket magazine in 2003

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY popahwheely on | December 20, 2010, 18:13 GMT

    91' marked the decline of Windies cricket....thanks for letting us know why this happened. That is also the reason we are still struggling to find two front line seamers. Its time to get our pitches back to top standards like the one at Centurion.

  • POSTED BY CharuKhopkar on | December 20, 2010, 1:03 GMT

    kirksland on (December 19 2010, 13:33 PM GMT) and kirksland on (December 19 2010, 13:23 PM GMT)

    "Lets give the bowlers a chance, bring back the fans and the fast bowlers may come back." ... " All one has to do is to watch the first innings of India in SA to illustrate this point."

    Give the bowlers a chance ... right plant grass on the on a water sodden pitch!! Smith was a very relieved man when he won the toss and didn't have to bat first. It's a sorry state of affairs where the toss decides the outcome of the match. Maybe Kirkland should have waited to watch India's second innings before commenting. Anyway, there are two more Tests and ODIs - and we'll see how many bandages Steyn's going to tie on his elbow and swallow painkillers before the end of the tour. Bouncers are overrated and are not wicket-taking deliveries. Moreover, specialist batsmen always treat them with the contempt they rightfully deserve - witness the abusive behaviour of pace bowlers.

  • POSTED BY Simha99 on | December 19, 2010, 19:09 GMT

    @Kirksland: The pitch and conditions played a major role on the first day of the Test between Indian and SA. So, hold off on your judgment about the Indian batsmen until the series is over. Better look at the Aussies and how their top order capitulated on the same day on a far less hostile pitch and more docile bowling in Perth. The pitch (on the first day in SA) was not exactly an advertisement for test cricket. Flat pitches are helping everybody not just subcontinental batsmen. An average of 50 was the gold standard for a quality batsman between 1970 & 1995. The equivalent today is 55. The reason - we need more people like Dale Steyn (121 wickets in 21 matches outside S). Quality fast bowlers still have a big role. Pitches are a problem, but don't cite the pitches to denigrate the quality of batsmen like Sehwag. He has scored aplentyl in England, Aus and SA too and would have done well against all the bowlers you mentioned. Your opinion appears more like wishful thinking, at best.

  • POSTED BY Cricinfojunkie on | December 19, 2010, 18:36 GMT

    O what short memories people have. everyone now berates Windies cricket and call for them to be relegated to playing with lesser nations when ICC deliberately strangled the life out of Windies by tailoring the rules to ensure 'blackwashes' never happen again. Didn't see them rush for the rule books with the same alacrity to stifle Aussies though!

  • POSTED BY on | December 19, 2010, 18:30 GMT

    gavaskar was the only player played always without helmet even against those deadly westindian and Aussie bowlers.not even Richards he never faced westindian bowlers

  • POSTED BY Dr.K.H.Iyer on | December 19, 2010, 17:57 GMT

    Watch Sachin STRUGGLE in the second innings! He is the greatest since Bradman! Any PITCH! Not a problem!

  • POSTED BY Dr.K.H.Iyer on | December 19, 2010, 17:53 GMT

    @Extra Cover: Pakistan produced quality FAST BOWLERS! No offense mate but Imran, Wasim & Waqar bowled on flat subcontinent pitches where the weapon of choice was reverse swing (& hence ball tampering)! They weren't as reliant on bouncers as WI! Windies bowling not scary in '91/92 for you? If AMBROSE, Walsh and Bishop were not scary then Waqar and Wasim were nothing at all!

    @Kirksland:Your Aussies got 2-0 , a brownwash! What is the point of playing in uniform conditions? it is DIVERSITY that makes the game tick! Spinning trackrs are a challenge YOU guys can't FACE! So, let's not take about "Worse Cricket" here!

  • POSTED BY george204 on | December 19, 2010, 17:27 GMT

    This article hasn't mentioned a major cause of the bouncer rule: that the previous law on intimidatory bowling (law 42.3) was never enforced, least of all by umpires in the West Indies.

    Example: at Antigua in 1990, the West Indies bowled 13 (yes thirteen!) bouncers in a row at Robin Smith & Alan Lamb (incidentally, those 13 deliveries took over 10 minutes to bowl, possibly the slowest passage of play in terms of over rate ever seen in test matches?) Neither umpire intervened, even after Robin Smith was struck on the chin.

    So some sort of change to the laws was necessary because what was in place simply never worked. I often wonder whether neutral umpires employed by the ICC rather than compliant local officials would have enforced law 42.3 more even handedly...

  • POSTED BY cool_fast on | December 19, 2010, 17:23 GMT

    (kirksland)---- if u really like test cricket, then u have to see full match , u see india's 2 nd inning ,still lot of cricket is left in the series dont predict anything,india got no match practice match ,we shows how mutch capable of betting in 2 nd inning . india won the match in perth , india is first team who give challenge to aus in their home, when they are on top. and give me the name of teams how win the series in indai? dud play cricket is not meaning just play fast bowling ,u also know how to play spin bowling, which we know very well then any other cricketing team, even shan warn cant do any thing better in indian spin conditions .

  • POSTED BY hazeltine on | December 19, 2010, 16:42 GMT

    Everybody knows (even those who do not want to openly admit it) that the bouncer rule was brought in to stop WIndies winning. The highpoint of cricket, as far as England and Australia were concerned, was supposed to be the Ashes, contested by two white teams. Now we have an absurd situation where India and Sth Africa are number 1 and 2 in the ratings, yet both DON'T HAVE AN ATTACK WORTHY OF THE NAME. The WIndies authorities should ignore the ICC clamour about making Tests "last 5 days", and develop quick pitches of their own to bring back quick bowlers in their game. No matter how many chances they give to spinners, they will never win Test matches for them because it is only quick bowling that has carried to them to the top of the tree in the past. In finishing, why is there a paucity on articles relating to WIndian when I look on the WIndian cricket site?

  • POSTED BY popahwheely on | December 20, 2010, 18:13 GMT

    91' marked the decline of Windies cricket....thanks for letting us know why this happened. That is also the reason we are still struggling to find two front line seamers. Its time to get our pitches back to top standards like the one at Centurion.

  • POSTED BY CharuKhopkar on | December 20, 2010, 1:03 GMT

    kirksland on (December 19 2010, 13:33 PM GMT) and kirksland on (December 19 2010, 13:23 PM GMT)

    "Lets give the bowlers a chance, bring back the fans and the fast bowlers may come back." ... " All one has to do is to watch the first innings of India in SA to illustrate this point."

    Give the bowlers a chance ... right plant grass on the on a water sodden pitch!! Smith was a very relieved man when he won the toss and didn't have to bat first. It's a sorry state of affairs where the toss decides the outcome of the match. Maybe Kirkland should have waited to watch India's second innings before commenting. Anyway, there are two more Tests and ODIs - and we'll see how many bandages Steyn's going to tie on his elbow and swallow painkillers before the end of the tour. Bouncers are overrated and are not wicket-taking deliveries. Moreover, specialist batsmen always treat them with the contempt they rightfully deserve - witness the abusive behaviour of pace bowlers.

  • POSTED BY Simha99 on | December 19, 2010, 19:09 GMT

    @Kirksland: The pitch and conditions played a major role on the first day of the Test between Indian and SA. So, hold off on your judgment about the Indian batsmen until the series is over. Better look at the Aussies and how their top order capitulated on the same day on a far less hostile pitch and more docile bowling in Perth. The pitch (on the first day in SA) was not exactly an advertisement for test cricket. Flat pitches are helping everybody not just subcontinental batsmen. An average of 50 was the gold standard for a quality batsman between 1970 & 1995. The equivalent today is 55. The reason - we need more people like Dale Steyn (121 wickets in 21 matches outside S). Quality fast bowlers still have a big role. Pitches are a problem, but don't cite the pitches to denigrate the quality of batsmen like Sehwag. He has scored aplentyl in England, Aus and SA too and would have done well against all the bowlers you mentioned. Your opinion appears more like wishful thinking, at best.

  • POSTED BY Cricinfojunkie on | December 19, 2010, 18:36 GMT

    O what short memories people have. everyone now berates Windies cricket and call for them to be relegated to playing with lesser nations when ICC deliberately strangled the life out of Windies by tailoring the rules to ensure 'blackwashes' never happen again. Didn't see them rush for the rule books with the same alacrity to stifle Aussies though!

  • POSTED BY on | December 19, 2010, 18:30 GMT

    gavaskar was the only player played always without helmet even against those deadly westindian and Aussie bowlers.not even Richards he never faced westindian bowlers

  • POSTED BY Dr.K.H.Iyer on | December 19, 2010, 17:57 GMT

    Watch Sachin STRUGGLE in the second innings! He is the greatest since Bradman! Any PITCH! Not a problem!

  • POSTED BY Dr.K.H.Iyer on | December 19, 2010, 17:53 GMT

    @Extra Cover: Pakistan produced quality FAST BOWLERS! No offense mate but Imran, Wasim & Waqar bowled on flat subcontinent pitches where the weapon of choice was reverse swing (& hence ball tampering)! They weren't as reliant on bouncers as WI! Windies bowling not scary in '91/92 for you? If AMBROSE, Walsh and Bishop were not scary then Waqar and Wasim were nothing at all!

    @Kirksland:Your Aussies got 2-0 , a brownwash! What is the point of playing in uniform conditions? it is DIVERSITY that makes the game tick! Spinning trackrs are a challenge YOU guys can't FACE! So, let's not take about "Worse Cricket" here!

  • POSTED BY george204 on | December 19, 2010, 17:27 GMT

    This article hasn't mentioned a major cause of the bouncer rule: that the previous law on intimidatory bowling (law 42.3) was never enforced, least of all by umpires in the West Indies.

    Example: at Antigua in 1990, the West Indies bowled 13 (yes thirteen!) bouncers in a row at Robin Smith & Alan Lamb (incidentally, those 13 deliveries took over 10 minutes to bowl, possibly the slowest passage of play in terms of over rate ever seen in test matches?) Neither umpire intervened, even after Robin Smith was struck on the chin.

    So some sort of change to the laws was necessary because what was in place simply never worked. I often wonder whether neutral umpires employed by the ICC rather than compliant local officials would have enforced law 42.3 more even handedly...

  • POSTED BY cool_fast on | December 19, 2010, 17:23 GMT

    (kirksland)---- if u really like test cricket, then u have to see full match , u see india's 2 nd inning ,still lot of cricket is left in the series dont predict anything,india got no match practice match ,we shows how mutch capable of betting in 2 nd inning . india won the match in perth , india is first team who give challenge to aus in their home, when they are on top. and give me the name of teams how win the series in indai? dud play cricket is not meaning just play fast bowling ,u also know how to play spin bowling, which we know very well then any other cricketing team, even shan warn cant do any thing better in indian spin conditions .

  • POSTED BY hazeltine on | December 19, 2010, 16:42 GMT

    Everybody knows (even those who do not want to openly admit it) that the bouncer rule was brought in to stop WIndies winning. The highpoint of cricket, as far as England and Australia were concerned, was supposed to be the Ashes, contested by two white teams. Now we have an absurd situation where India and Sth Africa are number 1 and 2 in the ratings, yet both DON'T HAVE AN ATTACK WORTHY OF THE NAME. The WIndies authorities should ignore the ICC clamour about making Tests "last 5 days", and develop quick pitches of their own to bring back quick bowlers in their game. No matter how many chances they give to spinners, they will never win Test matches for them because it is only quick bowling that has carried to them to the top of the tree in the past. In finishing, why is there a paucity on articles relating to WIndian when I look on the WIndian cricket site?

  • POSTED BY Mark00 on | December 19, 2010, 14:50 GMT

    The bouncer rule was brought in because of India and England. It fundamentally changed the game of cricket for the worse and the result is that, today, we have a vast quantity of mediocre batsmen with lazy footwork and techniques who are averaging well over 50.

  • POSTED BY gudolerhum on | December 19, 2010, 13:58 GMT

    The discussion shows the diversity of opinion on the game which is what makes it so intriguing and always exciting. Test cricket has definitely improved in the last decade, some fantastic close finishes and even exciting draws. Some of us forget that there are many boring T20s and 50 overs games when the result is obvious from early in the match. What skill is there in batsmen unable to play effective or aggressive shots because of short bowling at their head? There is a great deal of skill in the present game, largely due to the shortened form which has made innovation a big element. I agree that intim bowling has no relation to slow over rate . The rate is the choice of the captain and is designed to rest the bowler and upset the batsman's concentration. Cricket is not a "gladiator" sport! What an idea.

  • POSTED BY kirksland on | December 19, 2010, 13:33 GMT

    con't. Sehwag cannot bat the way he normally does on good pitches or againts quality bowling. Can one imagine him doing that to Lillee, Marshall, Holding or even Ambrose or Mcgrath outside the subcontinent, in a word, NO.

    The biggest problem today are the pitches and no one wants to be a fast bowler it seems, the only challenging conditions are Australia, South Africa and when the ball is swinging England, and just look to see where the sub continent batters (with the exception of Sangakkara, Dravid, Laxman and to a lesser extent Tendulkar) struggle. Just look at the latest Ashes test and see what a good pitch can do for a series, lets have that all over the world. Let the ICC monitor pitches and ban certain grounds until the pitches are up to scratch. The recent series between India and Sri Lanka should never allowed to happen again as the pitches were totally unaceptable. Lets give the bowlers a chance, bring back the fans and the fast bowlers may come back.

  • POSTED BY kirksland on | December 19, 2010, 13:23 GMT

    There was only one reason why the bouncer rule cahnged and that was because Australia and particularly England could not compete with the West Indies and their GREAT fast bowlers. There was never a problem when Lindwall and Miller or Lillee and Thompson was intinidating batsmen batsmen and winning matches but at least they were Australian. The West Indians were unbeatable and that was not acceptable, the pinicle of cricket was supposed to be the Ashes, not the Blackwashes from the Cribbean boys.

    The end results are that today the game is watered down and dying. THe Indians and Sri Lankans in particular pride theselves in preparing feather beds at home to inflate their batsmen's averages and help their spinners and produce the worse cricket possible, dull drawn matches. But then they can at least say that their batsmen are the greatest ever.

    All one has to do is to watch the first innings of India in SA to illustrate this point.

  • POSTED BY on | December 19, 2010, 8:25 GMT

    cricket is dead like many other things in the world. bowling is long dead due to dead pitches. theres no batting when theres no bowling. hitting big big centuries on dead pitches with mediocre bowling is like playing street cricket. like other sports ... wwe.. the only thing left is to go out n enjoy. instead people r more n more getting glued to their tvs, internet, pc games....which gives nothing but torture. stop watching nonsense n just have fun

  • POSTED BY SVS07 on | December 19, 2010, 8:07 GMT

    The rule wasn't targeted for Pakistani bowlers, it was more to control WestIndies bowling attack. In 1991, the WI bowlers may not be as great as they were in 70's and 80's, but when it comes to bowling bouncers, they still were the deadly. Pakistan bowlers rely more on swing bowling, like most of Subcontinent team are. So i guess it was precisely to blunt WI style of bowling.

  • POSTED BY WildnFree on | December 19, 2010, 7:34 GMT

    Actually, the time is just ripe for cricket-lovers to take matters into their own hands and initiate a petition to the ICC demanding parity in conditions for the bowlers. Repealing the bouncer law, a regulation size of the cricket ground and checks to ensure minimum 'fairness' in the pitch etc. -- banning of an overly partisan venue for example could be the demands to start off with. Will a lawyer fan take it up?

  • POSTED BY ExtraCover on | December 19, 2010, 4:02 GMT

    This rule change was not targeted at West Indies, but rather was intended to blunt Pakistan's fast bowling arsenal. If anything, the Windies bowling line-up was not as fearsome in 1991, as it was in the late 70s and 80s. However, Pakistan was now churning our quality fast bowlers regularly and quickly rising in world cricket. In reality, this was an example of the biased ICC that had no problem when Lillee and Thomson were intimidating batsmen the world over. But when Australia and England stopped producing intimidating bowlers, the time was ripe to change the law.

  • POSTED BY on | December 19, 2010, 2:12 GMT

    Turning point indeed. I would think that a number of young batting stars of today, particularly sub-continent batsman, would struggle had this law not been introduced. That or it would have forced them into tightening up their technique against short-pitch bowling.

  • POSTED BY Nadeem1976 on | December 19, 2010, 1:29 GMT

    ICC made cricket so easy just becuase of 10 years of WI bowling dominance, aggression and bouncers. ICC really hurt the bowling of 90s and then diminishes fast bowling in 2000's. Its the worse decsion by ICC on the basis of one team dominance. So sad to see that bowlers cannot bowl aggressively. What will bowler do now. Ball tempering, becuase on flat pitches batsmen will score huge. In 80s the average of 40 was considered great becuase of attacking bowling but today even average of 60 by batsman looks normal.

    How could we compare Bradman, Richards and Tendulkar when the first two played against aggressive bowling and later did not. I agree Tendulkar is class and best ever but ICC hurt the credibility of batsman by stopping bowlers to attack.

    Boaring test matches , of what use ICC. No use. Give bouncers back to bowlers and then see reall test cricket. It will reduce bating average by 15 runs i am sure.

  • POSTED BY cricketman96 on | December 19, 2010, 0:34 GMT

    Give me a break people. You put in place every rule and regulation to diminish the effectiveness of the quick bowlers while helping the batsman at every turn.Then u are wondering why people are losing interest in test cricket and moving in droves toward 20/20. Now that u have allowed the batsmen to wear all the protection in the world: helmets, face-guard, side-pads, arm-guards etc.just to name a few,GREAT.NOW, remove some of those restrictions, allow the quicks to bowl more than one bouncer. Remove the 90 overs minimum per day. This one rule, teams can no longer play 4 genuine fast bowlers in one game cause a spinner has to help with the over-rate.Keep the game exciting. Win new fan and keep old ones.If test cricket is to survive and not get swept aside by the faster versions the ICC need to come up with more creative ways to keep the game going on and on and on.While its great reading about the legents of the game i want to see more Tenduka, lara, pontin.I LOVE THIS GAME.CRICKET!!!!

  • POSTED BY alonsoe on | December 19, 2010, 0:00 GMT

    I disagree with GUDLERHUM. I think test cricket from the mid 70's to 1990 was much more entertaining than anything since. And the West Indies team( with its pace quartet, batsmen such as Viv, Lloyd, Richie, Kallicheran and Greenidge and fielders such as Logie, Viv, Richie, Harper and keeper Dujon ) was probably the main reason. Then, it was a fiercer battle between bat and ball, and the WI team bowlers were so dominant that slow over rate was not a major causatant factor in drawn games. Now we have all these flat tracts, artificially inflated batting averages and matches that would be drawn even if they were 10 days long. Except for the Ashes, test match crowds the world over are dismal and at times the cricket as a contest is just as bad. The ICC have consistently killed the test match as spectator sport over years; the rule changes in 1991 greatly contributed to that. Now they have an ambiguous response to 20/20. But their lukewarm attitude to 20/20 will not save test cricket.

  • POSTED BY shanghaibatsman on | December 18, 2010, 23:50 GMT

    Good rule to increase over rate. As for the bouncers the Windies greatest weapon was their accuracy.They always had 2 great fast bowlers and 2 very good fast bowlers in their sides.Six balls bowled in one over right at the batsmen throat.Ofcourse if you are only bowling 70 overs you are more likely to be refreshed enough to concentrate on your accuracy. The fans love the big scores of today as long its scored quickly.300 runs a day was something unheard of in the '80s. The Windies decline had something to do with their batting too.

  • POSTED BY degiant on | December 18, 2010, 23:42 GMT

    This rule not only blunt WI attack but aslo set their cricket back for years. The argument that the over rate was slow was not a great one because WI were still winning most of their games and well within five days. The reason teams like India and England are on top is because of those changes [less bouncers and more overs must be bowled per day]. To prove the point, Aus finally played a pace quarted and look what has become of the unbeatable English team. To further the point look at India in SA and not on one of those flatbed that their batters love

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 23:03 GMT

    So what if it was 70 overs a day ? They were winning their matches which is more than I can say about the 90+ overs we have now and all matches are being drawn. I prefer see 70 overs of skill than 90 overs of limited over cricket. Better helmets and gear means batsmen can walk down the pitch or hit through the line. There is no skill in being a test player anymore. Ordinary batsmen averaging in the 60s and fast bowlers cant take wickets on flat pitches.There was a time when an opener had to be a special breed with sound technique. Gone are those days. Pitches are slow, batsmen have the gear let bowlers bowl whatever they want now.

    I also think you need to look at who calls for the change and when the laws are changed. There was a certain time when a spin bowler was getting a number of wickets and all of a sudden there was a law that you couldn't get an LBW without the ball pitching on the stumps.

  • POSTED BY baiju.shah on | December 18, 2010, 18:04 GMT

    The rule should be amended to actually mean what it says... One Bouncer PER BATSMAN in an over... So if the batsman changes the strike, the bowler can bowl one bouncer to the other batsman too in the same over...

  • POSTED BY gudolerhum on | December 18, 2010, 14:10 GMT

    The intimidatory tactics were absurd but I do not think that was the main reason that caused the rule to be changed. The game is meant to be entertainment but when it becomes watching fast bowlers drag themselves through 70 or so overs in a day meanwhile batsmen are unable to score runs and are struggling to protect their bodies (BODY LINE ALL OVER AGAIN!) what entertainment is that? The limit may not have come in had the over rate had been even remotely realistic. The WI overplayed their hand and bowlers all over the world paid the price.

  • POSTED BY crikketfan on | December 18, 2010, 10:20 GMT

    Of course intimidatory bowling and slow over rate were linked. Bowling bouncers is very hard work, and Clive Lloyd deliberately slowed down the over-rates to reduce the burden on his (generally all-pace) attack.

  • POSTED BY Razor88 on | December 18, 2010, 9:53 GMT

    Simple Answer - There were no any other Bowler as Menacing as the Westindian Pace battery in the olden days,Some teams at the Present Lacking One Seriously :D

  • POSTED BY Jelanichem on | December 18, 2010, 9:15 GMT

    One of the worse things that ever happened to test cricket. It was no longer a gladiator sports, where a batsman had to be fearless and highly skill to make runs. That combined with the lifelss pitches, has turned batsmen who would have been mediocre in another era into great batsmen. So disgusting. And I know that for a fact, because I have watched exhibition matches, where old 40+ retired fast bowlers make so called great batsmen look like school girls playing against grown men. A testimony to just how mutch the game as declined over the years. And I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the ICC. They have ruined a fine sport, where a result was almost certain. Turned it into a dull boring game, where every Jane and Sue can make runs on dead pitches. So now the interest is 20 20.

  • POSTED BY Gizza on | December 18, 2010, 9:02 GMT

    The most lethal weapon by a fast bowler would actually be the beamer but it has been illegal for a very long time in the history of cricket (if not from the very beginning). Also what is a bouncer defined as. The best bouncers in my opinion are those at the chin/throat area.

  • POSTED BY Diwakar on | December 18, 2010, 7:52 GMT

    Intimidatory bowling and slow over rate have nothing in common, however convoluted the argument may be. If the purpose of restricting the number of bouncers was to speed up the over rate, whoever believes that must also believe that "stars are God's daisychain in the sky" (to steal a phrase from PGW).

    The number of bouncers was cut down because the batsmen were terrified. Period. One wonders why other countries did not (or could not) build up a pace battery akin to the Windies.

  • POSTED BY smalishah84 on | December 18, 2010, 7:47 GMT

    This marked the death of good competition between bat and ball too.

  • POSTED BY mogan707 on | December 18, 2010, 7:20 GMT

    In that era West Indies were dominant;So to humble them the rules that benefit England were drafted.Now We are seeing the results;West Indies have totally declined and will take at least another decade to build such a strong team.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY mogan707 on | December 18, 2010, 7:20 GMT

    In that era West Indies were dominant;So to humble them the rules that benefit England were drafted.Now We are seeing the results;West Indies have totally declined and will take at least another decade to build such a strong team.

  • POSTED BY smalishah84 on | December 18, 2010, 7:47 GMT

    This marked the death of good competition between bat and ball too.

  • POSTED BY Diwakar on | December 18, 2010, 7:52 GMT

    Intimidatory bowling and slow over rate have nothing in common, however convoluted the argument may be. If the purpose of restricting the number of bouncers was to speed up the over rate, whoever believes that must also believe that "stars are God's daisychain in the sky" (to steal a phrase from PGW).

    The number of bouncers was cut down because the batsmen were terrified. Period. One wonders why other countries did not (or could not) build up a pace battery akin to the Windies.

  • POSTED BY Gizza on | December 18, 2010, 9:02 GMT

    The most lethal weapon by a fast bowler would actually be the beamer but it has been illegal for a very long time in the history of cricket (if not from the very beginning). Also what is a bouncer defined as. The best bouncers in my opinion are those at the chin/throat area.

  • POSTED BY Jelanichem on | December 18, 2010, 9:15 GMT

    One of the worse things that ever happened to test cricket. It was no longer a gladiator sports, where a batsman had to be fearless and highly skill to make runs. That combined with the lifelss pitches, has turned batsmen who would have been mediocre in another era into great batsmen. So disgusting. And I know that for a fact, because I have watched exhibition matches, where old 40+ retired fast bowlers make so called great batsmen look like school girls playing against grown men. A testimony to just how mutch the game as declined over the years. And I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the ICC. They have ruined a fine sport, where a result was almost certain. Turned it into a dull boring game, where every Jane and Sue can make runs on dead pitches. So now the interest is 20 20.

  • POSTED BY Razor88 on | December 18, 2010, 9:53 GMT

    Simple Answer - There were no any other Bowler as Menacing as the Westindian Pace battery in the olden days,Some teams at the Present Lacking One Seriously :D

  • POSTED BY crikketfan on | December 18, 2010, 10:20 GMT

    Of course intimidatory bowling and slow over rate were linked. Bowling bouncers is very hard work, and Clive Lloyd deliberately slowed down the over-rates to reduce the burden on his (generally all-pace) attack.

  • POSTED BY gudolerhum on | December 18, 2010, 14:10 GMT

    The intimidatory tactics were absurd but I do not think that was the main reason that caused the rule to be changed. The game is meant to be entertainment but when it becomes watching fast bowlers drag themselves through 70 or so overs in a day meanwhile batsmen are unable to score runs and are struggling to protect their bodies (BODY LINE ALL OVER AGAIN!) what entertainment is that? The limit may not have come in had the over rate had been even remotely realistic. The WI overplayed their hand and bowlers all over the world paid the price.

  • POSTED BY baiju.shah on | December 18, 2010, 18:04 GMT

    The rule should be amended to actually mean what it says... One Bouncer PER BATSMAN in an over... So if the batsman changes the strike, the bowler can bowl one bouncer to the other batsman too in the same over...

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 23:03 GMT

    So what if it was 70 overs a day ? They were winning their matches which is more than I can say about the 90+ overs we have now and all matches are being drawn. I prefer see 70 overs of skill than 90 overs of limited over cricket. Better helmets and gear means batsmen can walk down the pitch or hit through the line. There is no skill in being a test player anymore. Ordinary batsmen averaging in the 60s and fast bowlers cant take wickets on flat pitches.There was a time when an opener had to be a special breed with sound technique. Gone are those days. Pitches are slow, batsmen have the gear let bowlers bowl whatever they want now.

    I also think you need to look at who calls for the change and when the laws are changed. There was a certain time when a spin bowler was getting a number of wickets and all of a sudden there was a law that you couldn't get an LBW without the ball pitching on the stumps.