The Underarm.

[Gandalf]

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???

 

[shiva25]

He should have been no balled and made to bowl again

 

[wagstaff]

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]

McKechnie, not McKenzie .....

And yes, it was a disgrace !

 

[Gandalf]

Originally posted by crudbucket
McKechnie, not McKenzie .....

And yes, it was a disgrace !

How was it a disgrace???????

 

[Kenny_01]

Originally posted by Gandalf
How was it a disgrace???????

I thought it was a disgrace as well. No sportsmanship/good will shown.

 

[Gandalf]

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.

 

[markstaners]

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.

 

[P76]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Wicked Lester]

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.

 

[grayham]

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]

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.

 

[Gandalf]

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.

 

[dr nick]

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]

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??

 

[grayham]

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.

 

[dr nick]

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

 

[grayham]

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.

 

[Becker]

Originally posted by grayham
whats the difference between one ball and 300 balls?

Ummmm ....... about 299 balls I would think

 

[dr nick]

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.

 

[grayham]

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]

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]

Originally posted by grayham



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!

 

[Gandalf]

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.