Were bodyline tactics actually that negative?

[karan316]

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

Most of the people who criticized Bodyline usually pointed out at the physical damage it could cause to an individual more than anything else, even in this thread people are focusing on the same. And that is the reason it is being compared with the 70s and 80s. I would rather say that despite of the rule changes it was more difficult in the 70s and 80s because of the highly skilled pace bowlers and balanced(or a lot of time bowler friendly) wickets.

 

[vic_orthdox]

It's why people refer to it as being "negative" though. One of the main contentions in the thread SHOULD be the field restrictions.

 

[fredfertang]

There were plenty of scoring opportunities with Bodyline - there was the Bradman route, that involved backing away and hitting the ball into the wide open spaces on the off side, or the McCabe route, which involved taking on the leg field and scoring arguably the most thrilling century in Test history

 

[the big bambino]

Most of the people who criticized Bodyline usually pointed out at the physical damage it could cause to an individual more than anything else, even in this thread people are focusing on the same. And that is the reason it is being compared with the 70s and 80s. I would rather say that despite of the rule changes it was more difficult in the 70s and 80s because of the highly skilled pace bowlers and balanced(or a lot of time bowler friendly) wickets.

After Thommo's ahoulder injury it was basically just the WI who could sustain the hurt and intimidation

 

[vic_orthdox]

That's like saying that bowling two foot outside off stump with an 8-1 isn't negative cricket.

 

[OverratedSanity]

There were plenty of scoring opportunities with Bodyline - there was the Bradman route, that involved backing away and hitting the ball into the wide open spaces on the off side, or the McCabe route, which involved taking on the leg field and scoring arguably the most thrilling century in Test history

Yes but backing away from the stumps and smashing it through off and taking on an 8-1 leg side field against short pitched bowling isn't exactly easy is it? My point was that it made batting ridiculously difficult and the contest between bat and ball became too much in favour of the bowler. It forced the batsmen to bat in extremely unorthodox ways and take outlandish risks to score runs. That's why it was negative.

Ftr, I still don't think Jardine was anything less than a genius for coming up with it. The fact that he faced the tactics against Martindale (?) solidified his greatness imo

 

[fredfertang]

Yes but backing away from the stumps and smashing it through off and taking on an 8-1 leg side field against short pitched bowling isn't exactly easy is it? My point was that it made batting ridiculously difficult and the contest between bat and ball became too much in favour of the bowler. It forced the batsmen to bat in extremely unorthodox ways and take outlandish risks to score runs. That's why it was negative.

Ftr, I still don't think Jardine was anything less than a genius for coming up with it. The fact that he faced the tactics against Martindale (?) solidified his greatness imo

The top class performers proved they could play it then, and as Larwood and Voce bowled it bloody well they deserved the success they had with it too - I'd love to have seen Johnson and Harris and Anderson and Broad bowling Bodyline this winter - not suggesting the law should change throughout the game as the danger at the lower levels still persists, but I reckon the likes of Warner, Clarke and Pietersen would have scored plenty of runs and that we'd all have been kept on the edge of our seats

 

[Unomaas]

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

As someone else mentioned, the crux of my comment lies in the following line:

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?

There is indeed double standards being practiced as well as a measure of hypocrisy by the Aussies. You can't have your cake and eat it. Either, you say to Jardine, "Fair dinkum mate! Well played!" or we all condemn such practices including Thomo and Lillee and any other Aussie intimidation tactics (and any other intimidation tactics from other teams for that matter of fact).

 

[Muloghonto]

Bodyline (which means bowling at the body of a batsman, intending to injure) is just fine. This is what it takes to be a professional top notch modern cricketer. Leg theory (which means packing the field around or behind square leg) is not, since it leaves absolutely no scoring option for the batsmen and any shot attempted would be gobbled up as a catch by the leg-side packed fielders.

 

[fredfertang]

Bodyline (which means bowling at the body of a batsman, intending to injure) is just fine. This is what it takes to be a professional top notch modern cricketer. Leg theory (which means packing the field around or behind square leg) is not, since it leaves absolutely no scoring option for the batsmen and any shot attempted would be gobbled up as a catch by the leg-side packed fielders.

If that's what Bodyline is then Larwood and Voce never bowled it

 

[Muloghonto]

They did and that is why leg theory got banned, not bodyline. You can bowl at the batsmen's body all you want. You cannot pack the leg side with 9 fielders between square leg and wicket keeper. That was the consequence of bodyline series.

 

[fredfertang]

Actually that rule came in in the 1950s

 

[Furball]

I think the bodyline tactics were excellent. What they demonstrated was how a batsman's run scoring ability could be contained and the tactic worked brilliantly against Bradman.

This quote actually sums up how good Bradman was, if bowling tactics that allowed him to average 56 in a series are to be judged a success.

 

[the big bambino]

There is indeed double standards being practiced as well as a measure of hypocrisy by the Aussies. You can't have your cake and eat it. Either, you say to Jardine, "Fair dinkum mate! Well played!" or we all condemn such practices including Thomo and Lillee and any other Aussie intimidation tactics (and any other intimidation tactics from other teams for that matter of fact).

While the analogy may appear attractive it is false. The law makers actively pursued remedial action in an attempt to eventually outlaw bodyline altogether and they succeeded. This suggests it was a special instance of intimidation not an analogous to short pitched bowling at all. What also justifies the Australian complaint is the eventual agreement of England that bodyline was especially intimidatory and against the games interests after several fast bowlers provided a demonstration of the tactic in their fc season of 1933. The Australian case against bodyline was compelling and justified and the antithesis of hypocrisy.

 

[fredfertang]

I think there was some merit in the hypocrisy allegation once Lindwall and Miller rocked up

 

[the big bambino]

Not really. Not bodyline.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Poms accusing the Aussies of hypocrisy and the Aussies denying it. Well i never.

 

[fredfertang]

Not really. Not bodyline.

No indeed, but more than a few seem to have considered their bowling a "direct attack" nonetheless

 

[the big bambino]

But no one's outlawed short pitched bowling. What Lindwall and Miller bowled was no different to anything any team possessing fast bowlers have done. Australia was under no obligation to force its fast bowlers to "pitch it up" due to the stance we took against bodyline.

 

[fredfertang]

I'm pretty sure that those who framed the "direct attack" law intended to outlaw the sort of bowling that Lindwall and Miller produced at their peak