text:
Pim Fortuyn List

The Pim Fortuyn List (Lijst Pim Fortuyn, LPF) was a right-wing populist political party in the Netherlands named after its eponymous founder Pim Fortuyn, a former university professor and political columnist. The party was considered nationalist as well as adhering to its own distinct ideology of Fortuynism according to some commentators.

The LPF supported tougher measures against immigration and crime, opposition to multiculturalism, greater political reform, a reduction in state bureaucracy and was eurosceptic but differed somewhat from other European right-wing or nationalist parties by taking a liberal stance on certain social issues and sought to describe its ideology as pragmatic and not populistic. It also aimed to present itself as an alternative to the Polder model of Dutch politics and the governing style of the existing mainstream parties. Pim Fortuyn had initially had planned to contest the 2002 general election as leader of the Livable Netherlands (LN) party. He was however dismissed as leader of LN in February 2002 due to controversial remarks he made in a newspaper interview on immigration-related issues, and instead founded LPF a few days later, taking many former LN candidates with him. After gaining support in opinion polls, Fortuyn was assassinated on 6 May 2002, nine days before the election. The party held onto its support, and went on to become the second-largest party in the election.

The LPF formed part of a coalition government with the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) and the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) as part of the first Balkenende cabinet and was granted ministerial posts. However, internal conflicts in the LPF led to the coalition's break-up and fresh elections after a few months. Following the 2003 election, the party was left in opposition. It became clear that the party was not viable without its original leader, and it went into decline until it was finally dissolved in 2008. Both Fortuyn and the LPF have had a significant influence on changing Dutch public discourse on immigration, multiculturalism, and political reform, and went on to influence politicians in both the mainstream and newer political parties.

Background
The LPF was founded by its namesake, Pim Fortuyn, a former sociology professor who had become known in the Netherlands as an author, press columnist and a media commentator. Fortuyn announced his intention to run for parliament in a television interview on 20 August 2001. An unusual aspect of this was that it was not yet clear which political party he would be a candidate for. Although he was already in contact with the Livable Netherlands (LN) party, he initially also considered running for the Christian Democratic Appeal (for whom he had briefly worked as an advisor) or creating his own list. He subsequently became a member of the LN in 2001 at the encouragement of its chairman Jan Nagel. On 25 November he was chosen as party leader for the LN. The LN functioned as the combined national extension of various movements that existed as localist alternatives to the main parties and had contested municipal elections but had never contested in national elections before. Fortuyn concluded his acceptance speech by saying the words that would become his slogan; "At your service!" Almost immediately after Fortuyn became leader, LN went from 2% in opinion polls to about 17%.

In January 2002, it was announced that Fortuyn also would head the Livable Rotterdam (LR) list for the March 2002 local elections. The official 2002 election study found that immigration and integration problems were the second most important issue for voters after issues concerning the health care system. Helped by the many speeches and interviews given by Fortuyn, immigration issues became the major topic of the national political agenda, thereby forcing other parties to react.

Until February, Liveable Netherlands had received disproportionate and generally sympathetic coverage in the media. The situation took a dramatic turn on 9 February, when Fortuyn was interviewed in de Volkskrant, one of the leading national newspapers. Against the strong advice of his campaign team, he made several controversial statements; including one that said Islam was "a backward culture", that no more asylum seekers would be allowed into the country, and, if necessary, the possible repeal of anti-racism clauses in the Dutch Constitution to protect freedom of speech. Fortuyn was dismissed as party leader the next day, and in a television interview said that the split was irreparable, although he would have preferred to remain in the party.

Establishment
Fortuyn founded Pim Fortuyn List (LPF) on 11 February and began assembling candidates to stand in the upcoming general election. He also secured financial backing from several individuals involved in the property development sector and was allocated an office and campaign headquarters in downtown Rotterdam. Within a short time, Fortuyn was able to secure thirty candidates for the election. Mat Herben was appointed as LPF group leader. Second on the party's list was João Varela, originally from Cape Verde whom Fortuyn proposed as immigration minister should he become Prime Minister. Fortuyn also recruited Jim Janssen van Raaij a former member of the European Parliament for the CDA and one of few on the list with professional political experience. Others included former editor of Elsevier Ferry Hoogendijk, ex-drafts champion Harm Wiersma, civil servant Joost Eerdmans, Surinamese broadcaster Philomena Bijlhout, counter-terrorism officer André Peperkoorn, spokesman for farmers Wien van den Brink and spokeswoman for the Central Bureau of Food Trade Winny de Jong. The party's candidates were unveiled by Fortuyn at a press conference in March 2002.

Opinion polls soon showed that he took most of LN's supporters with him, leaving LN with its original 2%, while Fortuyn soared to 17%. The local LR—which held on to Fortuyn as its leader—was hugely successful in the March 2002 local elections, as it won more than one third of the vote and became Rotterdam's strongest party, displacing the Labour Party who had governed Rotterdam since World War Two.

In the run-up to the 2002 general election, Fortuyn appeared in numerous television and radio interviews to generate publicity, and was featured in the televised leadership debates representing his new party. He was often attacked or derided as an extremist figure by other party leaders (in particular Labour leader Ad Melkert, former Prime Minister Wim Kok and GroenLinks's Paul Rosenmöller), and both Dutch and foreign media outlets compared Fortuyn to other European far-right party leaders. Fortuyn disputed the comparisons and stated that the press and other party leaders were distorting or mislabeling him and his ideas. However, polling showed rapid and growing support for the LPF, with some polls indicating that the LPF would emerge as the largest party and make Fortuyn a candidate for Prime Minister. Fortuyn himself maintained that he would not accept a cabinet position headed by another party leader and aimed to take the role of Prime Minister himself.

Fortuyn assassination
It was reported in February 2002 that Fortuyn did not dare to appear in public owing to death threats. In March, he was attacked by pie-throwing activists at the presentation of his new book De puinhopen van acht jaar Paars (which became the bestselling book by a Dutch author in the Netherlands in 2002). Despite this, the authorities did not provide protection for Fortuyn, nor did he request protection. In various interviews, including with the BBC and Jensen!, Fortuyn expressed a concern that he would be killed or injured during the election campaign, and argued that if such an event were to happen, the media and Dutch political establishment would be to blame through creating a hostile atmosphere against him.

On 6 May, Fortuyn was assassinated outside a radio studio in Hilversum. This was the first political murder in the Netherlands for centuries (excluding the Second World War). Some claimed that by demonising Fortuyn, the political left and the media had created a climate of opinion that had made the assassination possible. Campaigning immediately stopped, and although some suggested postponing the elections, the campaign resumed (half-heartedly) after his funeral four days later. His funeral was broadcast live on television and, according to Cas Mudde, lead "to scenes of mass hysteria not seen since the Netherlands national football team won the European Championship in 1988." The murder of Fortuyn, together with that of Theo van Gogh two years later, would result in a polarisation in the political debate in the Netherlands, and subsequently changes in immigration-related policies and public discourse.

First Balkenende cabinet (2002–2003)
The LPF decided to maintain Fortuyn's posthumous candidacy, and delayed naming a new leader until after the election. The 2002 general election proved a great success for the LPF, yielding 17% of the votes and 26 seats in the House of Representatives—by far a record number of seats in the Netherlands for a new party—to become the second largest party. LN also made it into Parliament, with two seats. The Labour Party (PvdA) and People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) saw their largest-ever losses, while the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) won large gains – later attributed in part to the fact that CDA leader Jan Peter Balkenende had remained neutral and not joined in attacking Fortuyn with other party leaders during debates. Balkenende had earlier announced that his party would follow a tougher line towards asylum seekers and tighten some of the Netherlands's immigration policies, and he later agreed with much of Fortuyn's criticism of the purple coalition and Holland's multicultural society. Some commentators claimed that the CDA was able to draw in voters who otherwise would have supported the LPF (but felt it was no longer viable without Fortuyn in charge) or that the CDA was seen as a stabilizing force after a tense election. As leader of the strongest party, Balkenende became the leading candidate for Prime Minister.

Following the election, journalist and former civil servant Mat Herben was chosen as LPF party leader as Fortuyn's successor. Together with the CDA and the VVD, the party formed part of the governing coalition, and supplied several members for the Balkenende cabinet. The party was granted four of fourteen cabinet seats, for immigration, economics, environment, health and sports, and five state secretaries. LPF member Eduard Bomhoff was appointed deputy Prime Minister. The following day after the cabinet's formation, LPF State Secretary for Social Affairs and Work Opportunity Philomena Bijlhout resigned after it was reported that she had been a member of a Surinamese militia. She was replaced by fellow LPF MP Khee Liang Phoa.

Without its original leader and lack of a clearly defined organisational structure and political experience among its members, the LPF also succumbed to highly public internal squabbles. MPs within the LPF resigned to sit as independents due to the infighting and the intense media storm following Fortuyn's death or unsuccessfully tried founding splinter parties of their own to contest in the next election. In August 2002, Herben resigned as leader and was briefly replaced by Harry Wijnschenk. Wijnschenk was subsequently ousted from his position and replaced by Herben again, but by October 2002, the break-up of the government coalition was ultimately triggered by the bickering of LPF Ministers Eduard Bomhoff and Herman Heinsbroek.

Opposition and disintegration (2003–2006)
In the January 2003 general election, the LPF shrank to 5.7% support and gained eight seats while Balkenende and the CDA retained a majority. Following the election the LPF was exchanged for the Democrats 66 in the government coalition. The LPF found it hard to maintain support in parliamentary opposition as besides Joost Eerdmans, most of its Members of Parliament were not very visible or considered as charismatic as Fortuyn, while party leader Herben had enough work keeping the party from further infighting. The LPF also went into financial straits as many of its former financial backers left. Other commentators later claimed that the relative inexperience of some of the LPF's members and lack of internal structure hampered its ability to function as a coherent movement. As the new coalition continued most of the former coalition's policies and Balkenende stated that he agreed with some of Fortuyn's views on multiculturalism and implemented some of his policy ideas, it became increasingly difficult for the LPF to present the anti-establishment or alternative image to the government which had galvanized support for the party in the first place.

The LPF did see some success in the 2003 Dutch provincial elections in which it won 17 seats in eleven provinces, enabling it to qualify for a seat in the Senate which was taken by Rob Hessing. However, the party was beset by further internal problems and won just 2.6% of the vote in the 2004 European Parliament election, and did not win a seat. In this election, Paul van Buitenen surprisingly won two seats with his anti-corruption Europe Transparent (although it was not successful in the long term). By 2004, the LPF had fallen to a less than 1% support and disintegrated. The party had lost most of its members, and the parliamentary faction (with exception of Wien van den Brink) had declared itself independent from the party. In 2005, LPF minister and parliamentarian Hilbrand Nawijn held a meeting with Vlaams Belang politician Filip Dewinter in the former home of Fortuyn which caused uproar within the party since Fortuyn had stated he had wanted nothing to do with Dewinter's former Vlaams Blok party. Nawijn subsequently left the LPF and announced the formation of a new party with ideas closer to Vlaams Belang.

List Five Fortuyn and dissolution (2006–2008)
The LPF attempted to start afresh and participated in the 2006 general election under its new name List Five Fortuyn (Lijst Vijf Fortuyn). On 25 September 2006, the party released a controversial campaign commercial which featured new leader Olaf Stuger coming down from "heaven" with a parachute and presenting himself as a "reincarnation" of Pim Fortuyn. Marten Fortuyn, brother of Pim Fortuyn, declared it "outrageous and tasteless." In the election, LVF did not receive enough votes to secure a seat with support of only 0.2%. It also lost all of its seats in the 2007 Provincial Council elections, meaning it was no longer eligible for representation in the Senate. By this stage, many former LPF supporters were switching to the new Party for Freedom led by Geert Wilders which contained similar policies to the LPF and emerged as a successor. In 2006, the party closed its office in the Hague and in July 2007 voted to dissolve itself by 1 January 2008.

Ideology
The party was variously described as populist,   nationalist, conservative-liberal, national-liberal, national-conservative, classical-liberal, eurosceptic and anti-Islam. Some scholars and political scientists observed that the LPF presented a distinct ideology that differed from other populist parties in Europe while Fortuyn himself maintained that both he and the party based their beliefs on pragmatic, not populistic ideas and wanted the LPF to represent an alternative set of policy solutions to what Fortuyn regarded as an identical consensus within the existing Dutch political establishment.

Fortuynism
The ideology or political style that is derived from Pim Fortuyn, and in turn the LPF, is often called Fortuynism. Observers variously saw him as a political protest targeting the alleged elitism and bureaucratic style of the Dutch purple coalitions or as offering an appealing political style. The style was characterized variously as one "of openness, directness and clearness", populism or simply as charisma. Another school holds Fortuynism as a distinct ideology, with an alternative vision of society. Some argued that Fortuynism was not just one ideology, but contained liberalism, populism and nationalism. Gerrit Boerman, the head of the Document Center for Dutch Political Parties at the University of Groningen described Fortuyn's and by extension the LPF's ideology as not fitting into the traditional left-right pattern and described it as a "cocktail of elements stemming from different directions" which included strands of conservatism, communitarianism, libertarianism, classical and social liberalism, and national-populism.

During the 2002 campaign, Fortuyn was accused of being on the "extreme right", although others saw only certain similarities. Comparisons were drawn between Fortuyn and the LPF with far-right populist leaders and parties in Europe such as Jean-Marie Le Pen and his French National Front by foreign journalists and these were often referred to by the Dutch media and rival politicians. However, this was strongly disputed by Fortuyn who stated he wanted nothing to do with such leaders while the LPF called the comparisons "over-simplified" and inaccurate, asserting that the party's immigration programme was not based on hatred of foreigners. While Fortuyn employed anti-immigration rhetoric, he was neither a radical nationalist nor a defender of traditional authoritarian values. On the contrary, Fortuyn wanted to protect the socio-culturally liberal values of the Netherlands, women's rights and sexual minorities (he was openly homosexual himself), from the "backward" Islamic culture. Fortuyn often maintained that his opposition to immigration was not motivated by the race or skin colour of immigrants. The LPF also won support from some ethnic minorities and fielded candidates from immigrant backgrounds during the 2002 election; one of Fortuyn's closest associates was of Cape Verdean origin while one of the party's MPs was a young woman of Turkish descent.

Domestic policy
Many of the LPF's policies for the 2002 general election were based on proposals put forward in Fortuyn's book De puinhopen van acht jaar Paars. The LPF campaigned on a strong law and order message at both local and national levels. The party supported cutting state bureaucracy while strengthening public services. The party also called for reforms to the Netherland's employment policy, proposed reducing the number of civil servants and abolishing permanent contracts for government employees. It also wanted to revise and strongly restrict immigration and asylum policies, particularly from Islamic societies, as well as put an end to the Dutch government's policy of pursuing multiculturalism. Instead, the party argued for compulsory policies that existing immigrants learn Dutch and become integrated while future immigration would be reduced or halted until existing immigrants had been assimilated. However, Fortuyn also maintained that asylum seekers or illegal immigrants who had been living in the Netherlands for a long period should not be deported and instead be pardoned and offered a path to citizenship if they demonstrated the ability to assimilate into Dutch society and had not committed crimes while potential migrants would be offered financial incentives to stay in their own country. During the 2002 election and cabinet formation, the LPF proposed that asylum seekers who already had been in the Netherlands for more than five years could be pardoned while the government should temporarily stop all future immigration and asylum intake. In the First Balkenende cabinet, LPF immigration minister Hilbrand Nawijn proposed the One-off Regulation 2003 which would give a grace period for long-term asylum seekers to gain residency while immigration and asylum migration would be frozen for a period, however the cabinet collapsed before this could be effectuated. The party also supported the right to freedom of speech and took a socially liberal stance on issues such as gay rights, soft drug legalization and gender equality.

The LPF also supported reforming the Dutch economic model, arguing that outdated bureaucracy and welfare systems had created psychological and physical barriers to entrepreneurship and modernization of the economy. Fortuyn supported locating workplaces, smaller schools and regional hospitals closer to communities, expanding internet infrastructure outside of cities and replacing parts of the state with digital technology. Some political historians describe the LPF as supporting "market populist" ideas and holding both a free market vision while stressing communitarian ideas and being one of the first European populist parties associated with a rise in anti-globalization arguments.

Foreign policy
Although the LPF was established post-9/11, Fortuyn had already developed a worldview based on the "clash between civilizations", namely between "modernity" and Islam, or Western society and Islamic culture. The LPF supported NATO, but was eurosceptic and saw the European Union as a "bureaucracy which barely interests its citizens, let alone inspires them." The party was against the euro currency (which the Netherlands had adopted in 1999), EU influence over Dutch domestic regulation, and opposed the Netherlands participating in the European Schengen agreement. Fortuyn also campaigned to reduce Dutch financial contributions to the European Union and criticised the EU for being "elite" and "technocratic". The party however did not oppose the principle of economic and political cooperation between European countries and the project of European integration in general, but rather the EU's present organization, and what it regarded as its lack of democracy, excessive bureaucracy and threat to national sovereignty. The LPF also warned that unopposed EU expansion would lead to the Netherlands becoming absorbed into a Federal Superstate in which Dutch identity would be lost. Opposing the full membership of Turkey, Albania, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, the LPF maintained that the European Union "shouldn't cross the Bosporus and the Ural". The LPF was also supportive of Israel.

Legacy
Fortuyn's political heritage became scattered among various politicians in the Netherlands, several of whom had begun their careers in the LPF, and tried founding parties of their own, most of which were unsuccessful. These included Marco Pastors and Joost Eerdemans, founders of the One NL, Winny de Jong of DeConservatieven.nl, and Hilbrand Nawijn, leader of the Party for the Netherlands—none of which managed to win a seat in the 2003 or 2006 elections. The LPF also influenced politicians in the Flemish region of Belgium, such as lawyer and Open VLD member Hugo Coveliers who went on to found the VLOTT party based on Fortuyn's ideas, and Jean-Marie Dedecker and his Lijst Dedecker party. However, in the Netherlands the LPF became squeezed out by the tougher line on immigration and integration issues taken by mainstream politicians, such as Minister for Integration and Immigration Rita Verdonk, who had largely adopted Fortuyn's policies. By the end of the decade, former LPF supporters had mostly moved to support Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom (PVV).

In February 2006, soon before it fell out of parliament, the scholar Hans Jansen organised a conference in cooperation with the scientific committee of the LPF in the House of Representatives building that brought together several international anti-Islam figures, including Bat Ye'or, Daniel Pipes, Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, Bruce Bawer, Lars Hedegaard, Ibn Warraq, Paul Beliën and Peder "Fjordman" Jensen. This movement would eventually become known as the counter-jihad movement.

In 2020, Eerdemans founded the JA21 party which claims to want to help "Fortuyn's ideas return to the House of Representatives".

Although dissolved at national level, the name Pim Fortuyn List continued to be used for a period at municipal level by local branches that split off from the LPF in Eindhoven, Boornsterhem, Westland and The Hague. As of 2018, the last remaining local party using Pim Fortuyn List were in Eindhoven and Westland which competed in the municipal elections under the names LPF Eindhoven and LPF Westland. In 2022 a new local Pim Fortuyn List entered the municipal elections in the city of Breda winning one seat in the council. The LPF's youth-wing the Jonge Fortuynisten continues to remain active as an independent organisation and is affiliated to LPF Eindhoven.

Leadership

 * Leader
 * Pim Fortuyn (14 February 2002 – 6 May 2002) (†)
 * Vacant (6 May 2002 – 16 May 2002)
 * Mat Herben (16 May 2002 – 28 August 2002)
 * Harry Wijnschenk (28 August 2002 – 16 October 2002)
 * Mat Herben (16 October 2002 – 5 October 2004)
 * Gerard van As (5 October 2004 – 17 August 2006)
 * Mat Herben (17 August 2006 – 30 September 2006)
 * Olaf Stuger (30 September 2006 – 30 November 2006)
 * Vacant (30 November 2006 – 1 January 2008)

 * Chairmen
 * Pim Fortuyn (14 February 2002 – 6 May 2002) (†)
 * Peter Langendam (11 May 2002 – 14 May 2002)
 * Ed Maas (3 July 2002 – 13 October 2003)
 * Sergej Moleveld (31 August 2004 – 12 November 2004)
 * Bert Snel (10 December 2004 – 1 January 2008)

 * Parliamentary leaders in the Senate
 * Rob Hessing (10 June 2003 – 12 June 2007)

 * Parliamentary leaders in the House of Representatives
 * Mat Herben (23 May 2002 – 28 August 2002)
 * Harry Wijnschenk (28 August 2002 – 16 October 2002)
 * Mat Herben (16 October 2002 – 5 October 2004)
 * Gerard van As (5 October 2004 – 17 August 2006)
 * Mat Herben (17 August 2006 – 30 November 2006)

 * Lead candidate – General election
 * Pim Fortuyn – 2002
 * Mat Herben – 2003
 * Olaf Stuger – 2006

 * Lead candidate – Senate election
 * Bob Smalhout – 2003

title: Pim Fortuyn List


text:
User talk:Safrax

More Jesus or More Lennon?

Welcome to Wikipedia :-)) --Gianfranco

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Safrax


text:
Bowling (cricket)

Bowling, in cricket, is the action of propelling the ball toward the wicket defended by a batter. A player skilled at bowling is called a bowler; a bowler who is also a competent batter is known as an all-rounder. Bowling the ball is distinguished from throwing the ball by a strictly specified biomechanical definition, which restricts the angle of extension of the elbow. A single act of bowling the ball towards the batsman is called a ball or a delivery. Bowlers bowl deliveries in sets of six, called an over. Once a bowler has bowled an over, a teammate will bowl an over from the other end of the pitch. The Laws of Cricket govern how a ball must be bowled. If a ball is bowled illegally, an umpire will rule it a no-ball. If a ball is bowled too wide of the striker for the batsman to be able to play at it with a proper cricket shot, the bowler's end umpire will rule it a wide.

There are different types of bowlers, from fast bowlers, whose primary weapon is pace, through swing and seam bowlers who try to make the ball deviate in its course through the air or when it bounces, to slow bowlers, who will attempt to deceive the batter with a variety of flight and spin. A spin bowler usually delivers the ball quite slowly and puts spin on the ball, causing it to turn at an angle while bouncing off the pitch.

A team can be said to have elected to "have a bowl" when it wins the coin toss and chooses to field.

History
In the early days of cricket, underarm bowling was the only method employed. Many theories exist about the origins of cricket. One suggests that the game began among shepherds hitting a stone or a ball of wool with their crooks and, at the same time, defending the wicket gate into the sheep-fold (from Anglo Saxon 'cricce', a crooked staff). A second theory suggests the name came from a low stool known as a 'cricket' in England, which from the side looked like the long, low wicket used in the early days of the game (originally from the Flemish 'krickstoel', a low stool on which parishioners knelt in church). There is also a reference to 'criquet' in North-East France in 1478 and evidence that the game evolved in South-East England in the Middle Ages.

In 1706 William Goldwyn published the first description of the game. He wrote that two teams were first seen carrying their curving bats to the venue, choosing a pitch and arguing over the rules to be played. They pitched two sets of wickets, each with a "milk-white" bail perched on two stumps; tossed a coin for first knock, the umpire called "play" and the "leathern orb" was bowled. They had four-ball overs, the umpires leant on their staves (which the batters had to touch to complete a run), and the scorers sat on a mound making notches.

The first written "Laws of Cricket" were drawn up in 1744. They stated, "the principals shall choose from amongst the gentlemen present two umpires who shall absolutely decide all disputes. The stumps must be 22 inches high and the bail across them six inches. The ball must be between 5 & 6 ounces, and the two sets of stumps 22 yards apart". There were no limits on the shape or size of the bat. It appears that 40 notches was viewed as a very big score, probably due to the bowlers bowling quickly at shins unprotected by pads. The world's first cricket club was formed in Hambledon in the 1760s and the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) was founded in 1787.

During the 1760s and 1770s it became common to pitch the ball through the air, rather than roll it along the ground. This innovation gave bowlers the weapons of length, deception through the air, plus increased pace. It also opened new possibilities for spin and swerve. In response, batters had to master timing and shot selection. One immediate consequence was the replacement of the curving bat with the straight one. All of this raised the premium on skill and lessened the influence of rough ground and brute force. It was in the 1770s that the modern game began to take shape. The weight of the ball was limited to between five and a half and five and three-quarter ounces, and the width of the bat to four inches. The latter ruling followed an innings by a batter called Thomas "Daddy" White, who appeared with a bat the width of the wicket. In 1774, the first leg before law was published. Also around this time, a third stump became commonplace. By 1780, the duration of a first-class cricket match was generally three days, and this year also saw the creation of the first six-seam cricket ball. In 1788, the MCC published its first revision of the laws, which prohibited charging down an opponent and also provided for mowing and covering the wicket to standardise conditions. The desire for standardisation reflected the massive increase in the popularity of cricket during the 18th century. Between 1730 and 1740, 150 cricket matches were recorded in the papers of the time. Between 1750 and 1760, this figure rose to 230, and between 1770 and 1790 over 500.

The 19th century saw a series of significant changes. Wide deliveries were outlawed in 1811. The circumference of the ball was specified for the first time in 1838 (its weight had been dictated 60 years earlier). Pads, made of cork, became available for the first time in 1841, and these were further developed following the invention of vulcanised rubber, which was also used to introduce protective gloves in 1848. In the 1870s, boundaries were introduced – previously, all hits had to be run; if the ball went into the crowd, the spectators would clear a way for the fieldsman to fetch it. The biggest change, however, was in how the ball was delivered by the bowler.

At the start of the century, all bowlers were still delivering the ball under-arm. However, so the story goes, John Willes became the first bowler to use a "round-arm" technique after practising with his sister Christina, who had used the technique, as she was unable to bowl underarm due to her wide dress impeding her delivery of the ball.

The round-arm action came to be employed widely in matches but was quickly determined to be illegal and banned by the MCC, who stated that "the ball must be delivered underhand, not thrown or jerked, with the hand underneath the elbow at the time of delivering the ball". When it was accepted the rules stated that the arm could not be raised above the shoulder. It was quickly found, however, that a raised arm imparted more accuracy and generated more bounce than the roundarm method. Again, the governing body banned the method. It was not until the method was finally accepted by the MCC in 1835 that it grew rapidly in popularity amongst all players. Underarm bowling hitherto had almost disappeared from the game.

Modern-day underarm bowling
An infamous "underarm bowling incident" occurred during a match in 1981, in which the Australian bowler, Trevor Chappell, took advantage of the fact that underarm bowling was still legal by rolling the ball along the ground. By doing so he avoided the possibility that the New Zealand batsman, Brian McKechnie, would score a six from the last ball to tie the match, as the bat would not be able to hit the ball high enough to score a six.

As a result of this incident underarm bowling was subsequently made illegal in all grades of cricket, except by prior agreement of both teams, as it was not considered to be within the spirit of the game.

The bowling action

Bowling the ball is distinguished from simply throwing the ball by a strictly specified biomechanical definition.

Originally, this definition said that the elbow joint must not straighten out during the bowling action. Bowlers generally hold their elbows fully extended and rotate the arm vertically about the shoulder joint to impart velocity to the ball, releasing it near the top of the arc. Flexion at the elbow is not allowed, but any extension of the elbow was deemed to be a throw and would be liable to be called a no-ball. This was thought to be possible only if the bowler's elbow was originally held in a slightly flexed position.

In 2005, this definition was deemed to be physically impossible by a scientific investigative commission. Biomechanical studies that showed that almost all bowlers extend their elbows somewhat throughout the bowling action, because the stress of swinging the arm around hyperextends the elbow joint. A guideline was introduced to allow extensions or hyperextensions of angles up to 15 degrees before deeming the ball illegally thrown.

Bowling actions are typically divided into side on and front on actions. In the side on action, the back foot lands parallel to the bowling crease and the bowler aims at the wicket by looking over his front shoulder. In the front on action, the back foot lands pointing down the pitch and the bowler aims at the wicket by looking inside the line of his front arm. Many bowlers operate with a mid-way action with the back foot landing at roughly 45 degrees and the upper body aligned somewhere between side on and front on. This differs from a mixed action, which mixes distinct elements of both side on and front on actions, and is generally discouraged amongst young bowlers as it can lead to problems in later life due to the twisting of the back inherent in the action.

Goals of bowling
In a game of cricket, the ultimate priority of the fielding side is to restrict the total number of runs scored by the batting side, and the actions of the bowlers will be fundamental to achieving this objective. The primary means of achieving this is by dismissing the batting side by getting all ten of the opposition wickets as quickly as possible. A secondary objective will be to keep the batting side's run rate as low as possible. In fact, in most forms of cricket, the twin aims of the fielding side are targeted concurrently, as the achievement of one aim tends to have a positive effect upon the other. Taking regular opposition wickets will remove the better batsmen from the crease, typically leading to a slowing of the scoring rate. Conversely, slowing the scoring rate can put additional pressure on the batsmen and force them into taking extra risks, which will often lead to wickets.

Depending upon the format of the match, these two strategies will be given different weights. In an unlimited, timed or declaration match, the main aim of the bowling attack will be to take wickets, so attacking bowling and fielding strategies will be used. In a limited overs match, this aim will also be supplemented by the secondary need to prevent the batting side from scoring quickly, so more defensive strategies will be used. In general, the shorter the number of overs per side, the more priority will be given to this secondary target of maintaining a low run-rate. It is also highly probable that the need for attacking or defensive strategies can switch frequently as a cricket match progresses. It is the sign of a good cricket captain to be able to tell which strategy is most appropriate in any set of circumstances and the best way of implementing it.

Bowling tactics

The simultaneous twin objectives of bowling are to take wickets and prevent run scoring opportunities. Both objectives are achieved through the underlying aim of bowling the ball in such a way that the batsman is unable to connect with the ball in the middle of the bat and control its movement after contact. There are three distinct means of achieving this aim: by bowling the ball on a good line and length, by bowling with sufficient pace that the batsman struggles to react to the delivery, or by bowling the ball in such a way that it has lateral movement as it approaches the batsman, either in the air or off the ground. A good bowler may be able to combine two of these skills, a truly great bowler may be able to combine all three.

Line and length
The fundamental skill of bowling on a good length incorporates the ability to pitch the ball such a distance from the batsman that he is unable to move forward and drive the ball on the half volley, and is also unable to step back and play the ball on the back foot. This removes many of the batsman's attacking options, and also increases the probability of him misjudging a delivery and losing his wicket. A good length delivery is one in which the ball has had sufficient time to move far enough off the pitch to beat the bat but the batsman has not had time to react to the movement and adjust his shot. The faster the bowler and the greater the movement he is able to generate, the larger the area of the pitch that can be designated an effective "good" length.

Other areas of the pitch may also often be used as a variation to a good length delivery. Primarily these are the yorker, in which the ball is bowled directly at the batsman's feet as a surprise delivery intended to dismiss the batsman bowled, and the bouncer in which the ball is bowled on such a short length that it rises towards the batsman's throat or head as a means of physical intimidation. But the height of an attempted yorker or full toss must not be higher than the batsman's waist, or else it will be called a no-ball beamer, which could have bowlers banned from the match.

The line a bowler chooses to bowl will depend on several factors: the movement he is generating on the ball, the shots the batsman is able to play, and the field the captain has set. The two most common tactics are to either bowl directly at the stumps, or to bowl 3 inches to 6 inches outside the line of off stump. Bowling at the stumps is an attacking tactic with the intention of dismissing the batsman bowled or lbw. It can also be used as a defensive tactic, as the batsman will feel less able to play risky shots knowing that he will be dismissed should he miss the ball. Bowling outside off stump is known as the corridor of uncertainty. When done well, this line may confuse the batsman into whether to defend the ball or leave it, and may tempt him to play away from his body with his head not in line with the ball. The main aim of this tactic is to dismiss the batman caught by the wicketkeeper or in the slips. Other bowling variations, such as bowling wide of off stump or bowling at leg stump are generally seen as negative and defensive tactics.

Some different types of bowling tactic:
 * Bodyline
 * Leg theory
 * Off theory

Pace and movement
Other than the ability to land the ball on a strategically optimum line and length, the main weapons of the bowler are his ability to move the ball sideways as it approaches the batsman and his ability to deliver the ball at a high velocity.

The velocities of cricket bowlers vary between 40 and 100 mph. In professional cricket, a bowler in the 40–60 mph range would be said to be a slow bowler, in the 60–80 mph range a medium pace bowler, and a bowler 80 mph+ a fast bowler. In the amateur game, these distinctions would be approximately 10 mph slower. Many professional fast bowlers are able to reach speeds of over 85 mph, with a handful of bowlers in the world able to bowl at 95 mph+. The ability to react to a cricket ball travelling at 85 mph is a skill that only professional and high level amateur cricketers possess. The pace of a bowler not only challenges the reaction speed of the batsman, but also his physical courage. Fast bowlers are able to exploit this by bowling bouncers, either regularly or as an occasional surprise delivery.

Bowlers are also able to get the ball to move sideways by using either spin or swing. Adding a spin to a cricket ball will make it deviate due to the Magnus effect in its flight (like a slider in baseball), and then produce sideways movement off the ground. Swing is obtained by using air pressure differences caused by angling the seam of the cricket ball to produce a lateral movement in the air. Fast bowlers will generally only use swing to obtain movement, but medium pace and slow bowlers will often use a combination of the two. The intention is that in creating movement in the delivery, the batsman will misjudge the line of the ball as it arrives, causing him to miss it entirely, in which case he may be dismissed bowled or lbw, or miss-hit it, in which case he may be out caught.

To avoid becoming predictable, a bowler will typically bowl a variety of different deliveries with different combinations of pace and movement. A tactically astute bowler may be able to spot a potential weakness in a batsman that a particular delivery may be able to exploit. Bowlers will often also bowl deliveries in preplanned sets, with the intention of dismissing the batsman with the final delivery in the set. This is known as "setting a trap" for the batsman. Batsmen and bowlers will often also engage in a game of "cat and mouse", in which the bowler varies his tactics to try and trap and dismiss the batsman, but the batsman also keeps adjusting his tactics in response.

Limited overs
In limited overs cricket, there is a limitation on the number of overs each bowler can bowl. This number depends on the match length, and is usually 20% of the total overs in the innings. For example, the usual limit for twenty-over cricket is four overs per bowler, for forty-over cricket eight per bowler and for fifty-over cricket ten per bowler. There is, however, no limit on the number of overs each bowler may bowl in first-class cricket matches, except that no two overs can be bowled consecutively thus restricting any one bowler from a maximum of 50% (plus 1 over) of each innings total. The rule also applies in terms of breaks within a Test innings (Drinks, Lunch and Tea breaks, end of day and beginning of next day). The rule can only be broken if one finishes the end of the previous match starts the next match.

title: Bowling (cricket)