The Lord's Test has raised the age-old debate that once plagued cricket and for which rules were changed twice, as both Australia and England have adopted a bouncer-barrage at times for hours on end.
Does bowling bouncers consistently makes for tedious watching, with over-rates suffering as well, or does it make for a thrilling contest that tests the batsmen?
This Test, which Australia won by 43 runs to take a 2-0 lead in the five-match series, saw a lot of batsmen fall to short balls.
The success that bowlers achieved by bowling short deliveries egged the bowlers on even more to try the short ball ploy.
Let's take a look at what some of the prominent ex-cricketers had to say about this tactic, especially in context of the second Test of The Ashes 2023.
MORE: Relive the second Ashes Test here
What did former players have to say about the short ball tactic being overused in The Ashes 2023?
Former Australian captain Mark Taylor believes that umpires should give a no-ball if excessive short balls are being bowled.
“If a batsman doesn’t play a shot, how many bouncers can you bowl in an over? If both teams continue this bumper tactic – and they will for the rest of the series, what will happen? The laws of the game were changed in the early 90s to one bouncer a game; it became 2 bouncers in the mid-90s," Taylor said.
"But the old law of intimidatory bowling still exists. If the umpire feels it, he can still call it. It will be the same when Australia bowl it. If you keep bowling the same length, even if it’s not about shoulder high, it’s still intimidation. It’s going to put a lot of pressure on the umpires, who can say, I am going to call it ‘no-ball’.”
Meanwhile, former England opener and captain Andrew Strauss stressed on the fact that it was "tedious to watch" so many short balls being bowled, even if it falls within the rules of the game.
“I don’t like watching it. I find it somewhat tedious. A bit predictable. You know where the ball is going to be before he bowls the ball, where the fielders are. You are just seeing what the batsman is going to do. It’s a bit two-dimensional to me. But that does not mean it’s not effective. Nothing wrong with their approach; anything that works, you should give it a go,” Strauss said.
YES BROADY! 👊 #EnglandCricket | #Ashes pic.twitter.com/pfKTA1apUU
— England Cricket (@englandcricket) July 1, 2023
Michael Holding provides contrasting views
On the contrary, Michael Holding, one of the greatest bowlers in cricket history, gave a different view on the matter while speaking to The Indian Express.
“I can see both sides of the argument. Yes, it works but it can also be a bit boring. But essentially what they are doing is trying to find a way to win a Test match. As far as I am concerned it’s legal and not against the spirit of the game, I don’t have any foibles with it. Don’t interfere with more rule changes," Holding opined.
“And by the way, at no stage in my West Indies career, did we bowl bouncers for hours like this. At one point in this Lord’s Test, 98% of the bowling was short-pitched. We never did that. The hypocrisy of it stands out.
"When West Indies were bowling with four fast bowlers, and bouncing out the batsmen, the cricketing world was up in arms. You think there is going to be any real uproar about this tactic now? I doubt it. It’s England and Australia playing; not the West Indies.
Is it intimidatory bowling? “What? With 70mph-plus mickey mouse pace bowling like England did? No way it’s intimidatory!
“And that’s why they got the shoulder height and all into it. They also have the fielding rule where you can’t have more than 2 fielders behind the stumps on the leg side. And if you are going to allow the umpires to step in, with balls below shoulder height also, then it’s an extremely dicey way. It will come down to the subjectivity of the umpires, and that is never a good thing. Cricket shouldn’t go that route.
“You can’t call this intimidating bowling. Perhaps, you can say ‘negative’ bowling. But whatever works to win a Test match.”
Holding also made a striking comparison with West Indies batsmen of the past, claiming that the short ball ploy was as successful as it was due to the poor approach against such type of deliveries.
“Some of the batting wasn’t really bright. Let me put it this way. If this bowling was attempted at this pace to Viv Richards, Gordon Greenidge or Desmond Haynes, you would be picking the ball off the stands! Not just them, I can think of many a batsman who would have told the umpires trying to step in, ‘Oh don’t stop them, let them bowl more short stuff’.
"When you don’t have the ability to hook pacy balls and when there are fielders at the boundary, then you have to take the call. That’s not entertaining or attacking cricket to get out like that. And if over-using the bouncers was tedious, then what happened to the entertaining brand of cricket that you said you will play?!
"I know and understand why they did it of course. They were desperate to win the game and changed when it suited them, bowling 98% of short-pitched stuff. That’s fine, then don’t talk about entertaining the fans.”
