Bodyline. (Leg theory)

[cover drive man]

Everyone who calls themself a cricket fan knows about the bodyline series but what are you're views on it?

 

[BoyBrumby]

End justified the means.

 

[Manee]

Rules are there to be exploited, it was a great piece of tactical genius, it is a shame that the lack of helmets and covered pitches made it unfeasible.

 

[cover drive man]

Will be interesting to see what the aussies think when they come on.

 

[Redbacks]

How about you change the poll to do you support Australia. You could expect the same result.

Although i'm pretty sure the Indians didn't appreciate leg theory either. The English always had moral high ground that they played the game like Gentlemen yet the Australians were ruthless, but they had to push the boundry of sportsmanship to win the series. No longer would anyone believe the English always place honour before victory. Values they so proudly preached

 

[archie mac]

It would have ruined the game, no drives and only cuts when you backed away from the wicket.

I still wonder what would have happened if the Aussies had given it back to the Englishman?

 

[Richard]

It was poor form from those responsible to use the tactic - the fact that the rules were changed to prevent it shortly afterwards says everything.

That said, cricket history would be infinitely less interesting had it not happened.

Public polls, cdm, FFS!

 

[cover drive man]

It was poor form from those responsible to use the tactic - the fact that the rules were changed to prevent it shortly afterwards says everything.

That said, cricket history would be infinitely less interesting had it not happened.

Public polls, cdm, FFS!

Although we would hear a lot more about the underarm incident and other incidents.

 

[Manee]

It was poor form from those responsible to use the tactic

Why was it? They did what it took to silence Bradman.

 

[Manee]

It would have ruined the game, no drives and only cuts when you backed away from the wicket.

'It would have' but it didn't, because it was always going to be outlawed.

 

[Richard]

Why was it? They did what it took to silence Bradman.

Yes, and being legal (due to inattentive Law-making) didn't make it right. You could do what it took to silence batsmen ATT by bowling Beamers at them - wouldn't make that right if it was legal, either.

Leg-theory is(\was) a tactic that was too easy to execute for the bowlers, meaning without a great deal of effort from the bowlers run-scoring could be made not a million miles short of realistically impossible.

Teams have been accused of killing the game by applying off-theories, FFS - and full outside off with 8 on the off is nothing compared to short on leg with 7 or 8 men behind square on leg.

 

[Goughy]

Leg-theory is(\was) a tactic that was too easy to execute for the bowlers, meaning without a great deal of effort from the bowlers run-scoring could be made not a million miles short of realistically impossible.

Thats just plain uninformed.

The key to the success of leg theory was the accuracy of Larwood just as much as his pace. Without that accuracy it would have failed.

In fact you read and analyse the Bodyline series and the need for accuracy is the essential.

It was actually a tough thing to bowl well.

 

[Manee]

Yes, and being legal (due to inattentive Law-making) didn't make it right. You could do what it took to silence batsmen ATT by bowling Beamers at them - wouldn't make that right if it was legal, either.

Leg-theory is(\was) a tactic that was too easy to execute for the bowlers, meaning without a great deal of effort from the bowlers run-scoring could be made not a million miles short of realistically impossible.

Teams have been accused of killing the game by applying off-theories, FFS - and full outside off with 8 on the off is nothing compared to short on leg with 7 or 8 men behind square on leg.

Captains are there to employ tactics to win, it was not a negative tactic, it was forcing the pace of the game. It was within the administrator's job to stop it and they did. Just because something is wrong, doesn't mean it is not right. (That sounded more poignant in my head).

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yeah, Goughy's on the money here. "Leg theory" had been are for at least a couple of decades before 32/33, but it was only the pace and accuracy of Larwood & Voce that turned it into what was called "Bodyline".

Moreover, the two most serious injuries happened when Larwood was bowling to conventional fields anyway.

 

[Richard]

The injuries are beside the point - injuries have always happened throughout cricket history, especially on uneven, lively pitches like that Adelaide one.

Thats just plain uninformed.

The key to the success of leg theory was the accuracy of Larwood just as much as his pace. Without that accuracy it would have failed.

In fact you read and analyse the Bodyline series and the need for accuracy is the essential.

It was actually a tough thing to bowl well.

I'm aware of the need for accuracy, but bowling accurately in the areas they were aiming at is far, far easier than bowling in areas which are "good" with a conventional field. The margin-for-error in leg-theory areas is considerable. The ability to use that field made bowling too easy.

It's not a tactic any fool could bowl, but when bowled by a pretty decent bowler it made the game an uneven contest.

At Larwood and Voce's speed it also made things dangerous, but as I say to DB - danger is and always has been a part of cricket.

 

[Goughy]

I'm aware of the need for accuracy, but bowling accurately in the areas they were aiming at is far, far easier than bowling in areas which are "good" with a conventional field. The ability to use that field made bowling too easy.

It's not a tactic any fool could bowl, but when bowled by a pretty decent bowler it made the game an uneven contest.

As I said before. That is wrong.

It was certainly dangerous and in that regard I dont mind it being outlawed. But to do it effectively required far more accuracy than a conventional field.

 

[Richard]

More accuracy?

How so?

The areas they were aiming at - and could bowl dot-balls, and threatening balls, in - was far, far larger than the area you could do the same with a conventional field.

 

[Jamee999]

It was a good move, but I'm glad that it was banned.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The injuries are beside the point - injuries have always happened throughout cricket history, especially on uneven, lively pitches like that Adelaide one.

At Larwood and Voce's speed it also made things dangerous, but as I say to DB - danger is and always has been a part of cricket.

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

More accuracy?

How so?

The areas they were aiming at - and could bowl dot-balls, and threatening balls, in - was far, far larger than the area you could do the same with a conventional field.

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.

 

[Prince EWS]

How about you change the poll to do you support Australia. You could expect the same result.

DWTA. I support Australia and I'm in the "brilliant initiative" camp.