Were bodyline tactics actually that negative?

[social]

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



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).

You did say that Lillee's first primary objective was to hurt people with wicket taking secondary - simply not true

In relation to the second point, you have to factor in the prevailing attitudes of the day.

Short-pitched bowling, other than as a shock delivery, was frowned upon until the early 60s and there are numerous examples of it being booed by spectators the world over during this time

Whilst it could be argued that Oz were at the forefront of seeing bouncers being more frequently and as an intimidatory weapon, WI took it to a whole new level in that it basically became their stock ball

As for Oz hypocrisy - they were hardly Robinson Crusoe in that regard and could in fact be seen as being WI's biggest supporters given that they were by far the most frequent visitors to our shores during that time due their massive crowd-pulling ability

 

[the big bambino]

No one denies bodyline was unsportsman like. The reason was the field settings, not the bowling it self. I am comparing how initimidation tactics used by Thommo and Lillee vs that of West Indian pace trio / quartret.


Odd thing was the reaction occured when West indies used it. Lillee and Thommo did it for two full series over ten test matches but no one complained, rather they were lauded for their efforts. Suddenely when holding, Roberts and Croft decided to do the same, things changed.

Migara you seem to have misunderstood who I was responding to. It wasn't you or any point you made. I was responding to someone else and since I didn't quote them directly I can understand why you mistakenly believed I was responding to you.

But I wasn't.

As to the point about Lillee and Thompson I agree. I just don't think its an example of Australian hypocrisy. It wasn't Australia that changed the rules. Rather the administration of the game that saw the WI exploitation of the rule and the Australian precedent as evidence that things needed changing.

 

[fredfertang]

I haven't been able to find any negative comments about the bowling of Gregory or McDonald in the autobiographies of either Hobbs or Hammond. That's why I asked you for 'evidence' in one of my previous posts. Did Gregory or McDonald deliberately and frequently target the batsman?

It depends what you mean really - fwiw I don't believe that any fast bowler in history has ever consistently set out to hurt batsmen, and that includes Jeff Thomson - they just want to take wickets, and scaring the **** out of the batsman is as much a part of a quick bowlers stock in trade as confusing him is a part of that of the top class spinner. So I do think Gregory and McDonald targeted batsman and sought to unsettle them, but not in a way different to any other fast bowler - its just the nature of the beast. I did write a feature about them, and I think Lionel Tennyson's quote was pretty telling ..... These two great Australians created an absolute panic

 

[the big bambino]

They did. I think McDonald hit E. Tydesley badly and they both used bumpers as a shock weapon. The major development that forced the administrator's response in the 80s was the targeting of tailenders and the use of the short ball as a stock rather than a shock delivery backed by a sedate over rate to conserve bowler's energy so that they could keep bowling that way. When they did act it was effective. The rule changes did not stop the best team from winning and in this litigious age could be seen to be negligent by allowing unlimited bouncers at bunnies with Chatfield like results or worse.

 

[GotSpin]

What were the overrates by the West Indies? Ridiculously low from recollection

 

[Debris]

I don't object to anything at all about the Bodyline series - because of the way it happened we have a slice of cricket history that is still talked about the best part of a century on, and has fascinated me all my life. I do think though that the way that the Australians who mattered reacted at the time was sanctimonious and, on that basis, distinctly "Un-Australian". I'm still glad they did it though, and that the two sides didn't sit down behind closed doors and come up with a half-baked compromise.

I guess I should have been more specific. I was after examples. I could not find much in the way of the Australian team complaining publicly about bodyline at the time. There was the famous statement by Woodfull but that was a leaked private conversation.

 

[mullarkey]

I have read many, if not all, of the comments on here about Bodyline and I wonder if it has all been said? It was 80 years ago and all of those involved are gone. There are are no golden nuggets to be found it is history and while we all like to chew the fat over the events of 32/33 is any further attempt to get to the bottom of it all quite futile?

 

[the big bambino]

Obviously not as we wouldn't be posting otherwise. @Gotspin I think they got as low as 12 an hour though on one famous occasion they bowled that many in a session to thwart an English chase of a target. My memory is sketchy on that incident and for some reason think Desmond Haynes was captaining at the time. But as I said very sketchy.

 

[GotSpin]

I have read many, if not all, of the comments on here about Bodyline and I wonder if it has all been said? It was 80 years ago and all of those involved are gone. There are are no golden nuggets to be found it is history and while we all like to chew the fat over the events of 32/33 is any further attempt to get to the bottom of it all quite futile?

Yeah no point in discussing history. You're right

 

[GotSpin]

Obviously not as we wouldn't be posting otherwise. @Gotspin I think they got as low as 12 an hour though on one famous occasion they bowled that many in a session to thwart an English chase of a target. My memory is sketchy on that incident and for some reason think Desmond Haynes was captaining at the time. But as I said very sketchy.

Okay thanks

 

[mullarkey]

Okay thanks

I thought it was a fat guy eating a toffee apple.

 

[the big bambino]

Ok thanks.

 

[Biryani Pillow]

Fire in Babylon and the book 'Grovel' are pretty much the same thing. I enjoyed reading Grovel because I experienced the time (1976) but the racial stuff is all lies. There was no racial issues around the WI touring team that year, in society at large I suppose there were but I experienced none myself and I went to the Old Trafford test that year. We English fans loved the West Indies they played cricket from the gods and being among their ex-pat fans was a really pleasure. Don't be fooled by people who have an axe to grind against this country, they jumped on the cricket bandwagon and twisted it into a fight between David and Goliath, with the West Indians slaying the colonial masters in a victory for good against evil. The reason why Richards and co keep returning to this country is because they love it here and they know that we (the English cricket public) will always love them as our own.

I know a couple of people who know Alvin Kallicharan well and another who was coached by Malcolm Marshall.

Apparently they both concur (or in Marshall's case concurred).

The West Indies team felt no ill will towards the England players and the same was true with most of their supporters. They even saw Tony Greig's 'grovel' comment as simply ill judged and used it as a source for humour as much as anything.

Now the Australians on the other hand they did not care for as they used to receive a lot of racial abuse even during the 80s when they were dominant. Marshall reckoned Geoff Lawson was a particularly nasty piece of work in this respect.

Re Bodyline:

I have Jardine's book "In Quest of the Ashes" which was recently reprinted with a foreword by Mike Brearley.

Brearley makes an interesting point regarding batting techniques, especially in Australia, at the time. The pitches of the time in Australia which were , unless they were rain affected, I would suggest, the biggest batting paradises consistently on show through the history of the game. Couple this with the LBW law of the time (the ball had to pitch on the line of the stumps to get an LBW) batsmen basically took to moving right across their stumps, knowing that an LBW was very unlikely. They could then work any straight delivery (or, indeed, one that would pass to the off side of the wicket) through the leg side with impunity. As a consequence many bowlers had no option, with a normal field, but to aim well to the off side. If the batsman didn't risk playing the ball in the air it would be almost impossible to dismiss them given that the 'quality' of the pitches ruled out inconsistent bounce.

The leg side field at least gave the bowler some protection if they bowled at the stumps (and Larwood dismissed 15 batsmen 'bowled' in the series I believe). It may well be that the English bowlers bowled percentage of short deliveries similar to that of McDonald and Gregory did in 1920 and 1921 (which produced some quiet comments in English cricket circles). Before then the short ball was very sparingly used.

Actually the law changes following the 1932/33 series might actually have saved the game from over dominance by batsmen.

The following year the West Indies touring team used the same tactics against England. Jardine handled it quite well.

I'm sure I've read more than once that Oldfield blamed himself for being hit.

 

[Biryani Pillow]

Obviously not as we wouldn't be posting otherwise. @Gotspin I think they got as low as 12 an hour though on one famous occasion they bowled that many in a session to thwart an English chase of a target. My memory is sketchy on that incident and for some reason think Desmond Haynes was captaining at the time. But as I said very sketchy.

They got well below 12 an hour on many occasions.

On the one you refer to England were chasing down a small total but racing against fading light. Ian Bishop (normally a most sporting fellow) took 12 minutes to bowl one over - during the course of which he stopped three times on the same delivery to retie a shoelace - and nineteen minutes to bowl two. Even Tony Cozier - who forgave them many things - was scathing in his radio commentary.

 

[wpdavid]

They got well below 12 an hour on many occasions.

On the one you refer to England were chasing down a small total but racing against fading light. Ian Bishop (normally a most sporting fellow) took 12 minutes to bowl one over - during the course of which he stopped three times on the same delivery to retie a shoelace - and nineteen minutes to bowl two. Even Tony Cozier - who forgave them many things - was scathing in his radio commentary.

Yup. It was the 2nd test in the 1990 series over there, and we'd won the first test. Haynes' cynical cheating kept the series at 0-1, which allowed them to eventually win it 2-1.

 

[fredfertang]

We had an articled clerk from St Vincent at the time and I gave him a formal written warning for Haynes' behaviour - he still laughs about it to this day, but I expect in this supposedly more enlightened age I'd be struck off now if I did something similar

 

[the big bambino]

Thanks BP and for the confirmation that it was Haynes, wpd. Incredible cynicism from Haynes and the WI lost alot of respect from that. Thankfully it served as a reason to end that type of tactic which, in my opinion anyway, is cheating.

 

[Blocky]

I don't consider bodyline any worse than what Mitchell Johnson did this series against most tail enders, he used pace they were uncomfortable with, with a line over the wicket that meant he could pretty much bowl straight at their ribcage at a short length repeatedly.

 

[benchmark00]

I find it weird how people take what happened in the Bodyline series in the context of today's environment.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

I don't consider bodyline any worse than what Mitchell Johnson did this series against most tail enders, he used pace they were uncomfortable with, with a line over the wicket that meant he could pretty much bowl straight at their ribcage at a short length repeatedly.

You have shown that you can be a good poster when you want to be and that you have a good knowledge of the game, so could you please make an effort to stop comparing apples to oranges.