Here is that over from Holding to Close at the end of the 3rd day at Old Trafford in 1976 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-f5pfBgpNE. A few things stood out for me. 1) It's a good over, although I didn't think so at the time. I was disgusted at the time. But it's fast and accurate. 2) Holding is very very fast. I don't think I've ever seen anyone bowl faster. Thomson must have been close but I really think Holdong was at least a couple of miles an hour quicker. 3) The second ball - if you see the replay - nearly takes Close's head off. I believe he was a millisecond from death.
But the over - as someone has commented at YouTube - wouldn't cause much of a stir today. The balls that hit Close were not too short. Close was tremendously brave not to just say sod it and get out. That took guts without a helmet.
> Here is that over from Holding to Close at the end of the 3rd day at > Old Trafford in 1976 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-f5pfBgpNE. > A few things stood out for me. > 1) It's a good over, although I didn't think so at the time. I was > disgusted at the time. But it's fast and accurate. > 2) Holding is very very fast. I don't think I've ever seen anyone bowl > faster. Thomson must have been close but I really think Holdong was at > least a couple of miles an hour quicker. > 3) The second ball - if you see the replay - nearly takes Close's head > off. I believe he was a millisecond from death.
> But the over - as someone has commented at YouTube - wouldn't cause > much of a stir today. The balls that hit Close were not too short. > Close was tremendously brave not to just say sod it and get out. That > took guts without a helmet.
Only the second delivery was short enough to be called a bouncer. The others were only intimidatory because of Holding's extreme pace, but Brian Close would never admit to being intimidated by any bowler. At the age of 45 though he should not have been facing possibly the fastest bowler of all time. His reactions just weren't up to it. Neither were Boycott's when he faced Holding for that famous over in 1981 at the age of 41. Steve Hague
> > Here is that over from Holding to Close at the end of the 3rd day at > > Old Trafford in 1976http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-f5pfBgpNE. > > A few things stood out for me. > > 1) It's a good over, although I didn't think so at the time. I was > > disgusted at the time. But it's fast and accurate. > > 2) Holding is very very fast. I don't think I've ever seen anyone bowl > > faster. Thomson must have been close but I really think Holdong was at > > least a couple of miles an hour quicker. > > 3) The second ball - if you see the replay - nearly takes Close's head > > off. I believe he was a millisecond from death.
> > But the over - as someone has commented at YouTube - wouldn't cause > > much of a stir today. The balls that hit Close were not too short. > > Close was tremendously brave not to just say sod it and get out. That > > took guts without a helmet.
> Only the second delivery was short enough to be called a bouncer. The others > were only intimidatory because of Holding's extreme pace, but Brian Close > would never admit to being intimidated by any bowler. At the age of 45 > though he should not have been facing possibly the fastest bowler of all > time. His reactions just weren't up to it. Neither were Boycott's when he > faced Holding for that famous over in 1981 at the age of 41. > Steve Hague
IMHO this is exactly what makes the bowling unfair according to law 42, regardless of the number that are technically bouncers.
6. Dangerous and unfair bowling (a) Bowling of fast short pitched balls (i) The bowling of fast short pitched balls is dangerous and unfair if the umpire at the bowler's end considers that by their repetition and taking into account their length, height and direction they are likely to inflict physical injury on the striker, irrespective of the protective equipment he may be wearing. The relative skill of the striker shall be taken into consideration.
If Holding was repeatedly bowling short pitched balls that Close was too slow to play with the bat, there is little chance of him getting a wicket (making the intimidatory intention obvious) and every chance of Close being seriously injured. As far as I can see the umpire would have been justified in stepping in under the current laws just as he was then. Bowling vaguely on the stumps a couple of balls an over would have been more intelligent bowling!
You have to admire Close for not only standing there, but actually getting into line even if he didn't have time to play them when he got there.
>> > Here is that over from Holding to Close at the end of the 3rd day at >> > Old Trafford in 1976http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-f5pfBgpNE. >> > A few things stood out for me. >> > 1) It's a good over, although I didn't think so at the time. I was >> > disgusted at the time. But it's fast and accurate. >> > 2) Holding is very very fast. I don't think I've ever seen anyone bowl >> > faster. Thomson must have been close but I really think Holdong was at >> > least a couple of miles an hour quicker. >> > 3) The second ball - if you see the replay - nearly takes Close's head >> > off. I believe he was a millisecond from death.
>> > But the over - as someone has commented at YouTube - wouldn't cause >> > much of a stir today. The balls that hit Close were not too short. >> > Close was tremendously brave not to just say sod it and get out. That >> > took guts without a helmet.
>> Only the second delivery was short enough to be called a bouncer. The others >> were only intimidatory because of Holding's extreme pace, but Brian Close >> would never admit to being intimidated by any bowler. At the age of 45 >> though he should not have been facing possibly the fastest bowler of all >> time. His reactions just weren't up to it. Neither were Boycott's when he >> faced Holding for that famous over in 1981 at the age of 41. >> Steve Hague
>IMHO this is exactly what makes the bowling unfair according to law >42, regardless of the number that are technically bouncers.
>6. Dangerous and unfair bowling >(a) Bowling of fast short pitched balls >(i) The bowling of fast short pitched balls is dangerous and unfair if >the umpire at the bowler's end considers that by their repetition and >taking into account their length, height and direction they are likely >to inflict physical injury on the striker, irrespective of the >protective equipment he may be wearing. The relative skill of the >striker shall be taken into consideration.
>If Holding was repeatedly bowling short pitched balls that Close was >too slow to play with the bat, there is little chance of him getting a >wicket (making the intimidatory intention obvious) and every chance of >Close being seriously injured. As far as I can see the umpire would >have been justified in stepping in under the current laws just as he >was then. Bowling vaguely on the stumps a couple of balls an over >would have been more intelligent bowling!
>You have to admire Close for not only standing there, but actually >getting into line even if he didn't have time to play them when he got >there.
On Jun 22, 4:55 pm, Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 22 Jun, 16:18, "Steve Hague" <steve.ha...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > The relative skill of the > striker shall be taken into consideration.
> If Holding was repeatedly bowling short pitched balls that Close was > too slow to play with the bat, there is little chance of him getting a > wicket (making the intimidatory intention obvious) and every chance of > Close being seriously injured. As far as I can see the umpire would > have been justified in stepping in under the current laws just as he > was then. Bowling vaguely on the stumps a couple of balls an over > would have been more intelligent bowling!
> You have to admire Close for not only standing there, but actually > getting into line even if he didn't have time to play them when he got > there
It's a toughie for the umpire. "I am warning you for intimdation because although he's an opening batsman for England he's a bit rusty and you're a bit quick - so no short stuff."
But as I said earlier, it was the short-of-length balls that hit poor Closey - and they must have REALLY hurt. So I'll ask the question again; WTF were the selectors thinking about in selecting B Close in 1976? Was he having the season of his life? What must it've been like to have been Gooch, Randall, Willey, (Balderstone), Graeme Barlow, Botham etc who were all ignored this time although they were chosen later or before.
If Close was brought in because he was famously good at fast-bowling then bizarrely Holding perhaps should not have been warned.
>But the over - as someone has commented at YouTube - wouldn't cause >much of a stir today. The balls that hit Close were not too short.
But it wasn't just one over and it wasn't just Holding. There were, IIRC, something like 70 minutes to close of play when the England innings began, and throughout that time almost all the bowling - to Edrich as well as Close - was short. It was the relentless of the barrage that made it so notable. -- John Hall
"I am not young enough to know everything." Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
> On Jun 22, 4:55 pm, Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On 22 Jun, 16:18, "Steve Hague" <steve.ha...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > > The relative skill of the > > striker shall be taken into consideration.
> > If Holding was repeatedly bowling short pitched balls that Close was > > too slow to play with the bat, there is little chance of him getting a > > wicket (making the intimidatory intention obvious) and every chance of > > Close being seriously injured. As far as I can see the umpire would > > have been justified in stepping in under the current laws just as he > > was then. Bowling vaguely on the stumps a couple of balls an over > > would have been more intelligent bowling!
> > You have to admire Close for not only standing there, but actually > > getting into line even if he didn't have time to play them when he got > > there
> It's a toughie for the umpire. "I am warning you for intimdation > because although he's an opening batsman for England he's a bit rusty > and you're a bit quick - so no short stuff."
Not really, it doesn't prevent the bowler from bowling short stuff, only from continually bowling short stuff and little else when the batsman isn't showing any sign of being at risk of getting out that way, just getting hurt (and would make for boring cricket as well). It was Holdings own fault that he got ticked off by the umpire, if he had made it look like he wanted to put Close back in the pavillion rather than a hospital ward there would have been no comment from the umpire.
The fact Close was an opener is irrelevant in my view, it is the relative skill of the batsman that is important as far as the umpire is concerned. You can't guarantee that any opener is able to protect himself unless you can first make guarantees about the pitch and the bowling.
> But as I said earlier, it was the short-of-length balls that hit poor > Closey - and they must have REALLY hurt. So I'll ask the question > again; WTF were the selectors thinking about in selecting B Close in > 1976? Was he having the season of his life? What must it've been like > to have been Gooch, Randall, Willey, (Balderstone), Graeme Barlow, > Botham etc who were all ignored this time although they were chosen > later or before.
Would they have been any less in danger of getting seriousy hurt by that bowling? They may have had better reactions, but would they have the good sense not to try swatting a few (and playing just the way Holding wanted them to)?
> If Close was brought in because he was famously good at fast-bowling > then bizarrely Holding perhaps should not have been warned.
Close played that over pretty well, the percentages weren't in favour of an aggressive shot, and by not playing one Close both protected his wicket and gave the umpire little option but to intervene. Pretty good thinking, had he swatted at a few he would have given Holding license to continue. I'd say that was good playing of fast-bowling.
> In article <1182522320.975836.181...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Offramp <alaneobr...@gmail.com> writes:
> [snip description of Holding over to Close]
> >But the over - as someone has commented at YouTube - wouldn't cause > >much of a stir today. The balls that hit Close were not too short.
> But it wasn't just one over and it wasn't just Holding. There were, > IIRC, something like 70 minutes to close of play when the England > innings began, and throughout that time almost all the bowling - to > Edrich as well as Close - was short. It was the relentless of the > barrage that made it so notable. > -- > John Hall
> "I am not young enough to know everything." > Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
And I remember it also as being absolutely fucking awful and totally unforgivable. It actually antagonized me as I saw two old men out in the middle doing their best for England and these incredibly athletic youngsters trying to kill them.
But I wouldn't think of it like that nowadays. I would say that 1) the over, as a whole, was not right. It was not cricket. Holding was fast and it was not fair and cricketers should always be fair. But fast bowlers like to do that and I did it myself. And it is great to see M Holding in full flow; he is an honourable gentleman now but he was a kid then; when Alley warns him he walks straight past - but does he does so in s guilty way? 2) Viv Richards said he went up to his county captain and asked how he was and got the answer fuck off; well anyone would do that - there are times when you don't want sympathy.
This episode was featured on "The nation on Film" shown on tv towards the end of last week. There was a quote along the lines of (presumed by Close to Edrich) at the end of an over, where Close leans on Edrich and says ~"Just Stand there, don't move or I might fall over~" This suggests that Close was quite badly hurt!
> Only the second delivery was short enough to be called a bouncer. The > others were only intimidatory because of Holding's extreme pace, but > Brian Close would never admit to being intimidated by any bowler. At > the age of 45 though he should not have been facing possibly the > fastest bowler of all time. His reactions just weren't up to it. > Neither were Boycott's when he faced Holding for that famous over in > 1981 at the age of 41.
Bill Hewitt wrote: > This episode was featured on "The nation on Film" shown on tv towards the end of last week. There was a quote along the lines of (presumed by Close to Edrich) > at the end of an over, where Close leans on Edrich and says ~"Just Stand there, > don't move or I might fall over~" This suggests that Close was quite badly hurt!
If you look closely (sorry), after one ball he does actually start to rub his thigh, presumably involuntarily, before quickly stopping himself before he showed himself to be a Southern Softy".
