Ambrose appeals for changes to save test cricket

[quote author=mapoui link=topic=91083.msg574471#msg574471 date=1405005305]
I have a problem with all the limits placed on fast bowling.  now that we have efficient protective gear I would remove all restriction.

bouncers in deh rarse!!!! > > > let them find ways to deal with it.

if they do so successfully batting would advance and the fast bowlers would have to regroup and come again
[/quote]

If you give some folks half an inch dem will take a whole mile.

If the restriction were removed we would have the spectacle of fast bowlers bowling bouncer after bouncer.

Exciting if the batsman takes them on but totally boring otherwise.

And if a team have 4 runs to win in last over then just bowl 6 bouncer and game draw.

I don't know about that.  there used to be no restrictions and no one bowled 3 bouncers in a row.  there used to be body-line but that was a form of attack that restricted the batsman's movement or something like that.  dangerous but not bouncers

the Oz and english when they had pace used to be dangerous with it.  no restrictions considered or imposed on Lindwall and Miller, Statham, Tyson, Truman, Snow, Jones, Brown etc  but none of them bowled bouncers all the time.  some of them were very great bowlers.

the Oz were dangerous.  Lillee and Thompson bowled to hurt batsmen to the chant of Oz fight songs at their grounds.  Pascoe and the rest same way.  yet none of them bowled bouncers 6 in a row.

Bond nor Donald did that.  a bowler must take wickets to justify his place in any team.  he cant take wickets with 6 bouncers in a row.  that is just not possible.  bouncers are a weapon of attack only if it does the job..part of a system of attack.

Griffith used to prize you up with an effective bouncer that sooprised batsmen.  then had them skipping to get their toes out of the way for the yorker that spread their stumps.  Ambrose too.

fast bowlers must be free to exploit the bouncer.  they must learn to bowl it better.  the batsmen are too coddled now, too protected.  if fast bowlers were unfettered a man like Skook would never have scored all those tons.  but they got him now.  he is collared.

batsmanship has fallen away badly.  impse batsmen now get fat on protected runs.  we have no more great batsmen in the world..just like there are no real great fast men around.

the nature of the game naturally would regulate how any bowler bowls.  imposed regulations stifles everybody. 

only a fool would bowl 6 bouncers to Kanhai.  those they did not have to fetch from the boundary Kanhai would have let pass harmlessly, unreachable to hit away for runs

I have faith in the nature of the game to regulate naturally how it is played.  remove the unnecessary rules

Exactly ....couldnt a said it better 

If the ball passing above head height is called a wide then there should be no problem with a removal of the two bouncer per over rule.

And there is also the 90 over per day rule.

I don't think a removal will bring the crowds back but today a batsman has a lot more going for him - although you would not think so seeing how Moeen Ali was dismissed today.

J trott is the perfect example of a protected and coddled batsman.....

when the bowling was easy and the pitches firm he could not stop scoring. 

then he ran into a drugged up Mitchell Sharpe and that other Oz Old man bowling at 90 plus, ripping a few bouncers and sundry short pitches around his helmeted head, and he freaked right out, became totally traumatized and fled for the safety of his home.

if that pretender had had to deal with such bowling from a youth he would have been good enuff if he arrived at the top level.  or he would long have fallen by the wayside

> > >