butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The coroner's inquest has just started and already looks a bit messy.
RIP Phil Hughes - Australian cricketer dies, aged 25, after being struck by ball during game
- Thread starter gabi
- Start date
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This is a massive shame. His death was due to a freak accident that could have happened to anyone anywhere. By all accounts it wasn't even a very fast bouncer. Real shame that it's descended into this. Surely questions of sledging should be kept separate. Phil Hughes wasn't sledged to death. And short-pitched bowling aimed at the body, particularly the throat area, as this one was, are a part of the game - I'm very sure Hughes himself would have agreed with that.
Also, and please don't take this the wrong way, Hughes was playing a hook shot and made a mess of it, not keeping his eye on the ball and trying to duck/sway out of the way of it. I'm absolutely not blaming Hughes himself here, but there is the very tricky issue that the wearing of helmets can itself lead to players being hit on the head more often. See Stuart Broad getting his face smashed trying to hook a ball for six. I don't have any answers here, btw - clearly helmets should be worn, and players will try to hit short balls. Perhaps my point is just that cricket is a game that requires a bit of physical bravery on the part of the batsman, and I wouldn't want that taken away due to one horrible tragedy.
Last edited:
This is a massive shame. His death was due to a freak accident that could have happened to anyone anywhere. By all accounts it wasn't even a very fast bouncer. Real shame that it's descended into this. Surely questions of sledging should be kept separate. Phil Hughes wasn't sledged to death. And short-pitched bowling aimed at the body, particularly the throat area, as this one was, are a part of the game - I'm very sure Hughes himself would have agreed with that.
Yeah me too. I can see why his family are very upset but it is part of the game and you know that when you strap your pads on. I'm not sure anything positive is going to come from the inquest.
Mumbles274
running from law and the press and the parents
All a bit odd that it has come to this. Its a tough game played by tough people that exchange robust words during the course of play. It goes too far sometimes (eg clarke and the arm break sledge) but not because harm is meant but because players aren't perfect sometimes and say the wrong things in the heat of the moment. How distressing that this part of cricket, a debate not connected to a freak accident have been connected, for the family and players involved
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Well, I personally think the hard-man sledging is fucking pathetic and that there is no place for it on a cricket field. New Zealand's current team, as shaped by former captain McCullum, are the perfect example of how to play hard without the bullshit. I really hate sledging, but I don't see what it has to do with PH's horrible death, or what good it does to even discuss it at the inquest - he wasn't killed by sledging, nobody was trying to kill him, bouncers are a part of the game.
Mumbles274
running from law and the press and the parents
I think a bit of tough talk is fair enough. There has to be a line though? Cant say i really know what is said in reality on the field so can imagine im.prob not in a position to add much to that debate.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Well what Teaboy describes is definitely on one side of the line. Little digs like calling on the slips to stay sharp as he's about to nick off would be on the other side, I would think. Basically anything with any kind of humour is going to be ok, and I wouldn't want to take that out - moments like Marlon Samuels saluting Ben Stokes off the pitch, for instance, which was hilarious.
Mumbles274
running from law and the press and the parents
Yep
Mumbles274
running from law and the press and the parents
Also a bit of mind games is fine, such as what warne was so good at
It's difficult isn't it?
Is cricket like say boxing, or perhaps better MMA, where is it permissible for parties to genuinely wish physical harm from their actions while they are in the middle of it?
Here's a story from a fast-bowling legend.
“I know the plan. Kill him…” – Jeff Thomson’s luncheon anecdote
Is cricket like say boxing, or perhaps better MMA, where is it permissible for parties to genuinely wish physical harm from their actions while they are in the middle of it?
Here's a story from a fast-bowling legend.
“I know the plan. Kill him…” – Jeff Thomson’s luncheon anecdote
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Thing is, bouncers are very often aimed at the body. It's then up to the batsman either to hit the ball or get out of its way. I don't think you can say fast bowlers don't sometimes do things with the ball that are intended to physically intimidate. It's very clear that they do. Thommo's notorious for his attitude but there have been many others - Colin Croft was famously nasty. The trick is not to be a prick about it.
um no, but honestly it's more than that, in the above anecdote Lillee was exhorting Thommo to really kill the batsman! And it seems Thommo took that as his objective. I find myself liking Thommo too, even though I think he genuinely loved putting guys in hospital. Not sure about Lillee.
I was having a net practice and asked a guy what the secret to fast bowling was, trying to get a few tips. "Take the guy's head off" was the response. That's the 'inner game' of fast bowling.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
The point of the family walking out of the inquest is because the players (giving testimony) in that game, all bar one, are being disingenuous pricks about it. Words were said, fucking admit to them. It's not going to get anyone a prison sentence. It may lead to closure for the family. Have a fucking heart.
That said, yeah, perhaps it's best not to say anything, sledging wise. If you can do it with the ball, there's no need for forewarning. I knocked two players out in my career. I suggested to neither of them that this was my intention (and it was) that this was about to happen.
That said, yeah, perhaps it's best not to say anything, sledging wise. If you can do it with the ball, there's no need for forewarning. I knocked two players out in my career. I suggested to neither of them that this was my intention (and it was) that this was about to happen.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This is it for me. Probably the best fast bowler I've had the pleasure to see live was Curtly Ambrose, both in his pomp and later on. Later on, he'd lost a yard of pace and was a more McGrath-like bowler, relentless, just enough movement to get the nick. But in his pomp he was a fearsome sight and even from the boundary you could pick up on the batsmen's nerves. Saw him demolish England at Headingley. And he barely said a word. He just gave that look. That's how to do it.
I think most of us here probably agree that this kind of physical jeopardy aspect to the game is an integral part of what makes test cricket, in particular, in which bowlers attack, such a fantastic spectacle. You don't need sledging for that, or you shouldn't, but it's not called an 'attack' for nothing.
Last edited:
Casual Observer
enough
I think I'd add Andy Roberts to the 'nasty' list. In the mid 70s when Peter Roebuck was playing for a university side, Roberts hit him in the face with a bouncer. Roebuck went to hospital, had a few stitches then bravely returned to the crease the next day whereupon Roberts gave him another barrage of the short stuff. He (Roberts) famously had a slowish bouncer which allowed the batsmen to get comfortable when Roberts would then unleash a faster bouncer. Botham was another Roberts victim, losing four teeth in 1974.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Botham was only a young kid at the time as well. He played on though.
Brian Close was captain that day, and he'd previously lost 4 teeth from a bouncer but batted onto score a century. Not in the same game though.
Brian Close was captain that day, and he'd previously lost 4 teeth from a bouncer but batted onto score a century. Not in the same game though.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
So he (Roberts) used legal bowling methods against an established batsman who not only went on to adopt South Africa as his chosen home but while there took part in corporal punishment (caning of boys) which led to his eventual suicide. Roebuck was also instrumental in getting rid of Somerset's two black stars, Viv Richards and Joel Garner, and, by doing so, gave way to the resignation of Ian Botham who decided he had no desire to have anything to do with a team led in any way by Roebuck. Which rather sounds like a) Botham appreciated what cricket was about more than Roebuck and b) Andy Roberts deserves a medal and should have hit the 'brave' man a bit harder.
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I don't know the details behind Roebuck's ousting of Richards and Garner, but I don't think it's fair to bring up race here. Roebuck was a critic of rebel tours to apartheid SA, and as far as I know didn't have links with it.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Hey cool, whatever. I'll just leave it here that Richards and Garner were replaced by Martin Crowe and Steve Waugh, that it took Roebuck's leaving of Somerset for the county to give recognition to Viv for all his efforts (naming the gates to the ground after him) and that Henk Lindeque, one of the young boys caned by Roebuck, said it wasn't even so much the caning he objected to as the fact that Roebuck insisted on pulling his shorts down to examine the marks.
I'd have paid good money to see Roberts bowl at Roebuck.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Think the wikipedia article is wrong about a couple of things. I don't think it is correct that they could only have played one or other of Richards/Garner in 1987. I may be corrected here, but I'm pretty certain that, when they changed the rule from 2 to 1 overseas player, counties with two existing players from before could continue with those two - many overseas players depended on CC for their living at the time, so existing players could continue.
Pretty sure, for instance, that Greenidge and Marshall continued at Hants. Just looked it up - they did. So I don't know what else is also wrong in that article, tbf.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
It was nothing to do with any rule change - roebuck just thought viv and joel were lazy and he hated botham, so he manufactured a way to get rid of them all at once. Joel wasn't going to be bowling in the championship the following season and the year after that he and viv would be away on WI duty so the overseas player thing is a red herring.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Looking back at that rule change to just one overseas player, I remember being dubious at the time about that being the problem with English cricket, and it being a big shame reducing the number of stars in the CC (all the top West Indians played CC, pretty much). All it did was usher in the glories of the 1990s. 
Casual Observer
enough
I think the caning business that you refer to happened in the UK, with Roebuck leaving the country later because of the embarrassment. I'm certainly not defending him as what he did then and also in the lead up to his suicide was indefensible. However, being hit in the face and returning to face the same bowler the next day is 'brave' in my book irrespective of future crimes.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
In the first case he rather got away with it. He was originally charged with sexual assault but accepted common assault. The judge seemed to imply that was wrong:
Ex-Somerset captain caned young cricketers
