Bodyline Series - on ABC

[hourn]

anynoe watch it??

I think it was actually pretty good. Everyone who watched must of felt a degree of anger towards English, the MCC and Douglas Jardine after the show.


Bill Woodfull showed unbeliavable courage in that series. And that hit on Bert Oldfield is always sickening to watch.

[Brett Li]

Originally posted by hourn
anynoe watch it??

I think it was actually pretty good. Everyone who watched must of felt a degree of anger towards English, the MCC and Douglas Jardine after the show.


Bill Woodfull showed unbeliavable courage in that series. And that hit on Bert Oldfield is always sickening to watch.

I know, but what a great result:D

[jacqui9]

Very very fascinating

Hope the Aussies were watching it 2nite :D

It was just amazing that the Australians warmed to both Jardine and Larwood when they returned to Australia in later years.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Brett Li


I know, but what a great result:D
Yeah great for England to win with the dirtiest tactics ever known to sport. Bravo Engerlund.

[Brett Li]

Originally posted by DaveW

Yeah great for England to win with the dirtiest tactics ever known to sport. Bravo Engerlund.

70 year ago, and you're still bitter

[hourn]

Originally posted by Brett Li


70 year ago, and you're still bitter


Australian's will always be bitter about it because if any team was going to use a tactic such as that, it was expected from us at the team, not you guys.

I know its a generalistation and i dont like to use it, but you guys were supposed to the "upper class" bunch while we were the "colonial" bunch if you get what i mean. But that whole series just turned everything on its head.

[Becker]

The thing to remember here is Jardine wasn't using illegal tactics. In those days it was known as leg theory, and you could place as many fielders on the leg side as you wished. The bouncer wasn't prevelent in the early 1930s and batsmen weren't as adept as they are these days at handling short pitched bowling.
Jardine was no different to modern day captains in that he used legitimate tactics to curb the effectiveness of opposition batsmen, and if bodyline was deployed today there would be little furore.
Whether bodyline was in the spirit of the game was the issue, and perhaps history has judged Jardine a little unfairly.

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Becker
The thing to remember here is Jardine wasn't using illegal tactics. In those days it was known as leg theory, and you could place as many fielders on the leg side as you wished. The bouncer wasn't prevelent in the early 1930s and batsmen weren't as adept as they are these days at handling short pitched bowling.
Jardine was no different to modern day captains in that he used legitimate tactics to curb the effectiveness of opposition batsmen, and if bodyline was deployed today there would be little furore.
Whether bodyline was in the spirit of the game was the issue, and perhaps history has judged Jardine a little unfairly.

Spot on.

Jardine won the series through pushing the rules as far as they would go

but he didn't break any.

Just as the AUssies do today with their sledging etc - and good on them.

We aussies have a habbit of whingeing when people do to us what we do ourselves.

the drugs in swimming is another classic example. Everyone else are cheats but when our atheletes test positive - it must be a mistake.

[jacqui9]

Things are so much different today - in all sports. People now have so much on the line, money, sponsorships that perhaps Bodyline may not have been as contoversial if used today. However in the thirties, cricket was seen as a gentleman's game, and because of the social cirmcumstances of the era, sportsmen were seen as the heroes to lead the world out of the depression. To see so called 'Gentlemen" destroy the spirit and hope of the crowd through unsportsmanlike tactics made it so controversial, and made people so bitter. Sport was the only hope they had then.

At the same time, England seemed a bit spineless that they were so afraid of Australian cricketers beating the "Old School Tie" that they had to resort to tactics like that.

[Jars458]

Originally posted by jacqui9
At the same time, England seemed a bit spineless that they were so afraid of Australian cricketers beating the "Old School Tie" that they had to resort to tactics like that.

so Jardine was ahead of his time

Hussain is called spineless these days for not being more of a mongrel.

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by Jars458


Spot on.

Jardine won the series through pushing the rules as far as they would go

but he didn't break any.

Just as the AUssies do today with their sledging etc - and good on them.

We aussies have a habbit of whingeing when people do to us what we do ourselves.

the drugs in swimming is another classic example. Everyone else are cheats but when our atheletes test positive - it must be a mistake.

Agree there's a fair bit of double standars in the comments whining about Jardine's tactics, especially when you see cricket is played these days. He was just ahead of his time and in anycase if Victor Richardson was captain, Australia would have given as good as they got although they didn't have as good a paceman as Larwood.

I only saw the last 20 mins of the doco, will be more interested in the two-parter doco 'Cricket in the 1970s' screening next week. The grandson of Victor Richardson had no qualms about dishing out the hard stuff to the opposition in those days.

[Briedis]

I am embarrased when I hear Aussies going on and on about how the English used an "unfair" tactic to limit the Don in 32/33.

It also amazes me that these same commentators applauded Lillee and Thommos use of the short ball in the 74/75. Their aim was not to get the batsman out on the leg-side as in the "bodyline" series, but rather to intimidate the batsmen by bowling at their bodies.

It really is time for us to get over Bodyline, seriously.

Good show though, I love all of the old footage.

[bluechampion]

My favourite bit was the description of how Harold Larwood broke his leg while bowling but was forced to complete his over. He was reduced to rolling the arm over while standing at the crease, and Aussie Captain Bill Woodfull just patted them back down the pitch, because he was a great sportman.

Gillespies new medal shouldn't have been called the ANZAC, it should've been called the Woodfull.

[Briedis]

Originally posted by wagstaff
I only saw the last 20 mins of the doco, will be more interested in the two-parter doco 'Cricket in the 1970s' screening next week. The grandson of Victor Richardson had no qualms about dishing out the hard stuff to the opposition in those days.

I actually have that on video and it is terrific. Definately worth watching. The only thing I thought was strange was that it stops just after the centenary test, briefly describes the WSC days and that's it. I would have liked a bit more on the late-70's tests.

[jacqui9]

Originally posted by Briedis
I am embarrased when I hear Aussies going on and on about how the English used an "unfair" tactic to limit the Don in 32/33.

It also amazes me that these same commentators applauded Lillee and Thommos use of the short ball in the 74/75. Their aim was not to get the batsman out on the leg-side as in the "bodyline" series, but rather to intimidate the batsmen by bowling at their bodies.

It really is time for us to get over Bodyline, seriously.

Good show though, I love all of the old footage.

I guess it also brings back memories of 1981?? when Trevor Chappel bowled underarm to save the One Day Match against New Zealand. I guess bodyline was only brought up because of the current Ashes series. Perhaps just using it as a marketing tool to get crowds and the public interested???

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by Briedis


I actually have that on video and it is terrific. Definately worth watching. The only thing I thought was strange was that it stops just after the centenary test, briefly describes the WSC days and that's it. I would have liked a bit more on the late-70's tests.

Probably because after the Centenary Tests the real action in Australian cricket was happening in the WSC area, the ABC-covered Tests was strictly 2nd Tier material.

And after the Packer split was resolved, the ABC lost the rights to covering international cricket. The only cricket I remember the ABC covering since then on the TV was Austraila's 1990 tour of New Zealand, as well as a couple of Tests when Channel 9 was busy with Wimbledon during Ashes tours in 1989 and 1997.

[Becker]

Originally posted by Briedis


I actually have that on video and it is terrific. Definately worth watching. The only thing I thought was strange was that it stops just after the centenary test, briefly describes the WSC days and that's it. I would have liked a bit more on the late-70's tests.

I think you'll find that because it is an ABC production, they only used highlights from ABC coverage. The video covers the Chappell years, focussing on the input Ian and Greg had on Australian cricket. The ABC covered the 1977-78 Australia v India series, and the 1978-79 Ashes series, but as Ian and Greg were playing WSC, these highlights weren't relevent to the video.

The thing that stuck in my mind the most is the obvious bad blood that existed between the Chappells and Don Bradman. It is compelling viewing, don't miss it.

[Briedis]

Good points there. It hadn't occured to me that the ABC was only showing the cricket it had broadcasted at the time as part of the documentary.

Yeah, Ian Chappell was not a big fan of the Dons and it really comes out in this doco which is great viewing. I would have love to have heard Sir Dons response to Chappells take on the sequence of events....

[DaveW]

Surely the fact that Bodyline brought about a major rule change is proof that those tactics were outside the spirit of the game?

[Briedis]

Originally posted by DaveW
Surely the fact that Bodyline brought about a major rule change is proof that those tactics were outside the spirit of the game?

It is just as major as limiting the number of bouncers bowled in an over which I have never agreed with. If a batsman is good enough he can play a hook shot for runs.

The difference with bodyline is that the tactic was so effective that the rules had to be changed otherwise no-one could score any runs.

One question though, what really is the difference between bowling outside the off stump, having slips, gullys, deep point and a third man to bowling at leg stup with leg slips, leg gullies, fine leg and deep backward square? With all of the protectibe clothing batsmen have available these days perhaps it may be time to do away with the limited leg side field rule. Stan McCabe showed that even with a leg-side attack cricket can be exciting.

I think batsmen get it far too easy... ;) Perhaps they should bring in a rule that batsmen have to hit it in front of the wicket to score runs and see how they like being limited.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Briedis

One question though, what really is the difference between bowling outside the off stump, having slips, gullys, deep point and a third man to bowling at leg stup with leg slips, leg gullies, fine leg and deep backward square?
Think about it! A batsman can still hit to the on side in the former situation, all he has to do is come inside the line of the ball. A full range of shots is still available to the batsman in the former situation. In the latter situation he is limited to a very select area of the ground, the only way to hit to the off side would be to bat opposite handed - reverse pulls and the like, not very elegant.

[Briedis]

Originally posted by DaveW

Think about it! A batsman can still hit to the on side in the former situation, all he has to do is come inside the line of the ball. A full range of shots is still available to the batsman in the former situation. In the latter situation he is limited to a very select area of the ground, the only way to hit to the off side would be to bat opposite handed - reverse pulls and the like, not very elegant.

Or he could step to the outside of the line and force it through the off side, ala Darren Lehmann....