Holding's antagonistic over to Close, OT 1976
Offramp
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.
Steve Hague
"Offramp" <alane...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182522320.9...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
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
>
Gavin Cawley
> "Offramp" <alaneobr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1182522320.9...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Here is that over from Holding to Close at the end of the 3rd day at
> > 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.
max.it
wrote:
Same procedure under the 1980 code.
Offramp
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.
John Hall
Offramp <alane...@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)
Gavin Cawley
> 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.
Offramp
> 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.
Bill Hewitt
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!
Richard Dixon
news:iLRei.2155$H61....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net:
> 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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loYyJllsj68
And here it is - the last ball has barely left his hand before the stumps
are uprooted...!
Richard
Andy Guthrie
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".