What Constitutes Bodyline ?

[Power Raid]

bodyline wasn't just the bowling but the field placements

 

[BRWB]

Good bump and read. Well done to those posters.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Peak English hypocrisy - highlighted by just how quickly the MCC rushed to change the laws when Constantine and Martindale started making them look silly on the subsequent Windies tour.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

It's not exactly the same but bouncing the tail certainly invokes the spirit of Bodyline

The 'rules' about intimidatory bowling are very grey. Hardly worth having really.

Much better solution is to do what Australia has done - upskill their tail end batsmen so that they can handle short pitched bowling.

 

[PhatBoy]

Peak English hypocrisy - highlighted by just how quickly the MCC rushed to change the laws when Constantine and Martindale started making them look silly on the subsequent Windies tour.

Slight exaggeration if you’re referring to the series in 1933.

Constantine played only one of the tests and Martindale aside, the five top wicket takers were English. The hosts still did fine and Larwood himself hit a century facing leg theory bowling.

 

[Power Raid]

It's not exactly the same but bouncing the tail certainly invokes the spirit of Bodyline

The 'rules' about intimidatory bowling are very grey. Hardly worth having really.

Much better solution is to do what Australia has done - upskill their tail end batsmen so that they can handle short pitched bowling.

yep

I don't mind bouncers against batsmen and the odd one against the tail. but too many against the tail end can be a little embarrassing, as you'd expect bowlers to have the skills rather than just intimidation to tidy up the tail.

At the end of the day, no one wants to see people getting hurt.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

It's not exactly the same but bouncing the tail certainly invokes the spirit of Bodyline

The 'rules' about intimidatory bowling are very grey. Hardly worth having really.

Much better solution is to do what Australia has done - upskill their tail end batsmen so that they can handle short pitched bowling.

From the moment bouncer limits were introduced (early 90s?), umpires got much more reluctant to call anything "intimidatory bowling". The notes to the Law also state that the guide is above shoulder height, so umpires have little recourse on the delivery six deliveries at the heart of a tail-ender.

That said, Laws which vary according to the skill of a player are inherently going to be inconsistent. With the way umpires are scrutinised over every decision I can understand reluctant to use those that rely on it.

 

[beatnik]

before helmets and other modern protective equipment became the norm, I remember more batting 'bunnies' backing away to leg on anything short as a way of a) getting out of harm's way; and b) showing the bowler they were somewhat out of their league

this submissive batting approach usually led to a barrage of yorkers rather than a barrage of bouncers and the #10s and #11s rarely made it to double figures

i think many modern tailenders have developed a false sense of security - perhaps due to extensive protective equipment, heavy bats and 100s and 50s on flat decks against medium pace attacks?

it seems that some now even feel they have a right to get in behind the line of the ball against fast bowlers on a bouncy(ish) deck without being 'intimidated'...even though they don't have the skill or experience to get in behind the line of the ball against fast bowlers on a bouncy(ish) deck and, like the rest of us lacking both, are likely to get hit...and fairly often

the English tail have a choice: skill up or take evasive action

 

[Doss]

Slight exaggeration if you’re referring to the series in 1933.

Constantine played only one of the tests and Martindale aside, the five top wicket takers were English. The hosts still did fine and Larwood himself hit a century facing leg theory bowling.

The hysteria from the 1933 Eng/WI series was basically confined to a couple intense sessions where the English were well and truly peppered by the short stuff and, Jardine aside, didn't especially fancy it.

Problem was that West Indies of the time didn't have much batting aside from Headley so whatever advantage they gained with the ball was fairly quickly eliminated when it came their turn to bat.

Fast forward 18 months when England toured the West Indies, they had a much stronger batting side and a more rounded pace attack, and accordingly they roundly thrashed England.

 

[PhatBoy]

The hysteria from the 1933 Eng/WI series was basically confined to a couple intense sessions where the English were well and truly peppered by the short stuff and, Jardine aside, didn't especially fancy it.

Problem was that West Indies of the time didn't have much batting aside from Headley so whatever advantage they gained with the ball was fairly quickly eliminated when it came their turn to bat.

Fast forward 18 months when England toured the West Indies, they had a much stronger batting side and a more rounded pace attack, and accordingly they roundly thrashed England.

**Jardine I meant sorry.

 

[pugsville]

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'!

Laurie Nash is normally the Australian bowler they think of in terms of giving back, only played two tests, but a bit of larrikin as they say could have polled more. Had fantastic Aussie Rules career.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Nash
http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/6915.html

I think Eddie Gilbert was also around reputedly very quick , but unlikely to be picked.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/5387.html

 

[Richard Pryor]

Laurie Nash is normally the Australian bowler they think of in terms of giving back, only played two tests, but a bit of larrikin as they say could have polled more. Had fantastic Aussie Rules career.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Nash
http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/6915.html

I think Eddie Gilbert was also around reputedly very quick , but unlikely to be picked.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/5387.html

Bradman thought Gilbert chucked it. I get the impression that not many people agreed with him, but they weren't going to contradict the Don. There's also a story about Gilbert knocking the bat out of Bradmans hand with a fast delivery which perhaps motivated his opinion (don't think there's footage of Gilbert to judge his action on though.)

 

[DERRINALPHIL]

Bodyline was essential the ultimate defensive bowling tactic as it is nearly I,possible to score from a short ball directed towards the body with a packed leg side field. I always thought that we should have only bowled it back to the English professionals so emphasising that this was what they would have to put p with in about 100 days of English County Cricket every year.

Even with the protective of today no one would play cricket if you could bowl this sort of stuff. Park cricket competitions played on matting would cease immediately.

Once the English saw it bowled in England they outlawed it.

Here is a quote from the Editor of the 1934 Wisden, Southerton, after he discussed the events of the last two years'
"For myself, I hope I shall never see fast leg-theory bowling as used during the last tour of Australia exploited in this country. I think that

1. it is definitely dangerous
2. it creates ill feeling between the rival teams
3. it invites reprisals
4. it has a bad influence on our great game of cricket and
5. it eliminates all the best strokes in batting

Mainly because it makes cricket a battle rather than a game I deplore its introduction and pray for its abolition, noy by any legislative measure, but by the influence our captains can bring to bear and by avoiding the useof the objectionable form of attack take great part in wiping away a blot"

He later quoted from a speech where the speaker exhorted the West Indian team (they bowled body line once at England in the previous season) to remember that the game is more important than the result.

A rather outdated way of thinking unfortunately.