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

[Quaggas]

I remember a day after the underarm incident G Pollock cracked an underarm Rice delivery for 6 - though he used his foot first.

 

[Burgey]

Nah. Larwood was abused and sent death threats for years afterwards and hated Australians for their treatment of him. Things only softened over the years. He was a warmly welcomed migrant but only after a lot of water had passed under the bridge.

By the time the Centenary Test rolled around in 1977, Larwood and Voce were given a standing O as they walked out together onto the MCG before the start of play on one of the days. At one point Voce handed Larwood his jacket and measured out his run up for a lark.

Brumby, I can't ever recall reading that Bradman said Larwood was a chucker. I'd be interested in reading about that. Have you got a reference at all?

 

[Burgey]

Indeed and its interesting to study how the series influenced the relationship between Australia and England at the time

It still does.

****s they are.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Brumby, I can't ever recall reading that Bradman said Larwood was a chucker. I'd be interested in reading about that. Have you got a reference at all?

It was mentioned in Larwood's biography. A quick Google found this.

When doing his after dinner speaking bit Sir Donald would show a film of a left-arm seamer who seemed to have akink in his elbow, the crowd would give their assent that the bowler had a dubious action and he'd then reveal it was reversed film of Lol.

 

[The Sean]

It was mentioned in Larwood's biography. A quick Google found this.

When doing his after dinner speaking bit Sir Donald would show a film of a left-arm seamer who seemed to have akink in his elbow, the crowd would give their assent that the bowler had a dubious action and he'd then reveal it was reversed film of Lol.

I've heard that before but always found it difficult to believe. Show me footage of Harold Larwood bowling but reversed to look like he was a left-armer and I'd still know who it was. While I acknowledge that not everyone in these audiences was a cricket fan, surely he couldn't have kept fooling them all?

 

[Burgey]

It was mentioned in Larwood's biography. A quick Google found this.

When doing his after dinner speaking bit Sir Donald would show a film of a left-arm seamer who seemed to have akink in his elbow, the crowd would give their assent that the bowler had a dubious action and he'd then reveal it was reversed film of Lol.

Good thing he didn't show Lindwall....

Cheers for that.

 

[GotSpin]

I always assumed they weren't very friendly anyway. Did this incident have a particularly measured difference?

It's been a while since I've looked at it closely but it strained relations between Australia and England and there was a general dislike between the two countries that lasted for years following the series itself

 

[benchmark00]

Don't fully agree.

Bodyline could successfully be countered as McCabe, Bradman and Jardine himself shown. Took brass balls & a high pain threshold or an eagle eye but it was possible. There's no way a ball rolled along the ground could be hit for six.

Also, on Jardine's rep in Oz, the great man himself said after returning to Australia in the 50s on a business trip that he was generally treated as an old so-and-so who'd gotten away with it rather than the bogeyman. I think his reputation really suffered as a result of the genuine animus between him and Bradman. Sir Donald could be a man as small as his stature on occasion and it's a matter of record that he never accorded Larwood his due, traducing him as a chucker, so far less the man who set Notts' champion loose on him.

As Bradman ascended to the status of living deity I think his opinion of DRJ became the prevalent Australian one.

So you're saying Chappell's captaincy was better because it left nothing to chance?

People who use the 'it took more skill to carry out' line or other such things are merely looking for a superficial way to split the two. Essentially, they were the same thing. Both broke the spirit of the game and both were designed to win the game.

 

[Hurricane]

I am opposed to Bodyline. The majority of players were unable to cope with it.

 

[The Sean]

Good thing he didn't show Lindwall....

Ha ha, this.

 

[Burgey]

Jardine was a single minded man sent here to win the Ashes, and he put his considerable mind to defeating the problem of Bradman. To that extent his tactics were justified. Same goes for Chappell and underarm, Waugh and systematic sledging.

None are particularly "cricket" in the sense the word is sometimes used, but they're all within the laws of the game.

Ftr I don't think England would have won without Bodyline. Larwood was a menace, but absent the leg side field, I've no doubt Bradman would have dealt with him. Keep in mind that even with the unprecedented physical threat of Bodyline, Bradman still averaged 56 or 57. Remarkable really.

 

[Hurricane]

Jardine was a single minded man sent here to win the Ashes, and he put his considerable mind to defeating the problem of Bradman. To that extent his tactics were justified. Same hoes for Chappell and underarm, Waugh and systematic sledging.

I have quoted you - but I am not singling you out as you represent the views of many who have responded.

Playing the game to the maximum permissable by laws might be ok for some sports but not for Cricket. Because that just wouldn't be cricket. The spirit of the game has a special place with this sport. I could get on a soap box but I would just be illustrating this theme.

Cricket is not warfare -

 

[fredfertang]

I have quoted you - but I am not singling you out as you represent the views of many who have responded.

Playing the game to the maximum permissable by laws might be ok for some sports but not for Cricket. Because that just wouldn't be cricket. The spirit of the game has a special place with this sport. I could get on a soap box but I would just be illustrating this theme.

Cricket is not warfare -

Indeed it has, but to be a contest both sides have to have a chance of winning. In 1930 a 22 year old Bradman with no previous experience in England had averaged all but 140 in the Tests. Looking at the 32/33 tour beforehand it must have looked like two years on, in timeless Tests and on shirtfronts, that Bradman simply would not be dismissed unless the rain fell and the wicket's got sticky. Had the laws and playing conditions not conspired in that way there would have been no bodyline - it wasn't warfare - it was the only way England had a chance

 

[Uppercut]

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.

 

[Redbacks]

It's been a while since I've looked at it closely but it strained relations between Australia and England and there was a general dislike between the two countries that lasted for years following the series itself

According to the mini series mentioned in the OP, we made big complaints to the MCC and were threatening to pull the series if the tactic continued. The Crown then used their clout to threatened to call in some debts to the Government. As a result, like we did in the face of India's recent protest, Australia as always under such pressure collapsed like <provocative claim against a certain unnamed player>.

 

[Hurricane]

Indeed it has, but to be a contest both sides have to have a chance of winning. In 1930 a 22 year old Bradman with no previous experience in England had averaged all but 140 in the Tests. Looking at the 32/33 tour beforehand it must have looked like two years on, in timeless Tests and on shirtfronts, that Bradman simply would not be dismissed unless the rain fell and the wicket's got sticky. Had the laws and playing conditions not conspired in that way there would have been no bodyline - it wasn't warfare - it was the only way England had a chance

So it was justified because is gave England there only chance of winning.

This is situational ethics. Sometime situational ethics makes sense - like if someone is attacking you with a knife. Most of the time situational ethics leads to inappropriate decision making.
If Bodyline were a good thing and could be justified then it would not have been banned.

Imagine if Bodyline had not have been banned. Imagine if it became pervasive at all levels of cricket. Starting at 14 years old playing in an adult league I would have had to have faced leg theory. I would have quit the game - cricket would dwindle in numbers and only a certain sort of athlete would be attracted to the game.

The best thing that happened in the Bodyline series is that England won. If Aussie had've won then - people would have said you can play against that type of bowling and it would have continued for longer.

Lastly under your logic (and the pervasive logic of this thread) if NZ plays England next week - a series which we will definitely lose. It is ok for us to play the game to the very extreme I take it and while not cheating use gamesmanship and dispense with the spirit of the game in pursuit of victory. Because that would be our only chance of victory.

 

[fredfertang]

I agree entirely that bodyline had to be banned, in minor cricket it would in due course have killed someone and eventually the game. The only point I am making is that it was the laws of the game that made it's development inevitable.

In fact without it England would have had a chance, because as things turned out the wickets had a degree of uneven bounce, but prior to embarking on the tour the same flat wickets that had characterized every series in Australia since the Great War were expected - quite simply the laws had tilted the balance between bat and ball too far towards the bat even before the enormous strength of Australia's batting was factored in.
It's worth remembering also that bodyline wasn't intended to be a "weapon". It's purpose was to limit the batsman's options by closing off the off side for scoring thereby leaving the batsmen the choice of not scoring at all or taking his chances against a packed leg side field with extra catchers.

McCabe showed that the leg side route could be effective, and Bradman demonstrated that bodyline could be countered by retreating towards square leg and opening up the vacant off side. It was the uneven bounce that resulted in the slow footed players like Woodfull, Ponsford and Fingleton being hit as frequently as they were as they couldn't be certain that a delivery that was just short of a length would pass over the top of the stumps.

... and of course there is always the old chestnut, entirely true, that when the two significant injuries were sustained by Oldfield and Woodfull Larwood was bowling off theory

 

[Hurricane]

Great post

But don't you think there is a difference Fred between something being inevitable and "logical" and something being justified?

Perhaps we need to agree on what the word justified means to each other - you can persuade me that it was inevitable - but to me justified means that it was a defendable decision that a reasonable person would support. The fact that it was banned showed that it was unreasonable to me.

 

[fredfertang]

Ah OK I see what you mean - you're suggesting that once Jardine saw it was a positive weapon rather than just a defensive tactic that he should have abandoned it?

I think you have a perfectly valid point there, and of course many English players, once they were on the receiving end in 1933 would have agreed with you - I think it wa Hammond who after receiving a dose said something like "If that's what the game is coming to it's time I got out of it" - not Jardine of course, he showed against the West Indies that there was a third way to deal with it - just get behind the ball, keep your eye on it and stop whinging.

And what was actually banned was "direct attack" bowling which put the umpires in an invidious position as they had to make a subjective judgment, and meant Voce, to much whining and whinging, could still deliver some leg theory to the 1934 Australians in their game against Notts - it wasn't until the 1950's that leg theory was effectively banned by restricting the number of fielders behind square on the leg side.

What might have stopped bodyline in its tracks was someone else doing a McCabe in the first Test, or Eddie Gilbert being picked by Australia for the second

 

[The Sean]

Bill O'Reilly, for one, is convinced that had Bradman been able to play the first Test and launched an attack on Bodyline (before it was even called Bodyline) in partnership with McCabe then the whole thing would have died there and then.

Tim Wall wanted to return fire for Australia in kind and told Bill Woodfull as much, but Woodfull being the man he was made it clear that no Australian bowler was ever going to bowl like that. Not that I imagine Wall would have been anywhere near as good at it as Lol and Voce, anyway.

Eddie Gilbert. Just reading his name makes me sad.