• 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.

With the benefit of hindsight, were Jardine's 'bodyline' tactics justified?

With the benefit of hindsight, were Jardine's 'bodyline' tactics justified?

  • Yes, the tactics were justified and without them, England would have lost

    Votes: 7 38.9%

  • Yes, the tactics were justified. Nevertheless, without them, England still would have won

    Votes: 6 33.3%

  • No, the tactics were not justified. Moreover, England would have lost without them

    Votes: 4 22.2%

  • No, the tactics were not justified. Furthermore, England still would have won without them

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .
archie mac

archie mac

International Coach
Uppercut said:
Leg theory wasn't a new tactic so it's strange to draw a line between cricket and not-cricket based on the fact that Larwood was good enough to render the tactic dangerous. Was it really reasonable to say that a tactic which no one thought twice about when a bad bowler used it is "against the spirit" when a good bowler uses it? That doesn't sound quite right to me. But then, neither does aiming express bowling at the batsman's body in the 1930s.
Click to expand...
The difference is in the past they bowled down the leg side but not short as employed by Jardine's boys:)

Frank Foster and Fred Root used in Aust and England respectively and there was no out cry about danger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top