Coronis
International Coach
Bodyline is clearly just a conspiracy generated by the Australian media to cover up the fact that Bradman had a **** series.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Mankads
- Thread starter PlayerComparisons
- Start date
Ok, I know essentially nothing about Bodyline so I'll bow to your knowledge on that. I thought it became a political issue because of how bad the damage was in terms of batsmen getting hit, but I'll freely admit I haven't read or seen much of it at all.
Bijed
International Regular
Fwiw, if I wanted to argue against Mankads, I might use a version of this. They're not exactly satisfying cricket to watch imo, on the rare occasions they come up.
They need to exist and since 'stay behind the crease' is such an easy hard counter to them, I don't feel much sympathy for professionals falling victim. But they're not really the sort of cricket I want to see from an entertainment POV
Bijed
International Regular
He averaged 56 anyway haha.
I know you weren't being serious, but I do like how a bloke was targeted basically a specially-devised method which was later banned and still returned figures which would be considered excellent from anyone else to ever play the game
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
Over time a lot of facts surrounding 'Bodyline' have become clouded. Initially the strategy of bowling to a packed leg side field was called 'leg theory'. George Hirst in the 1903-04 series and Frank Foster in 1911-12 both employed the tactic in Tests against Australia.
When, in the Ashes 1932-33 series, Jardine used it as a tactic combined with excessive short pitched bowling the term the Bodyline controversy erupted. The term 'Bodyline' first appeared in an article by Hugh Buggy in the Melbourne Herald. Despite the controversies at the time, no serious injuries were the result of short pitched deliveries while a leg theory field was set. Two incidents, however, were highlighted. Firstly Australian captain Bill Woodfull was struck over the heart when a ball reared up just short of a length (while a normal field was set). Jardine allegedly then called "Well bowled" to Larwood and set a leg theory field and instructed Larwood and Voce to attack the body. Later Australian 'keeper Bert Oldfield received a fractured skull when he edged an attempted hook into his head. There was no leg theory field in place but the crowd erupted.
While Anglo/Australian cricket relations were obviously strained there was no immediate attempt to change the relevant laws. In 1933 the West Indies toured England and Martindale and Constantine effectively used leg theory or Bodyline againt their opponents. Nottinghampshire county side, which included both Larwood and Voce continued to use the tactic despite a number of senior players expressing concerns. Gubby Allen had refused to bowl to a leg theory field in the 32/33 Ashes series and Walter Hammond was against the practice.
It wasn't until 1935 that the rules were changed, restricting the number of players on the leg side and effectively bringing an end to leg theory or Bodyline.
When, in the Ashes 1932-33 series, Jardine used it as a tactic combined with excessive short pitched bowling the term the Bodyline controversy erupted. The term 'Bodyline' first appeared in an article by Hugh Buggy in the Melbourne Herald. Despite the controversies at the time, no serious injuries were the result of short pitched deliveries while a leg theory field was set. Two incidents, however, were highlighted. Firstly Australian captain Bill Woodfull was struck over the heart when a ball reared up just short of a length (while a normal field was set). Jardine allegedly then called "Well bowled" to Larwood and set a leg theory field and instructed Larwood and Voce to attack the body. Later Australian 'keeper Bert Oldfield received a fractured skull when he edged an attempted hook into his head. There was no leg theory field in place but the crowd erupted.
While Anglo/Australian cricket relations were obviously strained there was no immediate attempt to change the relevant laws. In 1933 the West Indies toured England and Martindale and Constantine effectively used leg theory or Bodyline againt their opponents. Nottinghampshire county side, which included both Larwood and Voce continued to use the tactic despite a number of senior players expressing concerns. Gubby Allen had refused to bowl to a leg theory field in the 32/33 Ashes series and Walter Hammond was against the practice.
It wasn't until 1935 that the rules were changed, restricting the number of players on the leg side and effectively bringing an end to leg theory or Bodyline.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Funnily enough, very few (if any) players were badly hit
Objection to it lay solely on spirit of cricket grounds
Need to keep in mind that bowlers were jeered after bowling 1 bouncer in that era so a barrage was totally unlike anything seen before
Truth be known, Windies attacks of 70s and 80s were more brutal and Neil Wagner has often adopted similar tactics but without the legside field
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
They aren't. Someone's just being a complete idiot.
Never said they weren't tbf.
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
Bodyline was within the rules of the game at the time, just as a Mankad is within the rules of a game. To argue that one is worse than the other in terms of 'the spirit of the game' is futile. Both were legal.
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
Can you point that out anywhere? I can only see a definition of direct attack administered under the law of fair play and the new lbw law for 1935. Nothing about field restrictions.
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
I stand corrected.
"As a direct consequence of the 1932–33 tour, the MCC introduced a new rule to the laws of cricket for the 1935 English cricket season. Originally, the MCC hoped that captains would ensure that the game was played in the correct spirit, and passed a resolution that bodyline bowling would breach this spirit. When this proved to be insufficient, the MCC passed a law that "direct attack" bowling was unfair and became the responsibility of the umpires to identify and stop. In 1957, the laws were altered to prevent more than two fielders standing behind square on the leg side; the intention was to prevent negative bowling tactics whereby off spinners and slow inswing bowlers aimed at the leg stump of batsmen with fielders concentrated on the leg side. However, an indirect effect was to make bodyline fields impossible to implement."
Bodyline - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Coronis
International Coach
Yep the powers at be didn’t care, it was just the media getting mad cos Bradman was subpar (for him) and Australia losing.I stand corrected.
"As a direct consequence of the 1932–33 tour, the MCC introduced a new rule to the laws of cricket for the 1935 English cricket season. Originally, the MCC hoped that captains would ensure that the game was played in the correct spirit, and passed a resolution that bodyline bowling would breach this spirit. When this proved to be insufficient, the MCC passed a law that "direct attack" bowling was unfair and became the responsibility of the umpires to identify and stop. In 1957, the laws were altered to prevent more than two fielders standing behind square on the leg side; the intention was to prevent negative bowling tactics whereby off spinners and slow inswing bowlers aimed at the leg stump of batsmen with fielders concentrated on the leg side. However, an indirect effect was to make bodyline fields impossible to implement."
Bodyline - Wikipedia
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
@ all brilliant minds who thought it should be tried against Indians in a crucial game.
NotMcKenzie
International Debutant
It's quick singles what'd help
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well let's be honest, how do you know they wouldn't have left the crease if the bowler pretended to bowl it and waited for them which has been what happened in most of the recent mankad controversies
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Given it is not what happened and it is called a run-out, I would say I know it is not real and just something you cooked up in your head.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't think you understood, this doesn't make any sense.
Not sure why you seem upset either I don't think I said anything controversial but sorry if I offended you somehow