What Constitutes Bodyline ?

[GhostofJimJess]

A query for any old-timers here, or someone who may have a little more knowledge of the whole Bodyline experience than simply just watching the series on TV 20 years ago with Andrew Whats-his-name as Sir Don.

I'm just curious to know the difference between when Harold Larwood and friends set out to maim the Aussie batsmen, and the tripe that Brett Lee persists in going on with before every series or competition that "people are destined to get hurt by his bowling", and that "it's all just part of the game".

So far he hasn't done any real damage, except to the odd tailender like Alex Tudor, or Alan Donald ... but why is he so lauded in this country for his threats of aggression, and the old Pommy blokes who were just trying to counter the dominance of Bradman condemned ??

 

[St-KriS]

Well IMO, I think there's no real difference, it's just that we're used to it by now after the Windies introduced it as a regular tatic in the 70's. I think people were just stunned by Larwood's stradegy back then when being a gentleman was in fashion.

 

[moomba]

The Australian team seem to go out of their way to talk up Lee in terms of intimidation, fear, bowling fast. To be honest I think scaring a batsman out is a disgusting way to play cricket.

Look at the Windies, and it was just the odd bouncer, with Lee the batsman is expecting something at the body just about eveyr bowl.

Moomba

 

[London Dave]

Bodyline/Leg theory...short pitched bowling directed at the body (not head) of the batsman, with many catchers on the LEG side, esp behind square leg...hence the 2 men behind square leg rule.

To suggest the windies was 'the odd bouncer' advertises ones ignorance. Windies bowled a version of Bodyline, short, into rib cage but was directed on OFF side...a bouncer flying over ones head is no problem...continually getting cramped for room in the rib area is one reason why scoring was difficult v Windies in 80's etc. And scaring a batsmen out is disgusting??? Cricket is a test of mental strength too. If you don't have the guts to face it, run away with the little boys and play on the swings.

First rule of Cricket...if you have the quicks, use em, cos the day will come when you don't and the other mob do, and they certainly won't hold them back!

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Originally posted by London Dave
Bodyline/Leg theory...short pitched bowling directed at the body (not head) of the batsman, with many catchers on the LEG side, esp behind square leg...hence the 2 men behind square leg rule.

To suggest the windies was 'the odd bouncer' advertises ones ignorance. Windies bowled a version of Bodyline, short, into rib cage but was directed on OFF side...a bouncer flying over ones head is no problem...continually getting cramped for room in the rib area is one reason why scoring was difficult v Windies in 80's etc. And scaring a batsmen out is disgusting??? Cricket is a test of mental strength too. If you don't have the guts to face it, run away with the little boys and play on the swings.

First rule of Cricket...if you have the quicks, use em, cos the day will come when you don't and the other mob do, and they certainly won't hold them back!

So in your view Dave, the 1930's Poms were perfectly justified in their approach? As a natural progression then, so is Brett Lee, and Joel Garner etc..

No easing off for tail-enders ? Helmet-less batsmen ? Namibians ?

 

[Fred]

Bodyline , or short leg theory as it was then called, was designed to limit Bradman's scoring. It worked up to a point as he 'only' averaged 50-something from memory. It also almost led to war between England and Aus and the series being called off.
It took out any off-side shots and enabled the leg side to be packed. Bradman countered by stepping well to leg and hitting through off, but that method had its limitations ie next to impossible with a left armer going around the wicket.
Rules changes ended it.

 

[Goldenblue]

Originally posted by GhostofJimJess
whole Bodyline experience than simply just watching the series on TV 20 years ago with Andrew Whats-his-name as Sir Don.

Gary Sweet played Bradman.

It was known as leg theory by Jardine. His insistence that his bowlers bowled the ball between the rib cage and the head would limited the batmans scoring power as well as many opportunities to catch them down Leg side.

Bradman did score a century in this series, but Bodyline did cause a huge conflict between the ACB and MCC. Typically, the ACB at the time bowed down to the MCC.

Nowadays, it's good to see the Poms having to look at us to see a real professional cricket side for them to learn from.

 

[Slax]

The thing with it that everyone forgets is that Larwood had nothing to do with the plan it was Jardine who devised it and made himself an amatuer so as to guarantee his selection as capatin. Up until that tour the England captain was required to be completely amatuer. Jardine was hated by most of his team and is not foundly remembered by English cricket historians.

 

[Goldenblue]

Originally posted by Slax
The thing with it that everyone forgets is that Larwood had nothing to do with the plan it was Jardine who devised it and made himself an amatuer so as to guarantee his selection as capatin. Up until that tour the England captain was required to be completely amatuer. Jardine was hated by most of his team and is not foundly remembered by English cricket historians.

If I am also correct, was there a bowler or two in Jardine's side that refused to bowl Bodyline?

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by Goldenblue
If I am also correct, was there a bowler or two in Jardine's side that refused to bowl Bodyline?

There was but my memory is hazy. Was it Allen or Voce?

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by moomba

Look at the Windies, and it was just the odd bouncer

you must be kidding. the windies bowled a half volley once every second week.

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by nicko18
you must be kidding. the windies bowled a half volley once every second week.

Probably a bit closer to the mark, but I remember plenty fo wickets they got bowling line and length. Remember also the rules were changed specifically to avoid bouncer after bouncer, which was considered detrimental to the game. I am not sure the current situation is much different.

Moomba

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by moomba
The Australian team seem to go out of their way to talk up Lee in terms of intimidation, fear, bowling fast. To be honest I think scaring a batsman out is a disgusting way to play cricket.

Look at the Windies, and it was just the odd bouncer, with Lee the batsman is expecting something at the body just about eveyr bowl.

Moomba

Simply bowling at the body is not bodyline. It also required field placements that are not allowed now.

 

[BT]

Originally posted by Goldenblue
If I am also correct, was there a bowler or two in Jardine's side that refused to bowl Bodyline?

There was at least one & I think it was Allen. There was also another player a batsman from memory who objected and was dropped I think.

Voce was DEFINITELY pro Bodyline, he continued to use the tactic in county cricket after the Ashes series.

 

[skilts]

The 'normal' bodyline field involved having five players close to the bat on the legside. Two behind, one at and two in front of square leg. Then there were two men on the fence behind square, for the mistimed hook.

Obviously, this left only two fielders on the off side. Didn't matter because they didn't need anyone on the drives and the ball was always directed at the body, so one half of the ground was unused.

They didn't always bowl with this field, but it became more common, as the series progressed. They always instituted it when Bradman came to the wicket. I seem to remember it nearly died a natural death, after McCabe made 187 against it. He just kept hooking.

Jardine and a bloke called Arthur Carr devised the plan, after Carr thought he saw Bradman flinch against some short pitched bowling on a lively, wet wicket, towards the end of the 1930 tour of England.There had been leg theory before this, but it involved bowling exclusively on the legside as a run-saving device, rather than as a way to take wickets or intimidate batsmen.

Jardine developed a particular hatred of Australians during the 1926 tour of England when he was denied a century, I think in his first test match, by the tactics employed by the Aussie skipper, Herbert Collins. Not too sure of the details, but I think they kept him away from the strike.

It was outlawed only after England got some of their own medicine from the great West Indian quick Learie Constantine in the northern summer of 1933. Up until they saw it first-hand, the MCC administrators thought its effect had been exaggerated by the Australians.

 

[London Dave]

Originally posted by GhostofJimJess
So in your view Dave, the 1930's Poms were perfectly justified in their approach? As a natural progression then, so is Brett Lee, and Joel Garner etc..

No easing off for tail-enders ? Helmet-less batsmen ? Namibians ?

I don't think the Poms were 'perfectly' justified, but it was within the rules at that time. Just like slowing down over rates were with the Windies etc etc. You choose to wear a helemt or other protection or not...if you are too stupid too, and get hit, it's your problem. What you suggest is bowlers should 'ease off' against someone they think is 'not that good'. I'd prefer to cop the full treatment, and earn my respect, as I'd reckon, most of the Namibians would too. The Dutch certainly wanted to play against the Aussies!


The ABC has produced a documentary on Bodline, you'll find it at an ABC shop. I think an interesting quote from that is by Ian Chappell, referring to his grandfather, Vic Richardson. It was said Aussie never bowled it because they didnt have the quicks...Chappell said rubbish. If his grandfather had been skipper, he would have bowled it back at the Poms. Woodful refused to use it on principle. Anyway, get the video for the 'full story'!

Your summation of the story is correct Skilts, though I think it was originally used in the first decade of the 20th century. I think original leg theory was designed to limit a batsmans scoring, where 'fast' leg theory (the Carr/Jardine version) had a little bit more than scoring restrictions in mind. I wonder how well it would work nowadays with the protection batsmen have.

Apparently Learie Constatine made quite a mess of the poms at Lords, which would have been nice to see!

Gubby Allen refused to bowl it. Voce was definately a bowler who used it.

 

[Booze Hound]

To correct a few comments:

Jardine didn't 'make himself' an Amateur (or Gentleman), he always was.

'Gubby' Allen, as an Gentleman (and being certainly worth his place in the team) was able to refuse to bowl in this style, Bill Voce, as a professional, was not.

The innings when Jardine fell just short of a century against a touring side was in 1921 - it is unlikely that he felt any affront at this as the close of play time had actually been extended already.

The other Amateur to shown some degree of dissent was The Nawab of Pataudi snr who showed reluctance to form part of the catching ring o the leg side - Jardine moved a professional in their instead.

Always strikes me how the Australian pace bowling of 1921, who more than one expert judge considered about as dangerous as 'bodyline' never produced the same storm.

And the 'Bodyline' mini-series was garbage in soooo many ways.

 

[manmountain]

The difference between Lee 2003 and Larwood 1930 is that the batsman has a chance against Lee, as his leg-side field is restricted, whereas Larwood could have blokes pretty much anywhere.

So, while Lee can target the ribs, head, or whatever, there is also a fair chance he can (and often does) end up with 0-60, as with only two men behind square, there is a lot of boundary to cover.

Given the choice, I reckon I would prefer facing Lee to the 1980's Windies, due to the way they were able to angle the ball at a batsmens ribs with their height.

 

[dogboy]

Let's all realise something here.......the Aussies do not mind the tactic just as long as they have a few quicks in the side. As soon as they don't then you start to see things change. In the 70's they were very happy because they had Lillee and Thommo throwing them down but as soon as these guys left the scene changes had to be made. In World Series Cricket bouncers were the norm but soon after with the Windies running roughshot over the world short pitched bowling became a no ball? Funny that. For a long time this was the case but as soon as the McGrath's, Gillespie's and Lee's were at the top of their game the ICC changed the one day laws to accomodate short pitched bowling again. Another funny thing. You have to wonder just who runs world cricket and if you think that it is the nuetral ICC with Speed at the helm you are wrong.

 

[jim440]

Originally posted by dogboy
Let's all realise something here.......the Aussies do not mind the tactic just as long as they have a few quicks in the side. As soon as they don't then you start to see things change. In the 70's they were very happy because they had Lillee and Thommo throwing them down but as soon as these guys left the scene changes had to be made. In World Series Cricket bouncers were the norm but soon after with the Windies running roughshot over the world short pitched bowling became a no ball? Funny that. For a long time this was the case but as soon as the McGrath's, Gillespie's and Lee's were at the top of their game the ICC changed the one day laws to accomodate short pitched bowling again. Another funny thing. You have to wonder just who runs world cricket and if you think that it is the nuetral ICC with Speed at the helm you are wrong.

What a load of bollocks. The rules were changed long before Lee hit the scene and McGraths never been that quick. The Pakis were far quicker than anything the Australians had.

The only problem with what the Windies did was it was soooo boring. 4 bouncers an over and 9 overs an hour was going to kill the game.

 

[footyfan1978]

Gary Sweet played Bradman.

After seeing Gary Sweet on Wolf Creek the other day seems so long ago he was Bradman in tv series.
Just had a look for it on youtube.
Not sure if whole series on there but found one episode.
Hugo Weaving certainly made Jardine the villian well.

 

[KBLT]

Did this thread really need reviving for that?

 

[Stax on the mill]

14 and a half year bump. Wow!

 

[MC Bad Genius]

I assumed it would've been bumped because of Mike Atherton's whinge in The Times about the umpires needing to protect the English tailenders. But no, it was much more obscure than that!

 

[Gough]

I've still got my battered novelisation of that series that I got for Xmas in whatever year that was released.