View Full Version : The Underarm.
When Greg told brother Trevor to bowl underarm to Kiwi Brian McKenzie in that infamous incedent at the MCG in 1981 what were your thoughts on it? Was it overhyped? Did you reckon Greg should have been sacked? Where were you when it happened? What were your thoughts on it???
He should have been no balled and made to bowl again
wagstaff
3 Feb 2003, 14:28
Originally posted by shiva25
He should have been no balled and made to bowl again
It was a perfectly legal delivery at the time so he couldn't have been no-balled.
I've read G. Chappell's accounts of that incident, and I think the excessive amount of cricket the Australian team had to play that summer (more internationals then the Australian side this summer - including an extended finals series) played a part. The team was worn out, not least of which was Chappell who stated that he was mentally unfit to be captaining at the time.
crudbucket
3 Feb 2003, 15:56
McKechnie, not McKenzie .....
And yes, it was a disgrace !
Originally posted by crudbucket
McKechnie, not McKenzie .....
And yes, it was a disgrace !
How was it a disgrace???????
Kenny_01
3 Feb 2003, 16:44
Originally posted by Gandalf
How was it a disgrace???????
I thought it was a disgrace as well. No sportsmanship/good will shown.
Originally posted by Kenny_01
I thought it was a disgrace as well. No sportsmanship/good will shown.
Oh stop being so moral, it's just a game and if you have to win a game by doing an underarm thats allright.
Brett Li
3 Feb 2003, 18:05
Originally posted by Gandalf
Oh stop being so moral, it's just a game and if you have to win a game by doing an underarm thats allright.
was Bodyline alright?
markstaners
3 Feb 2003, 18:23
I have no problem with it if someone has the brains to think of something that's sure to win them the game so what. It wasn't in the spirit of the game neither is carrying on like a fruit loop when you take a catch and someone disputes it, or having a sook when you think you should have had a wicket or going bezerk and going on a rampage when you get given out.
The delivery was a legal delivery. Cricket is a game that throughout its history has been the subject of more gamesmanship than any other sport. It was only a matter of time before someone did it in that sort of situation. Was it sporting? No.
The issue with the underarm delivery was not about its legality, but about whether it was in the spirit of the game. As a fan, I appreciated Greg Chappell's use of the the tactic, but felt rather cheated that a great game had ended that way.
Greg Chappell admitted afterwards that he was not fit to be captaining Australia at that time and had he been thinking clearly he would never have done it.
An interesting sideline was that a couple of days later, Doug Walters marched to the middle of the SCG and had someone roll an underarm delivery to him. He skipped down the wicket, scooped up the ball with his bat, then belted it over mid wicket for six. Trouble is, McKechnie didn't have enough time to work out this tactic.
Having said all that, I really don't believe the incident should have attracted as much attention as it did.
Wicked Lester
4 Feb 2003, 06:59
Greg Chappell is the first to admit it was the wrong thing to do. It was legal - end of story. Sporting - no. Suggestions he should have stripped of the captaincy are ridiculous.
I suspect however that the commentary box (Ian Chappell and Richie) at the time were largely responsible for blowing it out of proportion.
Interestingly Ian Chappell was asked several years BEFORE the underarm what he would do in a similar situation.
His answer was that he would instruct the bolwer to bowl the ball so slowly that it would hit the pitch and roll along the ground so the batsman couldn't get under it.
Originally posted by Becker
The issue with the underarm delivery was not about its legality, but about whether it was in the spirit of the game. As a fan, I appreciated Greg Chappell's use of the the tactic, but felt rather cheated that a great game had ended that way.
Greg Chappell admitted afterwards that he was not fit to be captaining Australia at that time and had he been thinking clearly he would never have done it.
An interesting sideline was that a couple of days later, Doug Walters marched to the middle of the SCG and had someone roll an underarm delivery to him. He skipped down the wicket, scooped up the ball with his bat, then belted it over mid wicket for six. Trouble is, McKechnie didn't have enough time to work out this tactic.
Having said all that, I really don't believe the incident should have attracted as much attention as it did.
The use of underarm bowling must have been premeditated in Chappells mind long before that game, for him to know that it was actually allowed under the rules. So claiming mental fatigue is no excuse.
It was a calamity. A calamity for the governing body to allow it to be missed in the rules to start with. A calamity for the Australian cricket team to use it in a final, rather than in a inconsequential prelim game, and a calamity because hitting a 6 of the last ball by a tail ender is very unlikely, that a underarm wasnt necessary.
I dont think it was blown out of proportion. It was probably the most unsporting thing I have seen an Australian team do in any sport. It has, rightly or wrongly, fuelled the worldwide belief that Australians cricketers are unsporting to this day (eg. sledging).
It also highlighted the inept ACB. They should have stood Chappel down from the captaincy immediately. Possibly even dropped him from the team.
ScouseCat
4 Feb 2003, 08:08
I was too young when the underarm incident happened but have since watched it on a replay and the reaction of Rod Marsh would have been my reaction. Although the delivery was a legal one, it was not in the spirit of the game.
The same can be said for Bodyline... the tactic was legal at the time but not in the spirit of the game.
The other incident which comes to mind was the day England put all their fielders, (including their keeper, David Bairstow) on the boundary line to stop a four off the last ball in a limited overs match against the West Indies. That was also not in the spirit of the game but at the time, it was within the rules.
Interestingly, the rules have been changed after these incidents occured to prevent them ever happening again.
I thought it was a great tatical decesion by Greg to bowl underarm, I have no problems with it. I don't care about spirit of the game, they were there to win not play How-do-you-do-good-sir cricket.
i spose all the do-gooders will claim australia's efforts in the last world cup were unsporting, yet within the rules. i am referring to the game v the west indies where if australia batted slowly, it would help the windies run rate and put australia in a better position in the super 6 stage.
cricket is a professional sport, it's not an ettiquette. teams are allowed, and should be able to do anything within the rules of the game. if you are going to blame someone, blame the guy who drew up the rulebook.
next some goose will come on here and say the same thing about flooding.
drop chappell the team because of it?? go have a lie down.
ScouseCat
4 Feb 2003, 10:34
Originally posted by nicko18
i spose all the do-gooders will claim australia's efforts in the last world cup were unsporting, yet within the rules. i am referring to the game v the west indies where if australia batted slowly, it would help the windies run rate and put australia in a better position in the super 6 stage.
cricket is a professional sport, it's not an ettiquette. teams are allowed, and should be able to do anything within the rules of the game. if you are going to blame someone, blame the guy who drew up the rulebook..
There was also the incident last season where New Zealand allowed South Africa to gain the bonus point to keep Australia out of the finals. It wasn't in the spirit of the game, but as you said it was within the rules. The good thing is the bonus point system was changed to prevent something like that happening again.
With regards to that World Cup match between West Indies and Australia in 1999, the ICC could have avoided such an incident if all points were carried across to the Super Six stage, not just the points won against the other teams in the Super Six.
Just out of interest, has that been changed for this World Cup??
Originally posted by nicko18
i spose all the do-gooders will claim australia's efforts in the last world cup were unsporting, yet within the rules. i am referring to the game v the west indies where if australia batted slowly, it would help the windies run rate and put australia in a better position in the super 6 stage.
cricket is a professional sport, it's not an ettiquette. teams are allowed, and should be able to do anything within the rules of the game. if you are going to blame someone, blame the guy who drew up the rulebook.
next some goose will come on here and say the same thing about flooding.
drop chappell the team because of it?? go have a lie down.
Exploiting the rules of a comp by throwing matches or playing slow is not a serious offense. Everyone does it. NZ did it to Australia last summer.
Hardly comparable to bowling underarm which is literally "not cricket". Its actual becomes a completely different game: a hybrid between cricket and lawn bowls.
No one else did it.
If Chappel wanted to win at all costs he would have bowled every delivery under arm. Why didnt he? Because that would be extremely poor, but whats the difference between one ball and 300 balls?
The win at all costs was overstretched by chappell in that game. The win ( a win in an insignificant series, years ago, forgotten by many, in a game we were going to win anyway) came at far too high a cost ( Australias and chappells reputation).
Chappells rep was shot as soon as it left his brothers hand. The ACB should have distanced itself from him as swiftly as possible and explained how the rule oversight came about in the first place, thereby at least doing something to uphold our reputation.
By continuing on, there were endorcing this line of play.
Originally posted by grayham
Exploiting the rules of a comp by throwing matches or playing slow is not a serious offense. Everyone does it. NZ did it to Australia last summer.
Hardly comparable to bowling underarm which is literally "not cricket". Its actual becomes a completely different game: a hybrid between cricket and lawn bowls.
No one else did it.
If Chappel wanted to win at all costs he would have bowled every delivery under arm. Why didnt he? Because that would be extremely poor, but whats the difference between one ball and 300 balls?
The win at all costs was overstretched by chappell in that game. The win ( a win in an insignificant series, years ago, forgotten by many, in a game we were going to win anyway) came at far too high a cost ( Australias and chappells reputation).
Chappells rep was shot as soon as it left his brothers hand. The ACB should have distanced itself from him as swiftly as possible and explained how the rule oversight came about in the first place, thereby at least doing something to uphold our reputation.
By continuing on, there were endorcing this line of play.
ammm, it certainly is comparable to bowling underarm, including the incident scousecat eluded to which i forgot about. it cost another team a chance in the finals, and contrary to what you say (with the world cup incident anyway) had not been done before.
the reason it wasnt done every ball is because he knew that the rule might be changed if he did that. it was far smarter to keep the tactic up his sleeve until it needed to be done at a vital stage. besides, what stopped the batter from flicking it up with his foot and belting it for 6??? the surprise tactic is what.
and whats the crap about bowling underarm not being cricket?? it was in the rules of the game. its like saying that a torp in footy is not Aussie rules
Originally posted by nicko18
ammm, it certainly is comparable to bowling underarm, including the incident scousecat eluded to which i forgot about. it cost another team a chance in the finals, and contrary to what you say (with the world cup incident anyway) had not been done before.
Both are unsporting. But I believe underarm bowling along the ground lawn bowls style, actually changes the game to such an extent that it no longer resembles natural cricket. Thats just my opinion though.
the reason it wasnt done every ball is because he knew that the rule might be changed if he did that. it was far smarter to keep the tactic up his sleeve until it needed to be done at a vital stage. besides, what stopped the batter from flicking it up with his foot and belting it for 6??? the surprise tactic is what.
So you agree is was premeditated. Good. One ball got the rule changed, so whether its one or 300 it didnt make a difference. I bet you'd be asking for your money back if Australia bowled every ball along the ground.
Its easy to say that the kiwi batsman could have scooped it up and hit a six in hindsight. As I recall he had less than a minute from the time he found out it was underarm to when the actual delivery was "bowled", so highly unlikely he could have thought of that one when his mind would have been clouded by disbelief.
I think by blocking and showing his disgust, he provided the stronger message, and I think history has judged chappell harder than if he had somehow managed a six and NZ had won.
and whats the crap about bowling underarm not being cricket?? it was in the rules of the game. its like saying that a torp in footy is not Aussie rules
Bowling underarm along the ground lawn bowls style is not cricket in any sense. Thats why the oversight in the laws was quickly changed to prevent it.
Originally posted by grayham
whats the difference between one ball and 300 balls?
Ummmm ....... about 299 balls I would think :D
yes i do think that the underarm was premeditated. i even think he had done his research and made doubly sure that it was allowed. i think the only regrets chappell has over the incident are due to the overwhelming bad press he copped over it. i believe it was a very thoroughly thought out tactic though, and a smart one. it's not often that someone if able to find a loophole in the laws of the sport like that, but as you say, the kiwi batsman is the one who's judgement was clouded when he didnt have the presence of mind to flick it up, then the six would have been a gimme.
having said that, there is still nothing wrong with bowling roundarm off your knees so that the ball is rolling by the time it gets to the other end. but somehow i doubt that anyone will be game enough to try it.
Originally posted by nicko18
yes i do think that the underarm was premeditated. i even think he had done his research and made doubly sure that it was allowed. i think the only regrets chappell has over the incident are due to the overwhelming bad press he copped over it. i believe it was a very thoroughly thought out tactic though, and a smart one. it's not often that someone if able to find a loophole in the laws of the sport like that, but as you say, the kiwi batsman is the one who's judgement was clouded when he didnt have the presence of mind to flick it up, then the six would have been a gimme.
having said that, there is still nothing wrong with bowling roundarm off your knees so that the ball is rolling by the time it gets to the other end. but somehow i doubt that anyone will be game enough to try it.
You mean no one would be "so unsporting" enough to try it.
No reason why you couldnt bowl very slowly overarm, so that the ball is basically rolling by the time it gets to the batsman also.
But, everywhere bar australia, and even a fair slice of australia, greg chappell is remembered as the "underarm" man. Fair justice for what was a great carear but one mighty stuff up.
Trevor seems to have survived quite well out of it by immediately distancing himself from the decision.
McAlmanac
4 Feb 2003, 13:10
Originally posted by Becker
An interesting sideline was that a couple of days later, Doug Walters marched to the middle of the SCG and had someone roll an underarm delivery to him. He skipped down the wicket, scooped up the ball with his bat, then belted it over mid wicket for six. Trouble is, McKechnie didn't have enough time to work out this tactic.
Sorry, you're out. Hit the ball twice.
markstaners
4 Feb 2003, 13:32
[QUOTE]Originally posted by grayham
[B]
If Chappel wanted to win at all costs he would have bowled every delivery under arm.
QUOTE]
I think you'll find it aint too dificult too get at least 1 run a ball of an underarm it's just it is darn near impossible to hit a for and is impossible to hit a 6 if each ball bowled was an underarm new zealand would have got possibly over 300!
Originally posted by grayham
You mean no one would be "so unsporting" enough to try it.
Only high moral people who don't know how to win would have thought that the underarm was unsporting at that time.
Originally posted by grayham
No reason why you couldnt bowl very slowly overarm, so that the ball is basically rolling by the time it gets to the batsman also.
The ball wouldn't have reached the middle of the pitch if he bowled an extra slow delivery therefore rendering it useless.
Originally posted by grayham
But, everywhere bar australia, and even a fair slice of australia, greg chappell is remembered as the "underarm" man.
Really? I seem to remember him as an elegant batsmen who was also very good at captaining his side.
Originally posted by grayham
Fair justice for what was a great carear but one mighty stuff up.
Forgetting the fact that he did win the game.......
Originally posted by grayham
Trevor seems to have survived quite well out of it by immediately distancing himself from the decision.
Trevor didn't have a say in the decesion.
knuckles
4 Feb 2003, 14:31
Underarm was within the rules, but obviously seen as not sporting. Marsh's agitation when he knew what was coming was pretty damning IMO. What about Mankad? Still in the rules. OK to do it? Most bowlers will give a batsmen at least one "watch it" warning - a sporting gesture. Want to be pragmatic, just run him out. Watch some one day action last week - Mankad opportunities often.
Who was the last person to cop a Mankad?
fyi
Mankad
The origin comes from the Sydney Test between Australia and India when Indian spinner Vinoo Mankad ran out Australian opener Bill Brown in this way without warning. The cricket-watching public did not forget: they bestowed Mankad’s name on an act that they regarded as highly unsportsmanlike.
Originally posted by Gandalf
Only high moral people who don't know how to win would have thought that the underarm was unsporting at that time.
Everyone at the time thought it unsporting.
The ball wouldn't have reached the middle of the pitch if he bowled an extra slow delivery therefore rendering it useless.
You think. Go try it.
Really? I seem to remember him as an elegant batsmen who was also very good at captaining his side.
Only cricket nuts. To joe blow, especially joe blows overseas he's mr underarm.
Forgetting the fact that he did win the game.......
I'm sure most people have forgotten that series. Who played, who won, which year. It was hardly the world cup.
Trevor didn't have a say in the decesion.
Trevor had the ultimate decision. He wasnt seen of much since, so I doubt a decision either way would have had much impact on his career.
A good yorker and he would have been a hero for many reasons.
:)
Originally posted by knuckles
Underarm was within the rules, but obviously seen as not sporting. Marsh's agitation when he knew what was coming was pretty damning IMO. What about Mankad? Still in the rules. OK to do it? Most bowlers will give a batsmen at least one "watch it" warning - a sporting gesture. Want to be pragmatic, just run him out. Watch some one day action last week - Mankad opportunities often.
Who was the last person to cop a Mankad?
fyi
Mankad
The origin comes from the Sydney Test between Australia and India when Indian spinner Vinoo Mankad ran out Australian opener Bill Brown in this way without warning. The cricket-watching public did not forget: they bestowed Mankad’s name on an act that they regarded as highly unsportsmanlike.
Maybe not as widely recognised as you think, if you have to explain it.
'Mankads", "bodyline", "slow run rates", they dont change the very nature of the game like an underarm did.
You can try mankads, body line and bat slowly all day and it will still be cricket. Undearms all day and it wouldnt.
Originally posted by grayham
'Mankads", "bodyline", "slow run rates", they dont change the very nature of the game like an underarm did.
Bofyline didn't change the nature of the game? On what planet? It saw at least one rule change in that the fielding team was restricted to no more than two players behind square on the leg side. That's a fairly serious change of the nature of the game IMO.
You can try mankads, body line and bat slowly all day and it will still be cricket.
Actually you can't. Leg theory is now illegal.
Undearms all day and it wouldnt.
People wouldn't underarm all day anymore than they would mankad all day.
Originally posted by ScouseCat
With regards to that World Cup match between West Indies and Australia in 1999, the ICC could have avoided such an incident if all points were carried across to the Super Six stage, not just the points won against the other teams in the Super Six.
If they'd done that they'd have defeated the purpose of it. By carrying over only those points the Super Six stage becomes effectively a round robin of it's own where every team plays matches against the other five teams.
Just out of interest, has that been changed for this World Cup??
AFAIK no.
Originally posted by Dave
Bofyline didn't change the nature of the game? On what planet? It saw at least one rule change in that the fielding team was restricted to no more than two players behind square on the leg side. That's a fairly serious change of the nature of the game IMO.
Explain cricket to someone in less than 35 words:
"Bowler comes in, delivers ball, ball hits the wicket once, batsman plays a shot, batsmen have the option to run until fielder returns ball. Batsmen out by being bowled, stumped, LBW or run out"
Minor field positions done come into it until at least 400 words.
Here is another: Explain the main difference between lawn bowls and cricket in 5 words: "In cricket, ball bounces once"
Or: Explain the difference between baseball and cricket in 10 words: "In cricket, ball can bounce before batsman"
Now I'm sure you can come up with your own, but what I am trying to illustrate is the nature of how different underarm made the game for that brief moment it appeared.
grayham, youve lost it. main difference between lawn bowls and cricket is that the ball only bounces once??
i would have thought the guy with a bat at the other end about to hit the ball would have been the most obvious giveaway.
and FYI, trevor chappell is the one remembered for the incident. greg is remembered for a lot of other things before that springs to mind.
and so what your argument should now turn into.... is that if someone bowls a full toss, we are suddenly playing baseball.
Nige_Bix
4 Feb 2003, 21:59
1. I have 4 sons aged from 25 to 9 = hours of backyard cricket over the years - bowling underarms - 95% of the balls I bowled bounced only ONCE - [unlike TC's] - -a few fulltosses and the only ones that didnt bounce hit something on the grass and they became "grubbers" - not sure how old that term is - my point - underarm bowling does not = grubbers!
HOWEVER, I agree with those who condemned the Chappell one - totally uncalled for - and an embarrassment to me as an Australian who considers giving people a fair go - even if they beat you
2. "Mankadding" is a fair thing when you consider the batsmen at the bowlers end is cheating by leaving his crease too soon!
HOWEVER, I feel the bowler should at least the warn the batsmen once in case in is unintentional!;)
Originally posted by McAlmanac
Sorry, you're out. Hit the ball twice.
I know you're allowed to hit the ball twice if the second hit is to avoid the ball running on to the stumps and bolwing you.
What happens if in doing this, you hit the ball for 4. Would it be legal? Or even if you just ran 1 off it. Legal?
Anyone?
Originally posted by McAlmanac
Sorry, you're out. Hit the ball twice.
Yes, I thought someone would pick me up on that, I didn't realise the mistake until after I posted it. Doug actually kicked the ball up with his foot, then hit the ball.
Originally posted by nicko18
grayham, youve lost it. main difference between lawn bowls and cricket is that the ball only bounces once??
i would have thought the guy with a bat at the other end about to hit the ball would have been the most obvious giveaway.
and FYI, trevor chappell is the one remembered for the incident. greg is remembered for a lot of other things before that springs to mind.
and so what your argument should now turn into.... is that if someone bowls a full toss, we are suddenly playing baseball.
I was merely grading the difference various dubious tactics make to the game.
Having lived and travelled to many of the cricketting countries in the world, I can assure you Greg Chappells main claim to fame is the underarm incident. Perhaps highly patriotic cricket zealots like yourself can remember past that, but from my impressions you are in the minority.
It is also quite possible that Trevor is only remembered as the underarm bowler, as thats about the highlight of his career. Fair enough, although I did admire his regret over the incident afterwards. Needed a bit more spine at the time perhaps.
History has judged them. Probably harshly enough in hindsight. The only thing that I feel could have been handled better by the ACB was swifter action against the perpertators, but the ACB has long been slow to act on most unsavoury behavior so little could be expected in this case.
Originally posted by grayham
Everyone at the time thought it unsporting.
That's because they were being so moral. It was a shock to them. In 20 years time they would have realised that it was a
great tatical decision.
Originally posted by grayham
You think. Go try it.
How could the bowl have enogh power to go to the batsmen if you bowl it extra slow?
Originally posted by grayham
Only cricket nuts. To joe blow, especially joe blows overseas he's mr underarm.
Well since they know **** all about cricket I don't really care what a Joe Blow thinks.
Originally posted by grayham
I'm sure most people have forgotten that series. Who played, who won, which year. It was hardly the world cup.
Yes but the thing is that you play to win in everygame you are in and Greg did that by instructing his brother to bowl underarm.
Originally posted by grayham
Trevor had the ultimate decision.
I thought if the captain says bowl underarm you have to bowl underarm.
Originally posted by grayham
He wasnt seen of much since, so I doubt a decision either way would have had much impact on his career.
Thats because it was Gregs decesion not Trevors. Greg was the captain and decided that Trevor was going to bowl underarm.
Originally posted by grayham
A good yorker and he would have been a hero for many reasons.
:)
He could have given himself room and hit him for 6.
I would have picked the ball up, tossed it in the air and smacked the crap out of it to see if it would go for a 6.
Originally posted by Gandalf
That's because they were being so moral. It was a shock to them. In 20 years time they would have realised that it was a
great tatical decision.
How could the bowl have enogh power to go to the batsmen if you bowl it extra slow?
:) Obviously not so slow that it doesnt make it to the batsmen!
Yes but the thing is that you play to win in everygame you are in and Greg did that by instructing his brother to bowl underarm.
I thought if the captain says bowl underarm you have to bowl underarm.
Wasnt it the case in the famous tied test against the windies that the windies captain said to the bowler on the last ball: "Dont bowl a bouncer", to which the bowler bowled a bouncer, got the edge, got the wicket, tied the test.
Since when have captains had 100% control over bowlers deliveries?
He could have given himself room and hit him for 6.
Off a yorker? He wasnt exactly Don Bradman.
Originally posted by Hoggy
I would have picked the ball up, tossed it in the air and smacked the crap out of it to see if it would go for a 6.
I think thats "handled ball", otherwise every ball you'd just catch, throw up, and hit for six. And that definately would not be cricket
:D
Wicked Lester
5 Feb 2003, 10:45
I keep reading people suggesting that "the ACB should have thrown the book at him".
On what charge?? Bringing the game into disrepute by bowling a legal delivery??
As for remembering Greg Chappell for the underarm incident only, what small minds many people have. But then again I guess thats life. There will no doubt be many in the general public who in years to come will mainly remember:
Shane Warne for off field incidents.
Mark Waugh for his relationship with 'John'.
Craig McDermott for being regularly injured.
Steve Waugh for being captian of a side that took sledging to new heights.
Wayne Carey for off field indiscretions.
Boony for drinking feats.
Cheryl Kernot and Gareth Evans (well I think you know)
etc, etc, etc
Public figures are often better known for their non core activities. If you want to remember Greg Chappell for an unfortunate but overblown incident go for it but I choose to focus on 24 timeless centuries from just 87 tests in a highly competitive era of world cricket.
Originally posted by grayham
I think thats "handled ball", otherwise every ball you'd just catch, throw up, and hit for six. And that definately would not be cricket
:D
True, but given the fact that McKechnie obviously cracked the ****s......at least he got a not out I suppose.
Averages!
Originally posted by Wicked Lester
I keep reading people suggesting that "the ACB should have thrown the book at him".
On what charge?? Bringing the game into disrepute by bowling a legal delivery??
As for remembering Greg Chappell for the underarm incident only, what small minds many people have. But then again I guess thats life. There will no doubt be many in the general public who in years to come will mainly remember:
Shane Warne for off field incidents.
Mark Waugh for his relationship with 'John'.
Craig McDermott for being regularly injured.
Steve Waugh for being captian of a side that took sledging to new heights.
Wayne Carey for off field indiscretions.
Boony for drinking feats.
Cheryl Kernot and Gareth Evans (well I think you know)
etc, etc, etc
Public figures are often better known for their non core activities. If you want to remember Greg Chappell for an unfortunate but overblown incident go for it but I choose to focus on 24 timeless centuries from just 87 tests in a highly competitive era of world cricket.
I'd say it human nature to remember people by one significant moment in their career if they have one.
Chappell - underarm
Tyson - biting ears
Warne - that ball.
Wayne Harmes - knocking the ball back from the boundary line
etc, etc
and probably Wayne Carey will be remembered for shagging the mrs of a teammate.
Thats just the way it is. Lots of batsmen get centuries. Only one ordered an underarm.
Rodgerramjet
5 Feb 2003, 13:19
It was a totally gutless act, totally out of character for an Australian and that is what the Australian public really resented about it. It was so unreal that anybody would actually bowl or get someone to bowl an underarm ball even if it was allowable per the rules of the day.