Cricketweb poster with the best understanding of the game

[vic_orthdox]

exactly. there's a story about mccabe walking out and telling his brother to make sure that if he gets hit, don't let his mother jump the fence.

i think that the gravity of that one innings is further enhanced by his incapability to score again in the series, as well as the failure of the rest of the team to post competitive totals throughout the 32/33 series.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Come on, Neil. Let everyone else in on your obsession with Fulton. You wanted to have his babies, didn't you?

Search for the "Most Overrated Player" thread. That's as much as I'm saying.

Now I'm going off for a cry.

 

[C_C]

Bodyline was used in 1930 and 1931 first. Infact, it was used in english country cricket before unleashed into the test arena against the aussies. The previous series between ENG and WI saw both sides using bodyline and Learie Constantine was quoted alongside George headley when all the brouhaha about bodyline was going on and said (paraphrasing) "i dont see the cry over it...we used it and faced it before".

And there is nothing to the leg theory field setting....first, it is inaccurate to say that it has never been used after- Lloyd used it a few times. And second, the real 'cry' was not the field placing but using short pitched bowling targetting the head. If you analyse the dismissals, you will find that far more wickets fell to lbw/bowled and offside catches than legside catches.
But thats what you get when you are accustomed to facing fast meduim alsorans and essentially slow bowlers while opening.
if Brian Close was lucky to have survived Mikey Holding's over, i think the likes of Woodfull,Hammond,Hobbs etc. would be lucky not to suffer permanent brain damage for they are toast. Plain and simple toast.

 

[Tapioca]

Infact, it was used in english country cricket before unleashed into the test arena against the aussies. The previous series between ENG and WI saw both sides using bodyline and Learie Constantine was quoted alongside George headley when all the brouhaha about bodyline was going on and said (paraphrasing) "i dont see the cry over it...we used it and faced it before".

Nottinghamshire under Arthur Carr, with Larwood and Voce as their opening bowlers, used it in 1932. Carr attempted it post-bodyline and his refusal to give it up eventually lead to his dismissal from captaincy.

However, West Indies used it only in 1933, not before bodyline. Englishmen were generally of the opinion that Aussies were, shall I say, cowards for their opposition to bodyline. It was the West Indian bodyline bowling particularly in the Manchester Test that made them change their opinion. Hammond was famously quoted saying after his dismissal that 'if this is what the game is coming to, it is time one got out of it'.

And second, the real 'cry' was not the field placing but using short pitched bowling targetting the head.

It was the field placing that made bodyline what it is. Bodyline worked because of two things :

(a) The line made it impossible for the ball to be played anywhere except in the 90 or so degree arc on either side of squareleg. The height meant that every now and then the batsman had to play it in the air.

(b) With a conventional field setting, and considering the quality of the Australian batsmen and the flat wickets, it is conceivable that the batsmen could have hooked and pulled the way out of it. But the field setting made it impossible. With six men close in on the leg side, and two men on the boundary covering the hook, the batsmen either had to risk giving them a catch, or getting hit.

Without both, it is not bodyline.

It required enormous amount of luck for a batsmen to keep hooking successfully. McCabe had one lucky day when he scored 187*. But chances were that soon the batsmen would get out playing it. McCabe kept playing the hook for the rest of the series, but as SJS mentioned above, scored just about as many runs in his nine other innings, as he did in the first innings at Sydney

first, it is inaccurate to say that it has never been used after- Lloyd used it a few times.

He could not have. The rule restricting the number of fieldsmen behind squareleg to two was in place well before Lloyd assumed captaincy.

If you analyse the dismissals, you will find that far more wickets fell to lbw/bowled and offside catches than legside catches.

To paraphrase Fingleton, the punch that knocks out a boxer is not necessarily the hardest one. But he is set up for it by the hard ones that went before.

Often it was a quick yorker that came after a series of bouncers that did the trick. That hardly diminishes the importance of the bouncers.

 

[C_C]

Put it this way.
Much is made out of the bodyline series when in reality, 70s and 80s wernt the same.
If the ball is short and on your body, you have four options : take it on your body, duck/weave, hook and/or pull(depending on the length). Lillee-Thommo, the WI pacers etc. specialised in putting 3-4 bouncers per over and then slipping in the quick yorker or the outswinger that totally outfoxed the batsmen. That is what bodyline was about and it was norm in the 70s/80s. In that aspect, it is no different to bodyline....you either are a master hooker/puller, dodger or you perished eventually from the sheer barrage of bouncers and the KO punch of a yorker/swinger.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Put it this way.
Much is made out of the bodyline series when in reality, 70s and 80s wernt the same.
If the ball is short and on your body, you have four options : take it on your body, duck/weave, hook and/or pull(depending on the length). Lillee-Thommo, the WI pacers etc. specialised in putting 3-4 bouncers per over and then slipping in the quick yorker or the outswinger that totally outfoxed the batsmen. That is what bodyline was about and it was norm in the 70s/80s. In that aspect, it is no different to bodyline....you either are a master hooker/puller, dodger or you perished eventually from the sheer barrage of bouncers and the KO punch of a yorker/swinger.

Not at all, the difference between what you're talking about and Bodyline is, as mentioned earlier, the field placings. Having a large number of fielders on the leg-side and bowling at the body meant that even if you were a master hooker/puller doing so was still fraught with danger.

 

[C_C]

Not at all, the difference between what you're talking about and Bodyline is, as mentioned earlier, the field placings. Having a large number of fielders on the leg-side and bowling at the body meant that even if you were a master hooker/puller doing so was still fraught with danger.

Hooking has always been frought with danger. One man at fine leg, one man at square leg and one man at widish square leg.
Hook shot is now a russian roulette, as those are the primary catching positions for the hookshot.

The essence is that those namby pambies(bradman excepted) couldnt handle the shortpitched balls aimed at their heads. Whether legside is packed or not, they still would struggle to do so and whether you got 4 slips or 4 leg slips, three bouncers at the throat and then a fast yorker is gonna give you the same result.

The fieldplacement didnt make it any easier...infact, i would rate facing those decent bowlers of Bodyline ( Larwood/Voce) as a walk in the park as compared to facing Holding,Croft,Garner,Roberts,Lillee,Thommo,Marshall,Ambrose etc etc.

 

[Top_Cat]

I dunno, man; I've seen quite a bit of footage of Larwood and he looks bloomin' frightening (wonderfully athletic action; wish I had it). Maybe the rest of them you might be right (and yes, the quicks of the 70's and 80's were also quite nasty) but Larwood didn't resemble anything other than a super-quick bowler who was also very accurate and would have been very awkward to face.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The essence is that those namby pambies(bradman excepted) couldnt handle the shortpitched balls aimed at their heads. Whether legside is packed or not, they still would struggle to do so and whether you got 4 slips or 4 leg slips, three bouncers at the throat and then a fast yorker is gonna give you the same result.

The fieldplacement didnt make it any easier...infact, i would rate facing those decent bowlers of Bodyline ( Larwood/Voce) as a walk in the park as compared to facing Holding,Croft,Garner,Roberts,Lillee,Thommo,Marshall,Ambrose etc etc.

Rubbish. Facing quality, fast and accurate short pitched bowling is hard enough in the modern era. It would be harder if you had to face such deliveries 3 or 4 times in an over. It would be virtually impossible if you couldn't hit the ball on the leg side because it was packed with fielders. Exactly two batsmen had any level of success in the Bodyline series, and they are two of the absolute all time greats of the game in McCabe and the best ever batsman in Bradman. Bradman combatted it by, as SJS said, leaping to the leg side and playing the ball away on the off-side, which is obviously an extremely difficult manouver that leaves you open if you get a straighter one, and McCabe played it with one of the greatest innings ever seen. It was in no way comparable to fast, short pitched bowling after the rule changes which followed, which is WHY the rule changes were made. Keep in mind also that these players did not have protective gear, on top of the lack of intimidating bowling rules and packed leg-side fields.

The Australian team that was thrashed 4-1 in 32/33 was actually a pretty good one, boasting not only Bradman and McCabe but also Fingleton and Woodfull and the fantastic spin trio of Ironmonger, O'Reilly and Grimmett, backed up by Wall. So much for your "namby pamby amatuers" claim.

 

[SJS]

Its an interesting word :Namby Pambies"

Wonder what you call people willing to face the fastest bowling in the world, aimed at your head persisitently with no limits on number of such deliveries per over nor on fielder's placement AND to do it without helmets, arm guards, thigh pads, chest pads plus God know what.

I have known of modern day cricketers, including the Indian heroes in the Carrebean, refusing to play on because the bowlers bowled short pitched but they had all the above in their favour.

The captain, known for his fearless aggression till this day, the indomitable Bishan Bedi, prefered to lose the match rather than subject his heroes to "manslaughte".

Namby - pambies, funny word

 

[C_C]

Rubbish. Facing quality, fast and accurate short pitched bowling is hard enough in the modern era. It would be harder if you had to face such deliveries 3 or 4 times in an over.

That was the order of the day in the 1970s, 80s and early 90s.
Nothing hoo-haa.
Facing 3-4 bouncers per over from bowlers with FAR higher callibre.

. It would be virtually impossible if you couldn't hit the ball on the leg side because it was packed with fielders.

And anyone who has actually played cricket knows that the hook shot has 2/3 catching positions- widish square leg, square leg and fine leg for the top edge.
Doesnt make it any less risky if you got a dude sitting on shot leg or leg slip as even the miscued hookshot sails over them. Bodyline series shows one thing - the inability of those players to combat REAL hostile bowling (bradman exempted) and the redundancy of posting a man at fwd. short leg for a miscued hook or pull.
It may have been applicable in bodyline because those players had no clue how to counter the shortpitched bowling but unless you are playing a defensive shot to a head-high bouncer, fwd. close in fielder on the legside has no part in catching a miscued hook or pull. Look at the area where those shots are caught out.

Exactly two batsmen had any level of success in the Bodyline series, and they are two of the absolute all time greats of the game in McCabe and the best ever batsman in Bradman.

Bradman apart, none of those namby pambies are alltime great in my book.

It was in no way comparable to fast, short pitched bowling after the rule changes which followed, which is WHY the rule changes were made. Keep in mind also that these players did not have protective gear, on top of the lack of intimidating bowling rules and packed leg-side fields.

Protective gear doesnt make yer job any easier. Ever miscued a hook on to yer helmet ?
Oh and FYI, protective gear didnt become common until the mid/late 80s.
But given the option of facing a fast-medium Voce, fastish larwood etc. and raging quicks like thommo/lillee/holding etc., for me it is a no-brainer.
The huge stink was about those namby pambies getting hit every over or so because they didnt have the technique to deal with hostile bowling from decent bowlers.
But hey thats what you get from a consistent offstump line or legspinners opening the bowling!

The Australian team that was thrashed 4-1 in 32/33 was actually a pretty good one, boasting not only Bradman and McCabe but also Fingleton and Woodfull and the fantastic spin trio of Ironmonger, O'Reilly and Grimmett, backed up by Wall. So much for your "namby pamby amatuers" claim.

yes, i am sure O'Reiley, Grimmett and ironmonger are relevant in the discussion about batsmen facing extremely hostile bowling as an example of real cricket.


To SJS

i thought you were gonna ignore my posts ? If you wish to address me, do so directly. Else, keep away.

Wonder what you call people willing to face the fastest bowling in the world, aimed at your head persisitently with no limits on number of such deliveries per over nor on fielder's placement AND to do it without helmets, arm guards, thigh pads, chest pads plus God know what.

They were namby pambies because they all created a huge stink when faced with aggressive bowling as they didnt have the chutzpah or the technique to deal with it.
And fastest bowler of a period doesnt necessarily mean fastest bowler of all.
In mid 90s, the fastest bowler of all was Donald/Srinath- low 90s stuff. In late 60s/early 70s till the rise of Lillee/Roberts, the fastest bowler of them all were the fastish John Snow and an over-the-hill Wes Hall.
A left arm medium fast and a right arm fast medium bowler arnt my idea of quicks fo the highest callibre. And neither of those two were of quality compared to the greats of the latter eras.
Oh and doing it without any sort of body protection- no biggie. Viv did it, Gavaskar did it, Mohinder Amarnath did it and practically everyone in the 70s to mid 80s did it.

I have known of modern day cricketers, including the Indian heroes in the Carrebean, refusing to play on because the bowlers bowled short pitched but they had all the above in their favour.
The captain, known for his fearless aggression till this day, the indomitable Bishan Bedi, prefered to lose the match rather than subject his heroes to "manslaughte".

You know wrong then. That Sabina park match saw all the batsmen fit to bat go out and bat. The coward known as Bishen Bedi wimped out when it was the bowlers' turn to face the music.

If your claim to fame is facing substandard spinners whilst opening, i aint gonna pick you to open against Imran,Holding,McGrath,Ambrose, Akram,Lillee,Marshall etc.
That is common sense and logic.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Bradman apart, none of those namby pambies are alltime great in my book.

Hahaha. You don't consider McCabe an all-time great? That's almost as good as Richard saying McGrath and Pollock are just lucky. How about Hammond, Jardine, Sutcliffe etc on the other side? Namby pamby amatuers as well? Not all-time greats?

 

[C_C]

Hahaha. You don't consider McCabe an all-time great? That's almost as good as Richard saying McGrath and Pollock are just lucky. How about Hammond, Jardine, Sutcliffe etc on the other side? Namby pamby amatuers as well? Not all-time greats?

You got that right.
Bradman apart, NO BATSMAN of that era is a great in my book. Headley comes mighty close but played too little to be considered....but am not even gonna bother with anyone from that era who had less than 70 average for the bulk of their careers ( something that Headley and Bradman managed- headley till the very end of his career).
Cricket was played at a much leisurely pace, fielding was nowhere comparable and batsmen didnt have the technique to play hostile fast bowling. Its one thing making hay against so-so slow bowlers. Anothre thing when a 95mph alltime great is charging in.

As for bowlers, apart from Grimmett, O'Reiley and Barnes,Bedser,Lindwall,Gupte and Miller, wouldnt consider any in the post 50s era.

Look it is rather simple. In almost all sports, you have humongous personal achievements early on in the game when it was unprofessional.
Not just cricket- that is valid in Baseball, Ice Hockey, Formula1, cricket and to some extent, soccer (though soccer was played with so much improved vigour in the post war era that the namby pambies of pre-war era were forgotten quickly).
That leads to one of the two following conclusions.

1. The good players in those era over-accentuated their records by capitalising on a non-standardised field with players of wildly inconsistent commitment levels, skill standard and high end quality being restricted by the 'gentleman's code'

2. The human species back then were stronger, fitter, smarter and more skillful- significantly so than just 50 years later- to have produced those 'oh my fookin gawd' superstars that annihilated everything in sight.

The latter view is categorically contradicted by medical and biological sciences.

Suffice to say,I dont need to have an hour-long contemplation before i pick one of those two possibilities.

 

[Top_Cat]

C_C: Man, I might not agree with everything you say on this forum but geez, you're a crack-up. I'm still chuckling at 'Oh my fookin' gawd'...............

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Look it is rather simple. In almost all sports, you have humongous personal achievements early on in the game when it was unprofessional.

This is of course unquestionable, and nobody is actually disagreeing with you there. The issue at hand is WHEN exactly cricket was in its unprofessional infancy when a good player could stand head and shoulders above the pack with relative ease. Was W.G. Grace playing in an era when a true great would stand out more due to poor overall comparitive standards? How about Lohmann? Trumper? Hobbs? Sutcliffe? Bradman? Hammond? Sobers? Barrington? RG Pollock? G Chappell? Richards? Lara? Tendulkar?

Now, I agree with you that before a certain point in time and at a certain level of cricket you have to take statistical records and comparitive abilities with a pinch of salt. Averaging 70 in Sydney grade cricket is commendable but does not put you on the same class as someone who averages 50 in test cricket, and the same goes with different eras. And for me while Grace certainly deserves recognition for averaging in the mid 70s for 5 years on end prior to the start of test cricket in the county system, that doesn't mean I would necessarily consider him for an all-time XI, even if I might recognise that he was a brilliant batsman who changed the face of cricket. Similarly, I wouldn't consider someone like George Lohmann a serious contender for world class status because he dominated in an era of inconsistent cricketing abilities and his record is inflated by pounding probably the lowest standard cricket team seen in tests, the South African side of the 1880s.

However, this has to be put in the context of how old cricket is and how it was actually played at different times. It is clear that say Sobers faced consistently professional and dedicated opposition when he was playing, and for me it is also clear that Bradman played in the same environment. If I had to put an artificial cutoff point on it, it would be World War I. Before that period, there were great players around of course, and the standard of cricket was obviously good and many players took it seriously. However, I would agree with you that it was far more likely at that time to face say a bowling attack with one Spofforth, Turner, Lohmann or Barnes and an average set of medium pacers and bits-and-pieces all rounders like one might see in club cricket these days. This doesn't mean that Barnes and Spofforth weren't great players or that they deserve the kind of contempt you seem willing to offer the older generation of great players, but it does mean that you can't compare their records alone directly with players from the more professional eras.

However, to claim this about the period between the wars is well off the mark in my view. Aside from a brief period after the resumption where the playing stocks were hit hard by the passage of years and the ravages of war, the standard improved dramatically in comparison to the pre WWI era, and it is a reasonable point to start considering cricket a professional game in which one would never find a player who was a massive gap in class behind the others playing test cricket at the time.

Indeed, the Bodyline series in 1932/33 contained two teams of simply immense class. Your complaint abotu the pre-war era is not that there were no good players but that good players were mixed with amatuers and stood out markedly, and in the case of the Bodyline series (just for an example) this is simply untrue. A bowling attack containing three spinners of the class of Ironmonger, Grimmett and O'Reilly (the latter two are STILL considered rivals to Warne as the greatest ever leg-spiners) would be immensely difficult to face, and it would not be a matter of seeing off 6 or 8 balls from Barnes and then flying into Joe Bloggs from Islington who had just knocked off after a day in the mines in the next over. We are talking about consistently difficult bowling on pitches which, while fairly flat in the 30s, still had the difficult elements of the age of uncovered wickets. This is not something amatuers would take with ease. At the other end of the pitch we see a batting lineup with Hammond, Sutcliffe and Jardine in its ranks. Now, how many batting lineups ever have boasted two players who averaged in the 60s despite facing bowlers of the class of Grimmett, O'Reilly and Ironmonger in the same team? And if the answer is anything higher than 0, how many of them had backup like Douglas Jardine and Eddie Paynter, with a keeper-batsman like Ames?

And for the other side, how many players in any era could play an innings like McCabe did, facing genuine, accurate and extremely quick bowling from the likes of Larwood and Voce, with 4 or 5 bouncers an over at the body with a packed leg-side field? This was not something amatuers did. An amatuer would not take a blow on the body a dozen times in an innings with no protective gear and risk broken bones and other serious injuries for the sake of the team on the way to a massive hundred, nor could an amatuer even SCORE a hundred against that sort of bowling under those conditions. How many teams boasted a Bradman? How many teams boasted a support cast like McCabe, Fingleton and Woodfull for a Bradman?

And for what it is worth with regard to your "70 average" cutoff point, Herbert Sutcliffe's average after 40 of 54 tests was 69.80. He did not score a century in his last 14 tests as he pushed into his 40s and his average dropped to its all time low point at 60.78 before he retired.

 

[SJS]

The relationship between England and Australia was "strained" and great tensions prevailed in the diplomatic circles of the two countries. Letters with language which would be considered EXTREMELY strong by diplomatic standards were exchanged between the two countries and still the "amateurs" of England AND their "namby pamby" amateur captain refused to back off.

I cant think of a single professional in todays TOUGH cricketing world who would dare to do that.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The relationship between England and Australia was "strained" and great tensions prevailed in the diplomatic circles of the two countries. Letters with language which would be considered EXTREMELY strong by diplomatic standards were exchanged between the two countries and still the "amateurs" of England AND their "namby pamby" amateur captain refused to back off.

I cant think of a single professional in todays TOUGH cricketing world who would dare to do that.

Exactly. The Murali tensions between Australia and Sri Lanka when Ranatunga led his team off the field and the BCCSL accused Hair of being racist were nothing on the tensions that these so-called "amatuer" cricketers inspired back in the days of bodyline.

In fact it could well be argued that Bodyline was the definitive beginning point of true professionalism in international cricket, with the end of the time of the "gentleman's game" with harsh tactics designed at nullifying Bradman despite the cost in terms of reputation, the strong, star-studded teams on both sides and the general level of involvement in the game from all the players which went far beyond what could be expected from non-professional cricketers. Personally I would say it was the culimination of a period of increased professionalist following the first World War, where standards and dedication to the game rose continuously, until the inevitable Bodyline incident hit. It was the culmination of tactical trends just like the underarm incident was a few decades later.

 

[honestbharani]

IDK much about the Bodyline series except from what I have seen on TV and read in papers and websites, but I think even today, hooking is extremely risky.... Someone like Lara, who is one of the best backfoot players in the world and who plays the hook and pull as well as anyone, doesn't do it these days as there are two fielders back almost straightaway. I am getting the feeling that it might become extinct and will only be played in ODIs and in the odd occassions in tests when you want quick runs....

 

[Son Of Coco]

Hooking has always been frought with danger. One man at fine leg, one man at square leg and one man at widish square leg.
Hook shot is now a russian roulette, as those are the primary catching positions for the hookshot.

The essence is that those namby pambies(bradman excepted) couldnt handle the shortpitched balls aimed at their heads. Whether legside is packed or not, they still would struggle to do so and whether you got 4 slips or 4 leg slips, three bouncers at the throat and then a fast yorker is gonna give you the same result.

The fieldplacement didnt make it any easier...infact, i would rate facing those decent bowlers of Bodyline ( Larwood/Voce) as a walk in the park as compared to facing Holding,Croft,Garner,Roberts,Lillee,Thommo,Marshall,Ambrose etc etc.

It has been yes, but you're comparing batting on uncovered wickets, with no fielding restrictions and a technique that isn't as well honed to players who had the benefit of covered pitches, restrictions on leg-side field, and (in the later part of the 70's) helmets.

Even though the players in the 30's may have been (to use your term) amateurish, I think suggesting that none of the bowlers would have been capable of bowling at a decent speed is slightly ridiculous. Besides, it would be comparitive would it not? Put a bowler who can bowl between 130-140 up against batsmen whose techniques aren't as rock-solid as some players today and he becomes a lot more dangerous, put that bowler on uncovered wickets with variable bounce and he's even more dangerous, put him up against a batsman with little protection and you have Bodyline.

 

[vic_orthdox]

in addition, playing a fend off the body, a perfectly fine way of playing the short ball (when performed correctly), is virtually completely eliminated by the presence of these short legs, which of course aren't there for the skied pull or hook shot, but are there to take any chances which may arise from trying to play a straight bat shot to the short pitched bowling.