Were bodyline tactics actually that negative?

[watson]

Nah the Aussies were squealing - England raised no complaint, well not publicly anyway, about Armstrong's gamesmanship generally nor specifically about Gregory and McDonald's assaults in 1920 and 1921

I'm not saying that Gregory and McDonald didn't target the batsman's body/head because I don't know much about the 1920 + 21 series. But what evidence is there that they either bowler engaged in 'assaults' against the batsman?

 

[Adders]

I think the racial problems faced by the WI, particularly in Oz are cricket forum fantasies. Yes some but there wasn't a seething under current or whatever. Don't know about England but in Oz they were popular. They weren't like Jack Johnson which is why they enjoy coming here and we enjoy seeing them

.

If you haven't already seen it then this really is a must watch for any cricket tragic.

Fire in Babylon (2010) - IMDb

Straight from the horses mouth what they encountered and I really don't think the likes of Viv and Holding are the type to have any chip on their shoulder.

 

[watson]

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.

 

[the big bambino]

Fair point Watson and a a counter for me to consider as I admired Jardine.

Adders. I'm not saying it didn't happen and I remember watching Patrick patterson cop some stupid (though it wasn't racial amazingly) at the WACA when playing for Tasmania. The overall reception of the WI then is the same as it is now; overwhelmingly affectionate. Look even now at Viv's looked forward to appearances at the big bash comm box as an example.

It is a remarkable person that is without fault. There were similar allegations against the WI team of the era, especially by West Indians of Indian descent that the side was an "African XI" All I can say is that its awful when it happens but thankfully when it does it isn't reflective of a majority...imo.

 

[fredfertang]

Bodyline had to be outlawed. If it hadn't been it would have killed the game as at lower levels it would have been too dangerous - someone would indeed have died.

But that isn't really the point as far as the 32/33 series is concerned. First up these batsmen were the best in the world - the Australian quick Bull Alexander summed it up well when he pointed out that a batsman had a bat, and if he hooked the bowler to the boundary what a mug the crowd thought the bowler was. Larwood didn't bounce the tailenders and nor did Voce - all of the Australian batsman, had they chosen to do so, could have just rocked out of the way of the leg side stuff - and don't forget that when both Woodfull and Oldfield were hit Larwood was bowling to a conventional field.

Ultimately bodyline happened because the balance between bat and ball had been moving too far towards the bat for years, and then Bradman happened - and after 1930 Jardine's expectation that Australia would bat England to oblivion was perfectly understandable - he worked out a way ahead and I admire him for that alone, but why I have so much respect for the bloke is that he stuck to his guns despite everything that was thrown at him, and he was certainly right to do so

 

[watson]

Bodyline had to be outlawed. If it hadn't been it would have killed the game as at lower levels it would have been too dangerous - someone would indeed have died.

But that isn't really the point as far as the 32/33 series is concerned. First up these batsmen were the best in the world - the Australian quick Bull Alexander summed it up well when he pointed out that a batsman had a bat, and if he hooked the bowler to the boundary what a mug the crowd thought the bowler was. Larwood didn't bounce the tailenders and nor did Voce - all of the Australian batsman, had they chosen to do so, could have just rocked out of the way of the leg side stuff - and don't forget that when both Woodfull and Oldfield were hit Larwood was bowling to a conventional field.

Ultimately bodyline happened because the balance between bat and ball had been moving too far towards the bat for years, and then Bradman happened - and after 1930 Jardine's expectation that Australia would bat England to oblivion was perfectly understandable - he worked out a way ahead and I admire him for that alone, but why I have so much respect for the bloke is that he stuck to his guns despite everything that was thrown at him, and he was certainly right to do so

Jardine 'stuck to his guns' alright. But I've never understood why being dogmatic is considered an admirable character trait to have. Many politicians and other public figures use the "I'm inflexible and tough" mantra to conceal bad policy. The fact that are "making a stand" doesn't magically turn it into good policy. It remains bad policy no matter what their posturing is like.

 

[Red]

Bodyline had to be outlawed. If it hadn't been it would have killed the game as at lower levels it would have been too dangerous - someone would indeed have died.

But that isn't really the point as far as the 32/33 series is concerned. First up these batsmen were the best in the world - the Australian quick Bull Alexander summed it up well when he pointed out that a batsman had a bat, and if he hooked the bowler to the boundary what a mug the crowd thought the bowler was. Larwood didn't bounce the tailenders and nor did Voce - all of the Australian batsman, had they chosen to do so, could have just rocked out of the way of the leg side stuff - and don't forget that when both Woodfull and Oldfield were hit Larwood was bowling to a conventional field.

Ultimately bodyline happened because the balance between bat and ball had been moving too far towards the bat for years, and then Bradman happened - and after 1930 Jardine's expectation that Australia would bat England to oblivion was perfectly understandable - he worked out a way ahead and I admire him for that alone, but why I have so much respect for the bloke is that he stuck to his guns despite everything that was thrown at him, and he was certainly right to do so

I respect your opinion greatly Fred, and I'd hesitate to argue with you on historical aspects of the game, but I do have one question for you.

As I understand it, after Bodyline happened, tension between Aust and Eng was so bad that Eng were trying to force Larwood into making an apology, which I believe he refused to do as he was acting under the instructions of his captain. If England's conduct was not unsportsmanlike, why did they try to force Larwood to apologise, and then make him a pariah when he refused (as he probably could have been England's undisputed greatest quick ever had he been allowed a career in which to bowl "normally")?

I read Larwood's biography a few years ago and it was the best cricket bio I've ever read. Jardine was by no means a "bad" person as Aust's make him out to be, but a much loved figure, especially by Larwood, and later by many Australians including Miller.

 

[fredfertang]

Jardine 'stuck to his guns' alright. But I've never understood why being dogmatic is considered an admirable character trait to have. Many politicians and other public figures use the "I'm inflexible and tough" mantra to conceal bad policy. The fact that are "making a stand" doesn't magically turn it into good policy. It remains bad policy no matter what their posturing is like.

I respect your opinion greatly Fred, and I'd hesitate to argue with you on historical aspects of the game, but I do have one question for you.

As I understand it, after Bodyline happened, tension between Aust and Eng was so bad that Eng were trying to force Larwood into making an apology, which I believe he refused to do as he was acting under the instructions of his captain. If England's conduct was not unsportsmanlike, why did they try to force Larwood to apologise, and then make him a pariah when he refused (as he probably could have been England's undisputed greatest quick ever had he been allowed a career in which to bowl "normally")?

I read Larwood's biography a few years ago and it was the best cricket bio I've ever read. Jardine was by no means a "bad" person as Aust's make him out to be, but a much loved figure, especially by Larwood, and later by many Australians including Miller.

It was badly handled all round as far as I can see, mainly because of the distances involved and the fact that the MCC didn't know what was going on. The Australians didn't help by using the word "unsportsmanlike" in the infamous cable which the MCC had little choice but to rebuff - as I've already conceded Bodyline couldn't be allowed to continue and the MCC saw that as soon as the 1933 season started - Hammond for one was quite happy in Australia dishing it out but didn't like it once he was on the receiving end. As to the apology I think that was just about money - there was talk of Australia not sending a team in 1934 and that would have been financially disastrous with a series coming up that was guaranteed to sell out. So the appeasers had their way - the demand made of Larwood was outrageous, and he was absolutely right to refuse.

Another part of the problem was the way Bodyline was outlawed. They brought in this ludicrously vague law about "direct attack" bowling which put the umpires in a very difficult position as they had to decide what was and was not a direct attack - I can only assume that no one thought of introducing the law we have now limiting the fielders on the leg side which would, of course, have got rid of it much more effectively and without relying on consistency of umpiring

As to Watson's post what should Jardine have done? Give up the series? Mike Denness didn't ask Ian Chappell to stop bowling Lillee and Thomson despite the clear "direct attack" that was being made on him and his batsmen and I believe that Jardine was fully entitled to do whatever was within the laws of the game in order to win - I appreciate that sportsmanship is a different thing, but no Bodyline was bowled to the Australian tailenders at all (an attitude rather different from that demonstrated by Lillee and Thomson) and at one time or other all the Australian batsmen showed that Bodyline could be played effectively, as of course did DRJ on the one occasion he got to face it

 

[watson]

It was badly handled all round as far as I can see, mainly because of the distances involved and the fact that the MCC didn't know what was going on. The Australians didn't help by using the word "unsportsmanlike" in the infamous cable which the MCC had little choice but to rebuff - as I've already conceded Bodyline couldn't be allowed to continue and the MCC saw that as soon as the 1933 season started - Hammond for one was quite happy in Australia dishing it out but didn't like it once he was on the receiving end. As to the apology I think that was just about money - there was talk of Australia not sending a team in 1934 and that would have been financially disastrous with a series coming up that was guaranteed to sell out. So the appeasers had their way - the demand made of Larwood was outrageous, and he was absolutely right to refuse.

Another part of the problem was the way Bodyline was outlawed. They brought in this ludicrously vague law about "direct attack" bowling which put the umpires in a very difficult position as they had to decide what was and was not a direct attack - I can only assume that no one thought of introducing the law we have now limiting the fielders on the leg side which would, of course, have got rid of it much more effectively and without relying on consistency of umpiring

As to Watson's post what should Jardine have done? Give up the series? Mike Denness didn't ask Ian Chappell to stop bowling Lillee and Thomson despite the clear "direct attack" that was being made on him and his batsmen and I believe that Jardine was fully entitled to do whatever was within the laws of the game in order to win - I appreciate that sportsmanship is a different thing, but no Bodyline was bowled to the Australian tailenders at all (an attitude rather different from that demonstrated by Lillee and Thomson) and at one time or other all the Australian batsmen showed that Bodyline could be played effectively, as of course did DRJ on the one occasion he got to face it

No one expected Jardine to give up the series. But life is full of necessary compromises, and Jardine should have compromised. A few less fielders on the leg side, and a few less bumpers per over and he may have got away with it and gone down in history as a complete hero.

 

[the big bambino]

Jardine distinguishes himself from the analogy with dogmatic politicians. Pollies are arrogant enough to persist with failed policies in the belief that intransigence is a virtue. Believing they are more virtuous than the voters who are rejecting them. Jardine however was winning and had no reason to compromise or change.

 

[Adders]

and gone down in history as a complete hero.

Already has in my book.

 

[Adders]

Jardine however was winning and had no reason to compromise or change.

Exactly, the policy was working.

 

[watson]

Exactly, the policy was working.

Not quite exactly. Jardine's 'full frontal assault' may have won the battle, but he ended up losing the war. A smart general would have used a bit more stealth at some point in the campaign.

 

[Adders]

Not quite exactly. Jardine's 'full frontal assault' may have won the battle, but he ended up losing the war. A smart general would have used a bit more stealth at some point in the campaign.

A cricket captains job is to win games of cricket, Jardine did his job. As is so often the case the war was lost by the politicians nowhere near the front line.

 

[fredfertang]

No one expected Jardine to give up the series. But life is full of necessary compromises, and Jardine should have compromised. A few less fielders on the leg side, and a few less bumpers per over and he may have got away with it and gone down in history as a complete hero.

If Jardine had done that after Adelaide Bradman would have got double hundreds at the 'Gabba and the SCG and Australia would have retained the Ashes

 

[Unomaas]

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.

If you look at your words from another perspective...

Playing Mitchell Johnson 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.

which was exactly what MJ was trying to do when Michael Clarke was quoted as saying:

We are gonna break your ****ing arm

 

[mullarkey]

.

If you haven't already seen it then this really is a must watch for any cricket tragic.

Fire in Babylon (2010) - IMDb

Straight from the horses mouth what they encountered and I really don't think the likes of Viv and Holding are the type to have any chip on their shoulder.

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.

 

[fredfertang]

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.

There's an interesting comparison to be had between public reaction to that Saturday evening at Old Trafford in '76, when Roberts, Holding and Daniel launched their assault on John Edrich and Brian Close, and the reaction at Adelaide in 32/33 when Bert Oldfield was hit

In 32/33 the crowd and public at large condemned England so much so that the players started getting close to the stumps in case they needed to protect themselves during a crowd invasion

In '76 all I can recall is feeling intensely proud to be English and total admiration for Closey and Edrich, and as far as I can recall almost everyone else felt the same - I didn't even think about the West Indian bowlers

 

[mullarkey]

There's an interesting comparison to be had between public reaction to that Saturday evening at Old Trafford in '76, when Roberts, Holding and Daniel launched their assault on John Edrich and Brian Close, and the reaction at Adelaide in 32/33 when Bert Oldfield was hit

In 32/33 the crowd and public at large condemned England so much so that the players started getting close to the stumps in case they needed to protect themselves during a crowd invasion

In '76 all I can recall is feeling intensely proud to be English and total admiration for Closey and Edrich, and as far as I can recall almost everyone else felt the same - I didn't even think about the West Indian bowlers

Absolutely, I was with my Dad, Uncle and brother, for all the p..s taking about the pensioners opening the batting no one can doubt the enormous courage they showed. I never heard a word of critisism aimed at the WI bowlers.

 

[Unomaas]

But tbf the hypocrisy shown by the Aussies when the WI's returned to Aus with their own vicious assault was not dissimilar to that shown by England during the WI's tour when Tony Grieg made his infamous "grovel" comment[/B].

Yes, it was similar but also dissimilar because of the context, politics and history of the Eng-WI series. It was a contest between the colonial masters vs a resurgent WI teams that had come to prove a point. There was alot of emotion in the contest from the Windies side and Greig's comment further revitalized the Windies to their goal of proving that they were not Calypso Cricketers plying their trade for the entertainment of the crowds.