New series starting on BBC2 tonight

[stumpski]

Incidentally, I gather a lot of this series is already on YouTube if members outside the UK are interested in seeing it. Agree with Uppercut's comments to a degree, but I suspect many viewers would never even have heard of Headley or Constantine, for instance. Didn't learn a lot, but enjoyed it all the same.

 

[silentstriker]

He wasn't.

I meant using it to contain Bradman, not leg theory in general.

 

[Burgey]

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.

Same with underarm then, obviously.

 

[Uppercut]

Incidentally, I gather a lot of this series is already on YouTube if members outside the UK are interested in seeing it. Agree with Uppercut's comments to a degree, but I suspect many viewers would never even have heard of Headley or Constantine, for instance. Didn't learn a lot, but enjoyed it all the same.

Tbh, i did quite enjoy it. I was just parodying its unoriginal style a bit.

 

[shivfan]

For me, as a long-time follower of WI cricket, it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

But it's a useful programme, and I taped it today, so that I could show it to my son, who doesn't like to read books....

For those of us who would like to read more about the topic, I suggest Michael Manley's 'History of West Indies Cricket' and CLR James 'Beyond the Boundary', who both go a bit more in-depth in the issue. I think this episode served mainly as an introduction to the issues.

If I am to nit-pick, I thought I'd just like to point out a few minor omissions:

1) The furor created in the West Indies by COwdrey and May padding away the deliveries of Ramadhin in 1957.

2) Sobers' declaration in Trinidad which caused the WI to lose to England. I thought the focus was just a little skewed to the performances of the Windies abroad more than at home.

3) The significant role played by the Kerry Packer series in helping Lloyd to turn his side into a professional outfit. In fact, after the Packer series, remuneration for the WI players increased, and they were better paid than before. They were not so hard up that they had to go to South Africa in 1983.

Aside from those minor quibbles, I thought it was a good introduction to WI cricket....

 

[shivfan]

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).

Yeah, I noticed that too, though, to be fair, it's a minor point....

This is where I recommend reading Michael Manley's book, which I think treats the subject with much greater detail than any one-hour programme could. As Manley points out, Goddard was a pretty poor leader, and epitomised a lot that was wrong with the white leadership in the Caribbean at the time. However, Manley points out that Alexander was totally different, and was just unfortunate enough to have the wrong shade of skin at a time when the public was clamouring for Worrell. Manley says that Alexander was in favour of Worrell, and that they had a very good relationship after batons were changed - a great credit to both men, IMHO....

 

[andyc]

Same with underarm then, obviously.

Yeah, was going to post the same thing. Have said it a few times on here, but it irks me that people praise Bodyline, yet the underarm is criticised by all and sundry, even though they were both successful and acceptable according to the laws at the time.

 

[GIMH]

Number 3 about to start everyone. It's about the crims.

 

[GIMH]

Am enjoying this. Disappointed to see them say that Bradman averaged 99.94 per innings though, poor form

 

[BoyBrumby]

Quite amused me that when Lol & Bill fired a coupla bouncers down in 32/33 the suggestion was that Australia was within her rights to practically cancel diplomatic relations, but when Lillian Thomson were trying to decapitate our batters in the 70s the docu painted it as a bit of a jolly old lark.

 

[GIMH]

Would have liked a bit more on underarm as well, cheating scoundrels

 

[shivfan]

I thought it was okay....

However, I thought it was simplistic to put the Aussie triumph in the Caribbean in 1995 solely down to the batting of Steve Waugh and the bowling of Shane Warne. They totally ignored Reiffel in the final Test, and of course McGrath and Julien set it up for the Aussies with victory in the first Test.

 

[zaremba]

Yeah, was going to post the same thing. Have said it a few times on here, but it irks me that people praise Bodyline, yet the underarm is criticised by all and sundry, even though they were both successful and acceptable according to the laws at the time.

One was sneaky, the other wasn't.

 

[zaremba]

Quite amused me that when Lol & Bill fired a coupla bouncers down in 32/33 the suggestion was that Australia was within her rights to practically cancel diplomatic relations, but when Lillian Thomson were trying to decapitate our batters in the 70s the docu painted it as a bit of a jolly old lark.

This.

As neatly summed up by Aussie hero Jeff Thomson - "I enjoy hitting a batsman more than getting him out. I like to see blood on the pitch."

 

[wpdavid]

This.

As neatly summed up by Aussie hero Jeff Thomson - "I enjoy hitting a batsman more than getting him out. I like to see blood on the pitch."

Aw gee mate .......

 

[Richard]

I thought the focus was just a little skewed to the performances of the Windies abroad more than at home.

Is that surprising? Cricket in West Indies only begun to be televised in, what, 1990? Or so. Before then what footage does exist is mostly brief and usually poor-quality.

I somewhat doubt it was skewed to performances in New Zealand or India either, was it? I imagine it was centred on the two places where plentiful footage exists - England and Australia.

 

[Furball]

For those who missed it it's available on BBC iPlayer. Just about to settle down and watch now.

Cheers for that, really enjoyed the footage of the old greats, particularly Hobbs.