There was time for Botham to hit a quick fire 50 and Pocock to collect his fourth successive duck and England were all out for 202.
England had been ‘blackwashed’, bushwhacked, beaten and bruised. The 1984 West Indies team were undoubtedly a very good team but there was something slightly unedifying about the manner of their victory. Two England players had ended up in hospital never to play Test cricket again. Most of the time, short-pitched bowling was the rule rather than the exception. Physical intimidation was the order of the day with the ball frequently aimed at the England batsman rather than at their wicket. And the worst thing of all was that our bowlers couldn’t do it back to them!
Pringle strived to get his pace above military medium and ended up bowling eighteen ‘no balls’ in an innings. Bob Willis was coming to the end of his career and could no longer muster thesustained hostility he was capable of in his younger days. When Botham, Allott and Ellison did manage to get amongst the West Indian batsmen, it was achieved by intelligent use of seam and swing not by bowling at their heads
The umpires of the day seemed unwilling or unable to enforce the laws of the game and restrict the use of short-pitched bowling. Robin Marlar, writing in the Sunday Times at the end of the tour, gives due credit to the West Indians. They were well led by Clive Lloyd, their batting had depth and reliability and their fast bowlers were controlled and penetrative. He examines England’s weaknesses but also speculates how the West Indian batsmen, or indeed any batsmen, would have coped with the West Indies attack. He concludes by saying that the essence of cricket is the defence of the stumps by the batsman, not the defence of the body and that, in his opinion, the way the West Indies team was playing was deeply offensive to the spirit of cricket.
Eventually, a specific law had to be brought in to deal with short-pitched bowling. First of all a ‘maximum of one bouncer per over’ rule was experimented with and then the ‘two bouncers per over’ rule, which we still have today, was established. Although some fast bowlers may disagree, this seems to work. Persistent bowling of bouncers is either dangerous, if aimed at the head, or a negative tactic if continually passing above the head. A bouncer is far more effective as a surprise weapon.
So, in the battles of 1984, Clive Lloyd had unequivocally prevailed over David Gower. I don’t want to spoil it for those who haven’t read Nineteen Eighty-Four but Big Brother gives Winston Smith a right going over. Margaret Thatcher’s ‘victory’ over Arthur Scargill was perhaps not so clear cut. She was triumphant but Scargill always claimed that “the greatest victory in the strike was the struggle itself.”
We can only hope that the miners and their families who suffered twelve months of poverty and hardship agreed with him. The strike eventually ended in March 1985. Thatcher had defeated the so called ‘enemy within’. Many of the pits were closed and communities destroyed. Manufacturing industry continued to decline and Britain became a haven for bankers and estate agents. At least the economy was safe in the hands of the financial sector. What could possibly go wrong?
Big Brother, Margaret Thatcher and Clive Lloyd all won in 1984 but it’s not always winning that is important, it’s how you win. If you win but in the process humiliate your opponent, does that not tarnish the victory? Watching proper batsmen face fast bowlers is one of the pleasures of Test cricket. Sometimes the batsman wins – Roy Fredericks against Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson at Perth in 1975. Michael Atherton taking on Allan Donald at Trent Bridge in 1998. Kevin Pietersen versus Brett Lee at the Oval in 2005. Sometimes the bowler wins – Curtly Ambrose against the Australians at Perth in 1992. Devon Malcolm destroying the South Africans at the Oval in 1994.
When the fight is even, it is
England had been ‘blackwashed’, bushwhacked, beaten and bruised. The 1984 West Indies team were undoubtedly a very good team but there was something slightly unedifying about the manner of their victory. Two England players had ended up in hospital never to play Test cricket again. Most of the time, short-pitched bowling was the rule rather than the exception. Physical intimidation was the order of the day with the ball frequently aimed at the England batsman rather than at their wicket. And the worst thing of all was that our bowlers couldn’t do it back to them!
Pringle strived to get his pace above military medium and ended up bowling eighteen ‘no balls’ in an innings. Bob Willis was coming to the end of his career and could no longer muster thesustained hostility he was capable of in his younger days. When Botham, Allott and Ellison did manage to get amongst the West Indian batsmen, it was achieved by intelligent use of seam and swing not by bowling at their heads
The umpires of the day seemed unwilling or unable to enforce the laws of the game and restrict the use of short-pitched bowling. Robin Marlar, writing in the Sunday Times at the end of the tour, gives due credit to the West Indians. They were well led by Clive Lloyd, their batting had depth and reliability and their fast bowlers were controlled and penetrative. He examines England’s weaknesses but also speculates how the West Indian batsmen, or indeed any batsmen, would have coped with the West Indies attack. He concludes by saying that the essence of cricket is the defence of the stumps by the batsman, not the defence of the body and that, in his opinion, the way the West Indies team was playing was deeply offensive to the spirit of cricket.
Eventually, a specific law had to be brought in to deal with short-pitched bowling. First of all a ‘maximum of one bouncer per over’ rule was experimented with and then the ‘two bouncers per over’ rule, which we still have today, was established. Although some fast bowlers may disagree, this seems to work. Persistent bowling of bouncers is either dangerous, if aimed at the head, or a negative tactic if continually passing above the head. A bouncer is far more effective as a surprise weapon.
So, in the battles of 1984, Clive Lloyd had unequivocally prevailed over David Gower. I don’t want to spoil it for those who haven’t read Nineteen Eighty-Four but Big Brother gives Winston Smith a right going over. Margaret Thatcher’s ‘victory’ over Arthur Scargill was perhaps not so clear cut. She was triumphant but Scargill always claimed that “the greatest victory in the strike was the struggle itself.”
We can only hope that the miners and their families who suffered twelve months of poverty and hardship agreed with him. The strike eventually ended in March 1985. Thatcher had defeated the so called ‘enemy within’. Many of the pits were closed and communities destroyed. Manufacturing industry continued to decline and Britain became a haven for bankers and estate agents. At least the economy was safe in the hands of the financial sector. What could possibly go wrong?
Big Brother, Margaret Thatcher and Clive Lloyd all won in 1984 but it’s not always winning that is important, it’s how you win. If you win but in the process humiliate your opponent, does that not tarnish the victory? Watching proper batsmen face fast bowlers is one of the pleasures of Test cricket. Sometimes the batsman wins – Roy Fredericks against Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson at Perth in 1975. Michael Atherton taking on Allan Donald at Trent Bridge in 1998. Kevin Pietersen versus Brett Lee at the Oval in 2005. Sometimes the bowler wins – Curtly Ambrose against the Australians at Perth in 1992. Devon Malcolm destroying the South Africans at the Oval in 1994.
When the fight is even, it is
Similar Books
