Bodyline. (Leg theory)

[Richard]

I'm not altogether sure what your objection is then, if not for the safety of the batsmen?

For the equality of the game. I hate to see the game made too easy for batsmen (as my contention on the cricket of 2001\02-2005\06 I hope tends to suggest) and it works in reverse too. For my money, the batsman has negligable chance of playing many particularly good innings faced with such field-settings and bowlings.

The danger, especially on difficult surfaces like Adelaide Oval, only magnifies the ill-desire.

Well, with only a mid-off and a cover on the off-side, if the bowler erred from a leg-stump line he'd be cut away with impunity. Leg thoery was devised as a defensive gambit initially, but for it to be so the bowler has to be accurate.

Even I can usually avoid bowling full outside off if I'm aiming short outside leg. This sort of accuracy truly is basic. It's way, way easier to achieve than the sort of accuracy required with 3 slips, 2 covers, a mid-off, a mid-on, a mid-wicket and a fine-leg. It is indeed more of a defensive tactic than an attacking one, for all but the fastest bowlers. For the fastest and best, it's attack and defence all in one nice, simple package. It is so defensive it makes the game too easy for the bowlers.

 

[BoyBrumby]

For the equality of the game. I hate to see the game made too easy for batsmen (as my contention on the cricket of 2001\02-2005\06 I hope tends to suggest) and it works in reverse too. For my money, the batsman has negligable chance of playing many particularly good innings faced with such field-settings and bowlings.

The danger, especially on difficult surfaces like Adelaide Oval, only magnifies the ill-desire.

You have to remember that cricket in the 1930s was very much a batsman's game. As an obvious example, the LBW law that prevailed meant that any ball that pitched outside the line of the stumps could be padded away without fear of a negative decision. The law was eventually changed there too, but if you take away the fear for the players' safety aspect of the objection to Bodyline you aren't left with much at all, other than a general whinge about the negativity of it.

 

[Richard]

Heavens, of course it was a batsman's game - until recently the best decade for batting in the game's history, both here and in Australia.

But that doesn't mean tactics like leg-theory should be allowed. That swung the balance totally back the other way.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Heavens, of course it was a batsman's game - until recently the best decade for batting in the game's history, both here and in Australia.

But that doesn't mean tactics like leg-theory should be allowed. That swung the balance totally back the other way.

Nah, McCabe's magnificent ton showed that with skill (& balls) it was possible to bat successfully against it. It made it harder for the batsmen, but no fielding side should be looking to make it easier, should they?

Bradman also averaged over 50, which, whilst down on his usual superhuman returns, hardly suggests it was impossible to play.

 

[Goughy]

Leg theory is aimed at the hip more than the head. There is no margin for error. Anything full, on off stump, on middle, short on the stumps, outside leg is easy meat to the batsman.

Only the most accurate can get away with bowling that line for prolonged periods. There is far greater margin for error with the orth off theory.

Leg theory was expected by many to be destroyed with positive batting as all balls should offer an attacking option and are hitable.
However Larwood (especially) and Voce were too good. And again. and I cannot stress it enough, the accuracy of Larwood made this, even at the time, 'old' tactic work.

The tactic was nearly dropped after McCabes innings. It wasnt that leg theory was easy to bowl (it wasnt) or that it was harder to bat against (not too much evidence of that), it was that Larwood was a perfect weapon to apply this tactic and field with.

It is because Larwood was so accurate and quick that he was successful with a previously seldom used tactic. It was anything but easy to bowl.

 

[bond21]

Jardine was a douche.

He did though successfully contain Bradman, he only averaged about 55 for the series.

Love it how all the Pommies were saying we were whingers when the press were sending telegrams to them demanding action, then the next county season Larwood is bowling bodyline then theyre all up in arms "omg what is he doing"

 

[andruid]

I've always wanted to pity the foo

 

[Richard]

Nah, McCabe's magnificent ton showed that with skill (& balls) it was possible to bat successfully against it. It made it harder for the batsmen, but no fielding side should be looking to make it easier, should they?

McCabe, no mean batsman under normal circumstances, was reckoned to have played a once-in-a-lifetime innings in that opening Test. I don't think anyone would have been expecting very many of such innings. Indeed, McCabe might have never played such a thing again in his career, had he faced 50 more leg-theory-espousing attacks. What chance did lesser players have?

Bradman also averaged over 50, which, whilst down on his usual superhuman returns, hardly suggests it was impossible to play.

Bradman used a tactic which would have been beyond most batsmen - he repeatedly backed away from the stumps to free the off (as I'm sure you know). Most batsmen would not have had the speed of foot, never mind the presence of mind, to employ such a method successfully. Only one as exceptional as Bradman could have managed it, and while the leg-theory tactic would not even have been used in the series but for him, the fact one so good as he managed to find a way to partially combat isn't particularly significant to how lesser players could have operated.

 

[BoyBrumby]

McCabe, no mean batsman under normal circumstances, was reckoned to have played a once-in-a-lifetime innings in that opening Test. I don't think anyone would have been expecting very many of such innings. Indeed, McCabe might have never played such a thing again in his career, had he faced 50 more leg-theory-espousing attacks. What chance did lesser players have?

Bradman used a tactic which would have been beyond most batsmen - he repeatedly backed away from the stumps to free the off (as I'm sure you know). Most batsmen would not have had the speed of foot, never mind the presence of mind, to employ such a method successfully. Only one as exceptional as Bradman could have managed it, and while the leg-theory tactic would not even have been used in the series but for him, the fact one so good as he managed to find a way to partially combat isn't particularly significant to how lesser players could have operated.

So it's "Boo, hoo, poor batsmen; won't someone please think of their averages?", basically?

Compelling indeed.

 

[Richard]

Leg theory is aimed at the hip more than the head. There is no margin for error. Anything full, on off stump, on middle, short on the stumps, outside leg is easy meat to the batsman.

Only the most accurate can get away with bowling that line for prolonged periods. There is far greater margin for error with the orth off theory.

Leg theory was expected by many to be destroyed with positive batting as all balls should offer an attacking option and are hitable.
However Larwood (especially) and Voce were too good. And again. and I cannot stress it enough, the accuracy of Larwood made this, even at the time, 'old' tactic work.

The tactic was nearly dropped after McCabes innings. It wasnt that leg theory was easy to bowl (it wasnt) or that it was harder to bat against (not too much evidence of that), it was that Larwood was a perfect weapon to apply this tactic and field with.

It is because Larwood was so accurate and quick that he was successful with a previously seldom used tactic. It was anything but easy to bowl.

My question is: why could it not have been aimed shorter on the pitch? I cannot see any reason. Sure, the hip area is indeed a small one, but anything shorter was perfectly safe for the bowler, and there would have been a margin-for-error of at least a foot towards the off.

Nor is a ball outside leg easy meat for a batsman - only exceptionally rarely will a batsman manage to get bat on a ball that passes him on the leg-side. Mostly you can err down there without worrying, as a bowler.

And I have not read a terribly large amount on the use of the tactic pre-1932\33, but I had thought it was actually quite common, rather than rare. How often, about, would it be used? I had thought there were bowlers who would revert to it more matches than not, if a batsman threatened to get away.

 

[Richard]

So it's "Boo, hoo, poor batsmen; won't someone please think of their averages?", basically?

Compelling indeed.

It's boo hoo, won't someone think of the balance between bat and ball more like. Exactly as I said several posts back.

 

[jeevan]

Nah, McCabe's magnificent ton showed that with skill (& balls) it was possible to bat successfully against it. It made it harder for the batsmen, but no fielding side should be looking to make it easier, should they?

Bradman also averaged over 50, which, whilst down on his usual superhuman returns, hardly suggests it was impossible to play.

The first test didnt see the bodyline tactic being used, I thought? England won it with conventional tactics, or perhaps through the obduracy of the Australian cricket board who wanted to teach Bradman a lesson or something - and left him out of the first test.

That test was when McCabe scored his ton looking at the scorecards.

 

[western_warrior]

its all well and good to look at it as a great tactical move, ""within the laws of the game"
but you must remember its at a time when cricket was a game between gentlemen, where the spirit of the game was paramount. and the conduct of the english was unbecoming of a gentleman, a blight on the game of cricket. A law may not have been layed down in stone but im sure there would have been a common knowledge that such action was not acceptible. there wasnt much if any money being payed to players so the only thing they would have played for was pride, and i for one would not take pride in a victory that hollow.
it would have been easy for the australains to return the favour in the next innings or even the following tests but as true Australians they wouldnt lower themselves to english standards......
even convicts have some shred of honour.

 

[Richard]

The first test didnt see the bodyline tactic being used, I thought? England won it with conventional tactics, or perhaps through the obduracy of the Australian cricket board who wanted to teach Bradman a lesson or something - and left him out of the first test.

That test was when McCabe scored his ton looking at the scorecards.

Bradman missed the First Test through illness.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Jardine was a douche.

How did you deduce that?

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's boo hoo, won't someone think of the balance between bat and ball more like. Exactly as I said several posts back.

There was a balance. The West Indies used the same tactic in 1933 and England won the series 2-0. It was the executioners who made it so effective in 32/33. Had England not been able to call on Larwood & Voce it's reasonable to assume Australia could've countered it as successfully as they did.

The first test didnt see the bodyline tactic being used, I thought? England won it with conventional tactics, or perhaps through the obduracy of the Australian cricket board who wanted to teach Bradman a lesson or something - and left him out of the first test.

That test was when McCabe scored his ton looking at the scorecards.

It was used in the first test. McCabe was actually struck 4 times in his innings.

 

[Richard]

There was a balance. The West Indies used the same tactic in 1933 and England won the series 2-0. It was the executioners who made it so effective in 32/33. Had England not been able to call on Larwood & Voce it's reasonable to assume Australia could've countered it as successfully as they did.

From what I've heard, Constantine and Martindale used it for about 2 sessions in the Second Test (in which Jardine, of course, constructed his only Test century). Totally different to constant, repeated use throughout the course of a series.

 

[Goughy]

Just to pull Jardines own words on the subject, May 1933.

"It need not be imagined that leg theory is any permanent solution to the bat's mastery of the ball; far from it- so very, very few can hope to bowl it with success"

It was always a legit tactic but wasn't used anywhere near as often as off theory as it was difficult to bowl and hard to do well with.

I dont want to keep going on about it, but any belief that it was an easy thing for a bowler to do and didnt require as much accuracy as off-theory is innaccurate.

 

[BoyBrumby]

From what I've heard, Constantine and Martindale used it for about 2 sessions in the Second Test (in which Jardine, of course, constructed his only Test century). Totally different to constant, repeated use throughout the course of a series.

No, they were using it as early as the MCC game at Lords before the first test. & doesn't the very fact that Jardine scored his only test century against leg theory suggest that maybe it wasn't as hard to effectively counter as all that?

 

[Jamee999]

TBF, if I'd just invented leg theory, the first thing I'd do would be thinking of a way to beat it. Because if I could think of a way, Don Bradman could.