Were bodyline tactics actually that negative?

[mullarkey]

Yes, it was similar but also dissimilar because of the context, politics and history of the Eng-WI series. It was a contest between the colonial masters vs a resurgent WI teams that had come to prove a point. There was alot of emotion in the contest from the Windies side and Greig's comment further revitalized the Windies to their goal of proving that they were not Calypso Cricketers plying their trade for the entertainment of the crowds.

'Hypocrisy shown by Aussies............not dissimilar to that shown by England during the WI tour' What hypocrisy would that be?
I ask you as you agree.

 

[andyc]

A cricket captains job is to win games of cricket, Jardine did his job.

On that note, what are your thoughts on Greg instructing his younger brother to bowl underarm?

 

[watson]

There's an interesting comparison to be had between public reaction to that Saturday evening at Old Trafford in '76, when Roberts, Holding and Daniel launched their assault on John Edrich and Brian Close, and the reaction at Adelaide in 32/33 when Bert Oldfield was hit

In 32/33 the crowd and public at large condemned England so much so that the players started getting close to the stumps in case they needed to protect themselves during a crowd invasion

In '76 all I can recall is feeling intensely proud to be English and total admiration for Closey and Edrich, and as far as I can recall almost everyone else felt the same - I didn't even think about the West Indian bowlers

I'm sorry but I don't go in for this machismo nonsense. Sure Closey was brave and all that, but I've watched the footage and while the crowd might have have gone "Ohh Ahhhhh", the umpire Bill Alley took a different view at the time and was visibly pissed off with Holding for good reason. The fact remains, Close could have easily ended up in hospital at some point during the session. I don't mind seeing bouncers bowled at batsman, but that days play had gone past both the sublime and the ridiculous, and entered into the realms of assault.

It also hastened the retirement of Edrich who later remarked that he had grown tired and bored of merely defending himself rather than batting. Or words to that effect.

 

[fredfertang]

I'm sorry but I don't go in for this machismo nonsense. Sure Closey was brave and all that, but I've watched the footage and while the crowd might have have gone "Ohh Ahhhhh", the umpire Bill Alley took a different view at the time and was visibly pissed off with Holding for good reason. The fact remains, Close could have easily ended up in hospital at some point during the session. I don't mind seeing bouncers bowled at batsman, but that days play had gone past both the sublime and the ridiculous, and entered into the realms of assault.

It also hastened the retirement of Edrich who later remarked that he had grown tired and bored of merely defending himself rather than batting. Or words to that effect.

I wasn't seeking to express a view in my post, just pointing out something I thought was worth noting - in fact I agree with everything you say

 

[Red]

Just on that Fire in Babylon DVD, the bowling that Close faced from Holding was ****ing brutal. And extremely frightening. If what the Australians faced from Larwood was anything like that, it's no wonder they were "concerned".

 

[fredfertang]

Main difference is that Closey loved it, just like he did when he repeatedly gave Wes Hall the charge in 1963 - what a nutter

 

[wpdavid]

.

If you haven't already seen it then this really is a must watch for any cricket tragic.

Fire in Babylon (2010) - IMDb

Straight from the horses mouth what they encountered and I really don't think the likes of Viv and Holding are the type to have any chip on their shoulder.

Yup. As I understand it, the racial abuse happened in 1975/6 when Aus won comfortably. By the 1980's, WI were well on top so any abuse from Aus would have looked pretty stupid. It's been said elsewhere, but cricketers tend to be obnoxious because they're winning, rather than win because they're being obnoxious.

That being said, there is a fair bit of mythology in the film.

 

[Adders]

On that note, what are your thoughts on Greg instructing his younger brother to bowl underarm?

LOL, that really is an excellent response.

I thought it was terrible, so that just shows I'm as guilty of the hypocrisy we've been talking about as anyone else. The underarm ball was an "anything goes within the confines of the rules" approach to winning a game of cricket........just the same as bodyline was. so it is definitely wrong to laud one and condemn the other which I have done for years.

May have to reassess my opinion on that one........good call Andy.

 

[Adders]

Just on that Fire in Babylon DVD, the bowling that Close faced from Holding was ****ing brutal. And extremely frightening. If what the Australians faced from Larwood was anything like that, it's no wonder they were "concerned".

Nothing the West Indians themselves hadn't faced from Lillee and Thommo.

 

[fredfertang]

LOL, that really is an excellent response.

I thought it was terrible, so that just shows I'm as guilty of the hypocrisy we've been talking about as anyone else. The underarm ball was an "anything goes within the confines of the rules" approach to winning a game of cricket........just the same as bodyline was. so it is definitely wrong to laud one and condemn the other which I have done for years.

May have to reassess my opinion on that one........good call Andy.

They're not really the same thing though - Chappell shouldn't have done what he did and later felt embarrassed about it, and had he had the chance again would doubtless have done things differently

Jardine on the other hand ................

 

[nightprowler10]

Plus there's no way to counter underarm. The same can't be said about Bodyline.

 

[watson]

Plus there's no way to counter underarm. The same can't be said about Bodyline.

That's not true. Brian whatshisname should have flicked the ball up in the air with his toe and belted it over mid-wicket for 6.

Also, if there was a way to counter Bodyline then Bradman would have averaged his usual 100, Australia would have won the Bodyline series, Mike Denness' team would have come home with the Ashes, and the Windies wouldn't have won a thing in the 80s.

 

[Bahnz]

That's not true. Brian whatshisname should have flicked the ball up in the air with his toe and belted it over mid-wicket for 6.

Instant Kiwi Ad Cricket revenge - YouTube

Bodyline was a brilliantly effective strategy, and Jardine a magnificent thinker on the game, but I'm also glad that it's use has been made unlawful. It was so marvellously succesful, that if teams had been allowed to continue to use it, it would've greatly reduced the complexity and variety of cricket to the sport's detriment. Throw in the serious danger that the tactic created for batsmen in the pre-helmet era and I'm glad that it's been consigned to history.

 

[BeeGee]

That's not true. Brian whatshisname should have flicked the ball up in the air with his toe and belted it over mid-wicket for 6.

Would have been out LBW.

 

[watson]

Would have been out LBW.

Nah, it was missing off stump.

Would have been funny though if Brian Whatshisface had actually hit a 6 over mid-wicket, but was then given out LBW after Chappell appealed. There would have been an all in brawl I think.

 

[social]

While the Bodyline tactics might have been developed as a tactic to contain, the results thereof changed cricket for the better because it reasserted the fact that cricket is a sporting contest between 2 teams and that nothing was more important than winning (within the confines of the rules). I personally give Jardine and co. a hand of applause everytime I read up on their exploits because it took big balls to continuously use the strategy in a hostile environment that some say bordered on physical violence being practiced on the visiting English team.

When I look at Bodyline through the context of cricket history, I always dwell on the irony that when negative tactics are being practiced against Australia, its deemed as bringing the game into disrepute but when Australia is doing it, its considered being competitive?

As an example, Lillee and Thomo totally decimated Clive Lloyds team on their first trip to Australia under Lloyds captaincy. When Lillee bowled, loud chants of "Kill, Kill, Kill" reverberated through the stadium and Lillee was trying to do just that...kill. Hit counts were gleefully tallied and wickets were a second attraction to Lillee hurting batsmen. When Lloyd returned back to the islands and rounded up Marshall, Garner Croft and Roberts and started practicing their own "kill, kill, kill", the aussies started playing possum and the Windies fast bowlers were labeled as being "unsportsman" like and "negative".

As far as I'm concerned, play the game hard, use any strategy if its within the confines of the rules and human decency and let the rest take care of itself.

Sorry but your description of the 75/6 series is the stuff of pure fantasy

At worst, it was no different to the tactics employed by Oz this summer - physical and verbal intimidation were employed with the sole objective of dismissing the batsmen

 

[Migara]

Sorry but your description of the 75/6 series is the stuff of pure fantasy

At worst, it was no different to the tactics employed by Oz this summer - physical and verbal intimidation were employed with the sole objective of dismissing the batsmen

Don't think that he says the tactics were a carbon copy of body line. The idea was same to physically intimidate batsman. What he argues is that there are double standards in judging the tactics (non-bodyline, but intimidating bowling).

 

[the big bambino]

Personally think that the standard in dealing administratively with intimidating bowling was set by bodyline.

 

[Migara]

Can't have a repeat bodyline what ever the conditions are, because of protective gear. Unless of course androids are bowling at 200km/h.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I always thought the reason Bodyline was so unfair was because of the ridiculous field placing. More than the actual threat of hitting the batsman, it was the fact that the completely packed leg side field made the tactics genuinely unfair against the batsmen. Comparing that with 75-76 is baseless because the law had been changed far before that time to ensure the leg side field wasn't packed, which actually made it slightly more even. Atleast batsmen had more scoring opportunities