Were bodyline tactics actually that negative?

[Blocky]

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

I don't, considering we still hold Bradman up as the greatest of all time, more than fifty years since he last batted in anger.

 

[benchmark00]

I would say that the fact that we still do consider Bradman the greatest of all time is a victory for all of those people who put things in context itbt.

 

[Blocky]

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.

Yawn. Johnson used intimidatory tactics to limit the amount of runs made by batsmen in the English side, specifically Prior, Broad and Swann who had all had success in converting average scores into serviceable totals through some late order hitting. Considering by the rules of the game, bowling a purposeful intimidation line repeatedly to a batsman is outside the code of conduct, why should we accept this as being any different to Larwood bouncing the top order of Australia? Irregardless of safety equipment, I'd dare say actual batsman are much more capable of handling those tactics than tail enders, which if you ever read or reviewed the bodyline series were not subjected to the short pitch bowling.

 

[Blocky]

I would say that the fact that we still do consider Bradman the greatest of all time is a victory for all of those people who put things in context itbt.

On a statistic differential basis, there is always credibility behind Bradman being the greatest due to his dominance of his peers in that period, however that period also had a lot more players averaging well above fifty than almost any other period until today.

 

[benchmark00]

On a statistic differential basis, there is always credibility behind Bradman being the greatest due to his dominance of his peers in that period, however that period also had a lot more players averaging well above fifty than almost any other period until today.

Yeah that's cool, but the first part ruins any argument you could put forward.

The only thing you can compare bodyline to is the underarm incident.

Both against the spirit of the game at the time. Both well within the laws of cricket at the time.

 

[Adders]

I don't, considering we still hold Bradman up as the greatest of all time, more than fifty years since he last batted in anger.

Not sure how that has anything to do with comparing bodyline to what Mitchell Johnson has been serving up to the English tail end??

Surely you understand the fundamental difference is the protective clothing todays players are wearing?

Hey, I'm pro bodyline but Voce and Larwood (and later Lillee, Thommo and the four horsemen of the apocalypse) had the very real potential to seriously hurt or even kill a batsmen..........Johnson doesn't. Broken toes, bruised ribs and hurt pride is the worst he can inflict.

 

[the big bambino]

On a statistic differential basis, there is always credibility behind Bradman being the greatest due to his dominance of his peers in that period, however that period also had a lot more players averaging well above fifty than almost any other period until today.

From 27-39 those men were Hutton Headley Dempster and Hammond. But that is if you use a cut off of 10 or more tests. That is a small no. A fairer cut off point would be 15 tests in which case remove Hutton and Dempster.

Even then Hammond's record is boosted by series v NZ, one of which was retrospectively granted test test status. Headley, though great often played Eng XIs less than full strength. Never mind; both great records.

The real comparsion to assess the bowling Bradman faced is comparing his average to that of his team mates. That would make sense. No Aussie bat averaged over 60 in that period. Only 2 averaged 50+ if you use the 10 test cut off. One of those is Fairfax who played 12 innings and his average is assisted by 4 not outs. The remainder is Ponsford and his average of 52 is almost half of Bradman's

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Yawn. Johnson used intimidatory tactics to limit the amount of runs made by batsmen in the English side, specifically Prior, Broad and Swann who had all had success in converting average scores into serviceable totals through some late order hitting. Considering by the rules of the game, bowling a purposeful intimidation line repeatedly to a batsman is outside the code of conduct, why should we accept this as being any different to Larwood bouncing the top order of Australia? Irregardless of safety equipment, I'd dare say actual batsman are much more capable of handling those tactics than tail enders, which if you ever read or reviewed the bodyline series were not subjected to the short pitch bowling.

Safety equipment is the whole fact of the matter though (imo). Whats the chance of one of the England tail enders being killed compared to one of the Aussie top order batsmen.


Yeah, thought so...


As you should know, intimidation is part of a fast bowlers arsenal. However i can't think of a single bowler ever, who was intimidating for the sake of being intimidating, rather than being intimidating for the sake of taking wickets.

 

[watson]

Safety equipment is the whole fact of the matter though (imo). Whats the chance of one of the England tail enders being killed compared to one of the Aussie top order batsmen.


Yeah, thought so...


As you should know, intimidation is part of a fast bowlers arsenal. However i can't think of a single bowler ever, who was intimidating for the sake of being intimidating, rather than being intimidating for the sake of taking wickets.

Roy Gilchrist?

Beamed into exile

.....After a draw in the final Test, West Indies had a last match against North Zone at Amritsar before starting the Pakistan leg of the tour. It was there the wheels really came off.

North Zone were led by Swaranjit Singh, a colleague of Alexander's at Cambridge University. On the eve of the match Gilchrist claimed that he had been told that Singh was boasting how he would deal with him. To make such bold statements about any fast bowler is brave verging on foolhardy. To do so about a character as volatile as Gilchrist could be interpreted as bordering on insanity.

In the first innings Gilchrist bowled Singh first ball. In the second innings, Singh made a start and had reached 15 when, in the over before lunch, Gilchrist sent down a brute of a bouncer. The next ball was pitched up and driven for four. But as batsman passed bowler, Singh said: "You like that one? Beautiful wasn't it?"

If Singh didn't know what was coming next, everyone who knew Gilchrist did. It was the beamer - "the fastest ball I had ever let rip in my life" - and, softened up, Singh edged the next ball to Alexander at short leg who dropped it. That tipped Gilchrist over the edge and two more potentially lethal beamers followed that "must almost have singed his beard." In between those two balls Alexander made it clear that there were to be no more beamers. That was a red rag to an already enraged bull.

As the sides trooped off the field for lunch, Alexander quietly came up to Gilchrist and told him that he had bowled his last ball on tour. Furthermore, he had asked North Zone if they would allow a substitute, which they readily agreed to, and so Gilchrist sat out the game.

In the aftermath, the selectors met and unanimously decided to send Gilchrist home while the rest of the squad went on to Pakistan. "You leave by the next flight," Alexander said curtly. "Good afternoon." In the coming years the circumstances surrounding Gilchrist's expulsion became more clouded with stories circulating that he had pulled a knife on Alexander.


http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/146279.html

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Roy Gilchrist?

Good point, completely forgot about him and probably a few overs.

He was a complete and utter **** though and as such is definitely an exception to the rule.

 

[zaremba]

Bodyline is a cynical tactic (and therefore 'negative') for the simple reason that its use dramatically increases the statistical likelihood of any unprotected batsman being severely maimed.

The fact that an Australian wasn't severely maimed was a matter of pure luck, and the ONLY reason why we are having this discussion. That is, if Woodfull or Oldfield had taken a more dangerous blow to the skull, and hence been put out of action permanently, then there would be no ethical debate - Bodyline would be pronounced as cynical and unacceptably dangerous by all cricket followers.

Out of interest, was any batsman in fact ever badly hurt facing bodyline bowling? As has been pointed out, Woodfull and Oldfield were hurt by orthodox bowling. Our resident Fast Leg Theory expert might be able to inform us. Fred?

 

[Red]

On a statistic differential basis, there is always credibility behind Bradman being the greatest due to his dominance of his peers in that period, however that period also had a lot more players averaging well above fifty than almost any other period until today.

Doesn't matter. Bradman was still 40% better than the very next best of his era. No one else has ever done anything like that before.