Were bodyline tactics actually that negative?

[the big bambino]

They were never called. They bowled bumpers. No biggy. Nothing special. As any team would have done.

 

[fredfertang]

And they never should have been - I wasn't seeking to suggest otherwise

I also sometimes wonder how things might have panned out if Bull Alexander had come off and hurt a couple of England's batsmen in the final Test, or if hyper extension had been understood then and Eddie Gilbert picked - I am a sad man but questions like that do fascinate me - no idea what might have happened, although I think we can say with certainty that Jardine would not have complained

 

[the big bambino]

You're a determined man Fred and I give in. I don't think Jardine would have complained either. Gilbert was worth a run for one or both of the last 2 tests on his best grounds of Brisbane and Sydney. The bloke who they should've paired with him (and the joined with Tim Wall) is Laurie Nash. Nash claimed he'd have sorted this out if they gave him just 3 overs at Hammond. Nash was never lacking confidence but what he says has some truth. I think England's other batsmen would have understandably complained if they rec'd some bodyline in return as I have heard speculated. Then it would have been a real test of Jardine's iron will and control to quell that insurrection. Somehow I think he would have.

 

[Adders]

How much does everyone think the bodyline series has shaped the Ashes as we know it today? Had it never happened would this intense rivalry between two teams and sets of supporters be like it is now? Would Aussies and Poms be talking about the "history" of the Ashes that sets it apart from all other series in quite the same nostalgic way?

 

[watson]

Bert Oldfield, the unlucky batsman at Adelaide Oval, had blood trickling from a linear fracture of the right frontal bone. An inch either way and he would have been killed.....

It was a dreadful realisation of the worst fears held by so many, as Bodyline crashed its awesome path through the summer, sooner or later somebody surely must get hit on the head and suffer serious consequences.

Woodfull, having been handed Oldfield's discarded bat by the umpire, eventually helped the dazed batsman from the arena. "Come along Bertie" he said gently. The captain later regretted not closing the innings there and then as a mark of disgust, as Bishan Bedi was to do 43 years later at Sabina Park, Jamaica as a protest against intimidatory bowling, with India at 300 for 6. He did the same in the second innings when India were 97 for 5, with two batsman nursing head injuries....

Bodyline Autopsy, page 197-198

Never mind the nostalgia, nor the tit-for-tat discussion about "well he did it too, so nah nah nah".

The real point is this - there does come a point during a Test match where the use of bouncers becomes just plain idiotic.

 

[Migara]

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.

asusual fails to grab the content of the post. The double standards are for the intimidating bowling of late 70s and early 80s. Not on bodyline.

 

[Migara]

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.

funny thing was when West Indies didn't pitch it up there were rumors on killing and breach of spirit of the game.and then bouncer numbers were curtailed. And that's what I call hypocrisy.

 

[the big bambino]

asusual fails to grab the content of the post. The double standards are for the intimidating bowling of late 70s and early 80s. Not on bodyline.

Ha! See what happens when you let your base passion to square up a vendetta overrule your head? You make a fool of yourself. The post referenced Australia's supposed hypocrisy and used our reaction to bodyline as an example. But that isn't a sustainable comparison as the country that instigated bodyline eventually accepted the Australian complaint as justified to the extent they codified it in the game's laws.

funny thing was when West Indies didn't pitch it up there were rumors on killing and breach of spirit of the game.and then bouncer numbers were curtailed. And that's what I call hypocrisy.

Once established that Australia's complaint against bodyline is justified it can't be used an instance of hypocrisy when set against the rule changes in the 80s. Those administrative changes were in reaction to the provocation of player's exploitation of the rules as they then stood. Hence the limit on bumpers as they were being bowled at tailenders and as a method to deprive batsmen of run scoring opportunities. In league with mandated over rates they were introduced to circumvent the player's cynicism...not just the WI. Factors not prevalent when Lindwall and Miller bowled bouncers. Or even Trueman, Statham, Tyson or Hall later. Griffith and Gilchrist though a different matter. Notably Gilchrist was drummed out of the game.

The rule changes in the 30s and 80s were in reaction to the way the rules as they then existed could be exploited. The rules were changed to make the game attractive and protect its participants. The treatment is consistent and therefore there is no hypocrisy.

 

[fredfertang]

You're a determined man Fred and I give in. I don't think Jardine would have complained either. Gilbert was worth a run for one or both of the last 2 tests on his best grounds of Brisbane and Sydney. The bloke who they should've paired with him (and the joined with Tim Wall) is Laurie Nash. Nash claimed he'd have sorted this out if they gave him just 3 overs at Hammond. Nash was never lacking confidence but what he says has some truth. I think England's other batsmen would have understandably complained if they rec'd some bodyline in return as I have heard speculated. Then it would have been a real test of Jardine's iron will and control to quell that insurrection. Somehow I think he would have.

It's a refreshing thing to be able to have a robust debate with someone who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't regularly eject toys from their pram

Had bodyline been bowled at England then I would think Jardine would have just dropped any conscientious objectors like he did with Pataudi. Although I doubt there would have too many given the team spirit that they seemed to have had - Hammond I suspect would have adopted the Bradman approach but as for the rest I reckon Jardine would have gone in first with Sutcliffe and they would have shown the way - Wyatt, Leyland and Paynter certainly didn't lack courage

And on reflection I don't think I chose the word hypocrisy very well, and am slightly annoyed with myself for trotting it out without looking for means of expressing what I meant - having slept on it what I'm really accusing Australia of in 32/33 is being sanctimonious rather hypocritical

 

[Debris]

It's a refreshing thing to be able to have a robust debate with someone who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't regularly eject toys from their pram

Had bodyline been bowled at England then I would think Jardine would have just dropped any conscientious objectors like he did with Pataudi. Although I doubt there would have too many given the team spirit that they seemed to have had - Hammond I suspect would have adopted the Bradman approach but as for the rest I reckon Jardine would have gone in first with Sutcliffe and they would have shown the way - Wyatt, Leyland and Paynter certainly didn't lack courage

And on reflection I don't think I chose the word hypocrisy very well, and am slightly annoyed with myself for trotting it out without looking for means of expressing what I meant - having slept on it what I'm really accusing Australia of in 32/33 is being sanctimonious rather hypocritical

What exactly are you objecting to about the Australians actions in 32/33? Was it their refusal to bowl bodyline or something else?

 

[Furball]

Never mind the nostalgia, nor the tit-for-tat discussion about "well he did it too, so nah nah nah".

The real point is this - there does come a point during a Test match where the use of bouncers becomes just plain idiotic.

Wasn't Oldfield hurt because he top-edged one into his face?

IIRC Larwood wasn't actually bowling to a bodyline field when he injured Oldfield.

 

[Furball]

What exactly are you objecting to about the Australians actions in 32/33? Was it their refusal to bowl bodyline or something else?

I object to the Australians having a sook because they were being roundly thrashed.

 

[fredfertang]

What exactly are you objecting to about the Australians actions in 32/33? Was it their refusal to bowl bodyline or something else?

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.

 

[Unomaas]

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.

A very astute point!

 

[Migara]

Ha! See what happens when you let your base passion to square up a vendetta overrule your head? You make a fool of yourself. The post referenced Australia's supposed hypocrisy and used our reaction to bodyline as an example. But that isn't a sustainable comparison as the country that instigated bodyline eventually accepted the Australian complaint as justified to the extent they codified it in the game's laws.

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.

The rule changes in the 30s and 80s were in reaction to the way the rules as they then existed could be exploited. The rules were changed to make the game attractive and protect its participants. The treatment is consistent and therefore there is no hypocrisy.

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.

 

[wpdavid]

How much does everyone think the bodyline series has shaped the Ashes as we know it today? Had it never happened would this intense rivalry between two teams and sets of supporters be like it is now? Would Aussies and Poms be talking about the "history" of the Ashes that sets it apart from all other series in quite the same nostalgic way?

Yeah, you'd have to think they would. Not least because there were a whole load of massively memorable contests in the 50 years before the Bodyline series.
Contrary to some folks' views, they weren't using curved bats and underarm bowling until Jardine's team turned up.

And in terms of being a hard-nosed bastard, Jardine was only a posher version of Warwick Armstrong anyway.

 

[watson]

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.

The use of the term 'sanctimonious' doesn't make sense. If the selectors had called up Eddie Gilbert and then asked him to pepper Jardine and Hammond with bouncers with a leg-side field, then sure, sanctimonious would be a good word to use, as would its synonym hypocrite.

However, I can still understand why the word sanctimonious seems appropriate. After all, didn't Bradman use Lindwall and Miller in 1948 to intimidate Hutton and the other English batsman?

While that may be true, we should always be careful when applying 'revisionism' to history. Lindwall and Miller weren't around in the early 1930s, so cannot be used to interpret the events of the Bodyline series. It is all very well for us to look back in hindsight, but It would have been impossible for Woodfull and co. to know the future.

I prefer a more generous estimation of the Australian mood at the time - that is, the anger expressed by Australians was directly caused by the genuine fear of an Australian batsman taking a blow to his head and being killed or severely hurt.

Ironically, there may have also been a feeling that it was the English who were being sanctimonious. After all, had they not invented the 'gentlemans game' and then expected everyone else to behave in accordant fashion?

Perhaps the use of sanctimonious cuts both ways?

 

[fredfertang]

I was thinking in terms of Warwick Armstrong, Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald, great players all of course, but a terrifying prospect for the previous generation of England batsmen

 

[watson]

I was thinking in terms of Warwick Armstrong, Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald, great players all of course, but a terrifying prospect for the previous generation of England batsmen

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?

 

[the big bambino]

It's a refreshing thing to be able to have a robust debate with someone who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't regularly eject toys from their pram

Had bodyline been bowled at England then I would think Jardine would have just dropped any conscientious objectors like he did with Pataudi. Although I doubt there would have too many given the team spirit that they seemed to have had - Hammond I suspect would have adopted the Bradman approach but as for the rest I reckon Jardine would have gone in first with Sutcliffe and they would have shown the way - Wyatt, Leyland and Paynter certainly didn't lack courage

And on reflection I don't think I chose the word hypocrisy very well, and am slightly annoyed with myself for trotting it out without looking for means of expressing what I meant - having slept on it what I'm really accusing Australia of in 32/33 is being sanctimonious rather hypocritical

Ha thanks for that. Without wishing to appear to be pissing in your pocket I happened onto CW when a google search revealed your article on Bill Bowes. I saw the site, thought it better than the one I was on and joined. Its an idle leisure to wonder what would have happened if Australia retaliated (and I can already see Watson hoisting me on my own petard for speculating when I previously doubted the value of counterfactuals). I think England would have persisted as you say and for the reasons you explain. Also it would have been a major backdown that would have given Australia the ascendancy and that wasn't in Jardine's nature.

Australia would have had to drop Woodfull from the captaincy at least and possibly from the team. Richardson would take his place. Maybe this side would have been picked for retaliation: Fingleton Richardson Slinger Nitschke Bradman McCabe Ponsford Oldfield Nash Wall O'Reilly and a combination of Alexander Gilbert and Halcombe at 11 depending on form and availability. I still think Eng would have won but the determination to end the tactic would have gathered earlier and correspondence from the Australian board would necessarily have been worded differently and taken more seriously by its recipient.