Talk:Underarm bowling

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dates[edit]

Could someone add some dates to this?

I think the 1981 incident deserves its own page. I'm in no rush to change this, but I'd like to see any comments for or against a move. Rocksong 01:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary. This isn't a very long article, and the material on the 1981 incident alone would make quite a short page by itself. If it was expanded to something like twice the size, it might start deserving its own article. I don't think there's all that much more that can be written about it, though. -dmmaus 06:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning was the sidebar on the RHS of the page: this is one of 20 or more pages on "bowling styles". I don't think any other "bowling style" page discusses a specific incident (e.g. Bodyline is not on the bouncer page). Also, someone specifically looking up the 1981 incident is confronted with (for them) irrelevant stuff on the history of underarm bowling. Also my observation is "multi-pronged" Wikipedia articles tend to expand such that a split becomes necessary sooner or later - even hough, as you say, the article isn't too long yet. Having said all that, if people don't agree with me then so be it. Rocksong 07:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could go either way. It's ok as it is, but it would also work well as two separate articles, linking to each other - a short paragraph on the incident with
Main article: 1981 underarm bowling incident
. Stevage 10:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with the "1981 incident" is that the controversy was not the underarm delivery (an easy bounced underarm could be more easily smacked for 6 than a regular delivery), but the fact it was *rolled*. That fact doesn't seem to be mentioned - the ball was rolled dead flat along the ground, totally preventing any attempt to get 6 runs off it. I seem to recall the batsman picked it up in disgust? Stevage 10:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the clarification. It's a good point, because if I'd never seen the incident and only knew of backyard underarm lobbing, it might not be obvious otherwise. BTW McKechnie didn't pick the ball up, he just knocked it aside with his foot. Rocksong 00:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
McKechnie blocked the ball with his bat (it was quite straight. if he had offered his foot, i guess the aussies would have appealed for it !) and threw away his bat. Tintin (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw the replay again. You are right: he blocked it with his bat, then tossed his bat. Rocksong 11:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walters incident[edit]

Re Walters incident, it appears in a autobiography of Border. I read it in around 1987 in a cricket magazine which published a few extracts from that book. I don't remember the name of the book or anything more about it.

The bowler was not TM Chappell but Border. It happened the day after the underarm incident. Walters struck a bet with Border that he could hit an underarm ball for six. As Border rolled one along, Walter took a few steps down the wicket and put hit foot on the way of the ball. As the ball bounced up he hit it out of the ground and into the Kippax lake (so it was probably at SCG No.2, not the regular SCG).

All this is from memory. I am sure that Gerald Brodribb mentions in this in his book - The Lost Art - about underarm bowling. But this will have to wait till someone finds the exact lines from one of the books. Tintin (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I remember a story like that, but the batsman was South Africa's Clive Rice (Almost certainly not at the MCG or off Chappell). If either story is true, I don't think it's worthy to be in the article, because hitting the ball up off the foot is illegal. Rocksong 11:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have got the exact citation if anyone is interested :

The day after the affair Doug Walters promised to show Allan Border on the Sydney ground just how that grub might have been successfully dealt with. He asked Border to bowl a grub to him and the moment the ball was delivered Walters charged down the wicket and stuck out his left foot whereupon the grub cannoned into his boot, popped up in the air, and then Walters clouted it out of the ground.

Gerald Brodribb, The Lost Art, Boundary books edition (1997), p.63, ISBN 0-95222070-8 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum-7 Tintin (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks - aded it to miscellanea--Arktos talk 20:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article needs to point out that, while it's a cute trick, it doesn't "successfully" deal with the grubber. See the rule on hitting the ball twice at http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-34-hit-the-ball-twice,60,AR.html :
(a) The striker is out Hit the ball twice if, while the ball is in play, it strikes any part of his person or is struck by his bat and, before the ball has been touched by a fielder, he wilfully strikes it again with his bat or person, other than a hand not holding the bat, except for the sole purpose of guarding his wicket. Rocksong 01:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Damn. I was planning to ask that as a question in WP:CRIQ :-) Tintin (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The POINT of this article....[edit]

... is to discuss a vital and essential aspect of cricket's history and NOT to dwell at length and ad nauseum on the doings of the Chappell family. I have therefore followed precedent where a controversial incident is deemed worthy of inclusion on the site by giving it its own article as per the linkage provided. That means this article can be developed according to its context and perspective in historical terms and not in the terms of modern media sensationalism.

Incidentally, underarm bowling was rarely if ever used (i.e., legitimately) by first-class teams in Australia or New Zealand, hence this article does not belong in the categories covering the histories of those countries. --BlackJack | talk page 19:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you started off by saying this article is about a history discussion, then you went on to say it is not a history that is directly linked to any one country. I do not see how you got to that conclusion, except for through your "I doubt" statement. Please do not revert good faith additions based on a doubt that they are supposed to be there. Please make those kind of deletions based on "knowing" that they are not an integral part of the history of both countries. For the record, the incident had a cultural effect on both countries, and hence it is a part of the history of both countries, just as the Bledisloe Cup is an inevitable part of our shared heritage, this too is an undeniable part of the heritage. Ansell 22:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I've removed doubt above which was a wrong choice of words. I've provided a better linkage to the new article which is what this incident needs if as you say it was so important, though you are being POV when you say that because Aussies and Kiwis that I know personally regard it as trivial and of no importance whatsoever. See WT:CRIC where there is already a consensus in agreement with the incident having its own article. --BlackJack | talk page 07:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this needs to be separated from the 1981 incident so that the context and historical importance of underarm bowling is not overshadowed. But having said that, the 1981 event was significant in the modern history of cricket, particularly in respect to Australian and New Zealand cricketing relations and tours (obviously). I'm sure most Aussies and Kiwis would agree and would be surprised if a majority thought it "... trivial and of no importance whatsoever". It wasn't Bodyline, but it certainly wasn't trivial.
Also, Intercolonial first class matches were being played in Australia from 1851 and I can't imagine that underarm bowling wasn't significant in those early days. — Moondyne 08:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the statement above. The incident is still not insignificant IMO, but I misrepresented the situation. Feel free to implement the solution which has been approached so far. Ansell 00:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Information[edit]

The following text was deleted from the 1981 page because it wasn't about that incident, it might be added this page. --Jpeeling 12:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Underarm bowling was prohibited in all forms of cricket by the 2000 code of the laws, although this does not stop a competition organiser putting it back in.[citation needed]
  • In the First World Series Cup Final played between the two sides at the SCG in 1983, Australia needed one run to win with Lance Cairns bowling to Greg Chappell. Cairns brought the house down with laughter when he bowled an underarm delivery! The umpire no-balled him, and Greg Chappell hit a six of the next ball to secure the victory, over the demoralised Kiwis who were without an injured Richard Hadlee for the first time since 1977.
  • The day after the affair Doug Walters and Allan Border experimented on the Sydney ground how a ball bowled underarm might have been successfully dealt with. Border bowled underarm to Walters. The moment the ball was delivered, Walters "charged down the wicket and stuck out his left foot whereupon the grub cannoned into his boot, popped up in the air, and then Walters clouted it out of the ground."[1]. However, the batsman could be given out under the Hit the ball twice law.
  • Whilst Greg Chappell was batting at Eden Park, Auckland in the first Rothmans Cup one-day international of the 1981/82 season, the record NZ crowd of over 40,000 was greatly amused when some wag in crowd bowled a lawn bowl onto the field. Chappell went on to score a fine century, under much duress from the hostile crowd, and he was given a standing ovation upon his departure.
  1. ^ Gerald Brodribb, The Lost Art, Boundary books (1997), p.63, ISBN 0-9522070-8-7

Lob bowling talk page topic[edit]

I think, underarm bowling isn't illegal if it is pre arranged before the match. I shall consult Tom Smith.

No need to go to that far. Law 24.1.b mentions it. Tintin 03:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is a more detailed article on Underarm bowling and the two articles handle pretty much the same stuff. Tintin 03:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I think we should qualify the word illegal. do you agree or am I nit picking? Johnnybriggs 19:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Today the laws pertaining to the bowling of "beamers" would be likely to render most lob bowling illegal, and it would probably be deemed a wide." probably irrelevant and incorrect since beamers are balls which do not pitch.

This article seems to have turned into one on "donkey drops" see Spedagues Dropper by Conan Doyle. Lob bowling was slow underam (usually spin) bowling which dropped on a normal length. Donkey drops are something specific and different Johnnybriggs 06:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC) I think this should be merged with underarm bowling[reply]

What does this mean: "As an underarm bowler he had an action a little like setting a wood in crown green bowling." Drutt 22:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying the article[edit]

I think this needs tidying up in several respects, but I don't have the expertise to do so. The opening sentence tells us underarm is old, not the essence of it. There is also no mention of its current legal status in the opening paragraph. I think the definition should follow before the history. It would also be useful to define pitched bowling, since it seems to be important in the history and perhaps 'shooters, twisters and risers'. It would also be useful to know when it became illegal to roll a ball along the ground, since the article says this was the original style. The history seems to get a bit excessive in detail from the paragraphs about 'Lumpy' onwards. It also needs some more citations as it seems like a personal essay. Tomcrocker (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
talk page 13:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Lob bowling be merged into Underarm bowling. I think that the content in the Lob bowling article can easily be explained in the context of Underarm bowling, and the Underarm bowling article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Lob bowling will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Jack | talk page 10:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Underarm bowling was the original form of bowling in cricket, existing since time immemorial. The ball was originally delivered all along the ground as in bowls but c.1760, pitched delivery bowling began as the first stage in bowling's evolution (the modern straight bat was invented in response). A lob is itself a pitched delivery although its purpose and target area are unconventional and so it could be defined as one form of underarm bowling. Roundarm bowling evolved from underarm pitched bowling in the early 19th century and overarm bowling from roundarm in the third quarter of the 19th century. The scope of underarm bowling is wide, especially in terms of its historical importance. There really is not much else that can be said about lobs beyond what the current article already has and this content would be easily placed within underarm bowling, perhaps in a dedicated section, without causing any problems. Jack | talk page 10:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Note points raised on their own talk pages by HuPi and LessHeard vanU‎. Jack | talk page 03:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As HuPi and LessHeard vanU‎ both indicated support for the merger, I will be WP:BOLD in another day or two and just go ahead and do it unless anyone objects. Jack | talk page 13:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Underarm bowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Brearley[edit]

In The Art of Captaincy (1985), Mike Brearley said that he had bowled lobs for Middlesex CCC as a practised last resort to try to buy a wicket, but never took one. Unfortunately, I've mislaid my copy. There may also be mention in contemporary Wisdens of something ao unusual. Narky Blert (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Underarm_bowling&oldid=1204276364"