BoyBrumby
Englishman
Jardine's team on occasion bowled legitimate leg theory. The tactic had been extant for at least two decades prior to 32/33. What turned it into "bodyline" was Larwood's & Voce's pace and accuracy.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
New series starting on BBC2 tonight
- Thread starter stumpski
- Start date
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
Jardines tactics were perfectly fine. It presented the challenge to batsmen to adapt or alternatively change the rules. In this case the latter prevailed.
It was an alternate approach to the traditional and these often run into challenges that players or administrators have to deal with. Whether it be the introduction of pad play, over arm bowling or protective equipment, the game changes and then what is accepted as the norm catches up only after a period of time.
There is no doubt that Jardine used the Notts pair to present a different challenge for the Australians to negotiate.
NFFC
Cricket Spectator
The hype after the first test was great.
Hussain's innings was a masterclass.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Why did you change? Horrific act of treachery where I'm from.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yep. That's my plan.
stumpski
International Captain
Missed Sky Sports's 'Cricket Writers on TV' as usual. I work Sundays, so I have to set the skyplus to record it, but nearly always forget, being somewhat bleary of a Sunday morning. They should have a version of the BBC's iPlayer - a Sky-Player, perhaps.
Did anyone see it, out of interest?
Did anyone see it, out of interest?
Chubb
International Regular
The West Indies have a history that is better suited to a documentary-, so it doesn't surprise me that this episode was better than the England one.
I did think it was unfair, and slightly odd, not even to mention who the white captains were- I mean they had a lingering close-up on John Goddard's face and didn't mention his name. It is not that important, but it was as if he was a nameless pawn. Only Gerry Alexander got mentioned, but in the context that Worrell "even" picked him for the Australian tour, like it was just a gesture- Alexander was a fine keeper and averaged 30+ in test cricket! He was picked because he was the best. They weren't all racists playing just because they had white skin. That said, it was bound to lack nuance, as the England film did.
It was a much better piece than the last programme, even if cricket people like us notice some inaccuracies (Valentine was an "offspinner" apparently).
I did think it was unfair, and slightly odd, not even to mention who the white captains were- I mean they had a lingering close-up on John Goddard's face and didn't mention his name. It is not that important, but it was as if he was a nameless pawn. Only Gerry Alexander got mentioned, but in the context that Worrell "even" picked him for the Australian tour, like it was just a gesture- Alexander was a fine keeper and averaged 30+ in test cricket! He was picked because he was the best. They weren't all racists playing just because they had white skin. That said, it was bound to lack nuance, as the England film did.
It was a much better piece than the last programme, even if cricket people like us notice some inaccuracies (Valentine was an "offspinner" apparently).
Last edited:
Manee
Cricketer Of The Year
Yep, the ball that got him was a brilliant one too - a couple hundred runs late though
. I would stand against such a thing in principle but allow me to explain. From 1997 to 1999, I was a cricket fanatic who used to support England religiously and play a fair deal of cricket at a brilliant level for my age. From 1999 to around 2004, I lost all interest in watching cricket and my bowling became very average. A combination of my sudden appreciation of pace bowling, the England Vs India, Natwest Series Final and the 2005 Ashes (in decending order) rekindled my interest and since then, I have become an avid follower of cricket as an Indian fan.
Manee
Cricketer Of The Year
I don't know too much about West Indian cricket history so cannot point out inaccuracies but found the historical aspect of the show and the footage of the West Indian edition a thoroughly enjoyable watch. Very interesting how the footage appeared to be re-digitised and so of an extremely high quality - would love to see the BBC open their archives more, was facinating watching Hall, in high quality, rip a few down at what looked like express pace, drop one of the most basic catches and miss the stumps from about 8 yards.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
I have no view on Bodyline, but playing dirty was never defined (by most people anyway) as breaking the laws/rules of a game/sport.
In fact, playing dirty and cheating can be very distinguishable at times. In AFL, the equivalent of simulation in soccer/football (playing for a free kick) is not an actual offence under the rules, but many see it (particularly the flagrant ones) as playing dirty.
In cricket, I dare say running after the ball ricochets off your bat is going further than gamesmanship into fairly dirty play. Nothing in the rules saying you can't run.
Killing the clock in AFL by pretending you have cramp, and doing a few stretches when you have the ball, again not against the rules, but pretty dirty (although probably transformed from dirty into smart play by today's standards).
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, it was better than the 1st programme. Good soundtrack too.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Watched the West Indies episode this morning. The lack of variation in style is quite comical.
First the voiceover drones on about something awful going on. "England were bottom of the test rankings!" or "Racial divisions were threatening to undermine the West Indian..." etc.
Then his voice suddenly changes tone as he remarks, "then... one player came along..." or "but a new hero was to emerge..." before introducing the latest great cricketer, accompanied by a black-and-white photo of him finishing a shot while a digitally-added spinning cricket ball floats across the screen alongside lines of a scorecard (often just the same line, only in many different sizes).
Cut to another cricketer talking about how good said player was, and how much he changed the game and inspired his team. Generally a story of a particular match will come next, with the inevitable glorious conclusion demonstrating the heroism of whichever player they were raving about at that particular time. BUT THEN... West Indians were undertaking a rebel tour/ Viv Richards retired/England were **** again! And the whole cycle restarts.
Good fun though.
First the voiceover drones on about something awful going on. "England were bottom of the test rankings!" or "Racial divisions were threatening to undermine the West Indian..." etc.
Then his voice suddenly changes tone as he remarks, "then... one player came along..." or "but a new hero was to emerge..." before introducing the latest great cricketer, accompanied by a black-and-white photo of him finishing a shot while a digitally-added spinning cricket ball floats across the screen alongside lines of a scorecard (often just the same line, only in many different sizes).
Cut to another cricketer talking about how good said player was, and how much he changed the game and inspired his team. Generally a story of a particular match will come next, with the inevitable glorious conclusion demonstrating the heroism of whichever player they were raving about at that particular time. BUT THEN... West Indians were undertaking a rebel tour/ Viv Richards retired/England were **** again! And the whole cycle restarts.
Good fun though.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Hah, bodyline is the single most overrated incident in the history of sport. It was a big deal only because a big deal was made about it. What Jardine did was perfectly acceptable, and he should be given credit for being the first one to really do it, and actually contain Bradman (fifties instead of a century average).
What about it was unacceptable? As a player, you are there to play by the laws of the game. It's not up to them to decide which laws they should follow. If its within the laws, and you can use it to win, you're making a mockery of the sport if you purposefully don't do it.
pasag
RTDAS
He wasn't.