The Underarm.

[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.

 

[grayham]

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.

 

[grayham]

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.

 

[Dave]

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.

 

[Dave]

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.

 

[grayham]

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.

 

[dr nick]

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]

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!

 

[Yianni]

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?

 

[Becker]

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.

 

[grayham]

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.

 

[Gandalf]

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.

 

[jefffff34]

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.

 

[grayham]

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.

 

[grayham]

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

 

[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.

 

[jefffff34]

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

True, but given the fact that McKechnie obviously cracked the ****s......at least he got a not out I suppose.

Averages!

 

[grayham]

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]

Greg Chappell

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.