Were bodyline tactics actually that negative?

[karan316]

People look at it and describe it in a really negative manner, almost as if it were cheating. I think Bodyline(or leg theory) was a top class strategy used by England. It was something really creative although there was a bit of danger involved in it since the players at that time didn't wear helmets. The wickets were extremely flat, I know someone will mention about sticky wickets and stuff but majority of the time the batting conditions were quite good. So in that case, I don't think there was much wrong with the tactics used by England.

Why was there so much criticism towards it? If a player is strong on the leg side, he can just score easy runs(no matter what the field settings are) with the bowlers bowling towards his body, its not like its impossible to score runs. Bodyline tactics would have eventually faded away once the batsmen would have found a way to counter it.

 

[fredfertang]

The irony is that they were designed as negative tactics - Jardine expected the wickets to be dead flat as they had been in 1928/29, so the thinking was if they weren't going to get Bradman out until it rained they could at least restrict the areas where he could score by bowling fast leg theory - the idea was that Bradman either left it (which he did some of the time) or took a risk by hooking towards a crowded leg field (which he didn't try) - the other batsman had the same choices as well, and it's worth remembering that there were plenty of other good batsman in Australia at the time. What no one quite expected and made all the difference was that Larwood would find an extra yard or two of pace or that the bounce would be unpredictable - the fact that this thread has been started shows that whatever view you have of the morality of the tactics they certainly weren't negative in outcome

 

[the big bambino]

Jardine apparently consulted FR Foster on his field settings that he employed as he bowled Eng to victory with Barnes in 11/12. Story goes that Jardine saw film of Bradman drawing away from short stuff in his Oval double century in 1930. A then young female member of his family recalled his reaction years later and reported he whooped "I've got it! He's yellow!" I think Jardine wanted to corral stroke play to leg with the line and behind square with the length. Not only made stroke play hard it maximised catching opportunities in the leg side slip cordon from bunted shots.

Foster was an attacking bowler. The theory based on a perceived weakness observed in the batsman. The attack made run scoring hard. It was supported by a clutch of catching fielders. It was an attacking tactic imo.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The two behind leg rule has made it harder to have really negative tactics going forward anyway.

 

[Unomaas]

While the Bodyline tactics might have been developed as a tactic to contain, the results thereof changed cricket for the better because it reasserted the fact that cricket is a sporting contest between 2 teams and that nothing was more important than winning (within the confines of the rules). I personally give Jardine and co. a hand of applause everytime I read up on their exploits because it took big balls to continuously use the strategy in a hostile environment that some say bordered on physical violence being practiced on the visiting English team.

When I look at Bodyline through the context of cricket history, I always dwell on the irony that when negative tactics are being practiced against Australia, its deemed as bringing the game into disrepute but when Australia is doing it, its considered being competitive?

As an example, Lillee and Thomo totally decimated Clive Lloyds team on their first trip to Australia under Lloyds captaincy. When Lillee bowled, loud chants of "Kill, Kill, Kill" reverberated through the stadium and Lillee was trying to do just that...kill. Hit counts were gleefully tallied and wickets were a second attraction to Lillee hurting batsmen. When Lloyd returned back to the islands and rounded up Marshall, Garner Croft and Roberts and started practicing their own "kill, kill, kill", the aussies started playing possum and the Windies fast bowlers were labeled as being "unsportsman" like and "negative".

As far as I'm concerned, play the game hard, use any strategy if its within the confines of the rules and human decency and let the rest take care of itself.

 

[Debris]

While the Bodyline tactics might have been developed as a tactic to contain, the results thereof changed cricket for the better because it reasserted the fact that cricket is a sporting contest between 2 teams and that nothing was more important than winning (within the confines of the rules). I personally give Jardine and co. a hand of applause everytime I read up on their exploits because it took big balls to continuously use the strategy in a hostile environment that some say bordered on physical violence being practiced on the visiting English team.

When I look at Bodyline through the context of cricket history, I always dwell on the irony that when negative tactics are being practiced against Australia, its deemed as bringing the game into disrepute but when Australia is doing it, its considered being competitive?

As an example, Lillee and Thomo totally decimated Clive Lloyds team on their first trip to Australia under Lloyds captaincy. When Lillee bowled, loud chants of "Kill, Kill, Kill" reverberated through the stadium and Lillee was trying to do just that...kill. Hit counts were gleefully tallied and wickets were a second attraction to Lillee hurting batsmen. When Lloyd returned back to the islands and rounded up Marshall, Garner Croft and Roberts and started practicing their own "kill, kill, kill", the aussies started playing possum and the Windies fast bowlers were labeled as being "unsportsman" like and "negative".

As far as I'm concerned, play the game hard, use any strategy if its within the confines of the rules and human decency and let the rest take care of itself.

Do you have an example of something within the rules and outside of human decency if the above is OK?

 

[Unomaas]

Do you have an example of something within the rules and outside of human decency if the above is OK?

I was looking for a concept or word to encompass actions such as racism, extreme prejudice, ***ual orientation prejudice, etc and "human decency" was the best I could come up with . Point is, there are certain lines that can never be crossed and that must be respected.

 

[fredfertang]

Do you have an example of something within the rules and outside of human decency if the above is OK?

How about a fast bowler digging the ball in when bowling to a batsman whose face is swathed in bandages and he has a broken jaw?

(just a suggestion - I'm not saying that I necessarily think that it is)

 

[OverratedSanity]

If the world was fair, Jardine would be widely regarded as one of the all time great captains and cricketers. He was a genius, but unfortunately people are idiots.

Deserves to be hailed as a genius, none of that ridiculous against the spirit of the game crap matters a jot

 

[Red]

If the world was fair, Jardine would be widely regarded as one of the all time great captains and cricketers. He was a genius, but unfortunately people are idiots.

Deserves to be hailed as a genius, none of that ridiculous against the spirit of the game crap matters a jot

Nup. There was considerable chance someone could've been killed with the tactics he used and the bowlers at his disposal (and the lack of protective equipment). It was against the spirit of the game (as it stood at the time) as evidenced by the outcry from media and public, the near riot in Adelaide, and the cable from the ACB to the MCC.

And the fact that they changed the law to stop the tactic being used effectively indicates pretty strongly that it was against the "spirit of the game".

 

[karan316]

Nup. There was considerable chance someone could've been killed with the tactics he used and the bowlers at his disposal (and the lack of protective equipment). It was against the spirit of the game (as it stood at the time) as evidenced by the outcry from media and public, the near riot in Adelaide, and the cable from the ACB to the MCC.

And the fact that they changed the law to stop the tactic being used effectively indicates pretty strongly that it was against the "spirit of the game".

It wasn't against the spirit of the game tbh. Bodyline bowling was also done in the 70s and 80s, do we consider it against the spirit of the game? Since the rules were changed, the chances of taking a wicket weren't the same, but the possibility of someone getting killed was always there and in fact it was even more dangerous at that time because of the quality pace bowlers and some of the wickets which had a lot of help for the quicks.

 

[the big bambino]

Short pitched bowling isn't necessarily bodyline bowling (and I can hear the ghost of O'Reilly raising its hackles at the suggestion) but rules were changed in response to the short stuff in the 80s, assisted by innovations to mediate the advantage fast bowlers had at the time. Limits on bumpers per over, mandated daily over rates, protective equipment, even truer pitches were an advance on the situation in the 80s.

 

[fredfertang]

Nup. There was considerable chance someone could've been killed with the tactics he used and the bowlers at his disposal (and the lack of protective equipment). It was against the spirit of the game (as it stood at the time) as evidenced by the outcry from media and public, the near riot in Adelaide, and the cable from the ACB to the MCC.

And the fact that they changed the law to stop the tactic being used effectively indicates pretty strongly that it was against the "spirit of the game".

Nah the Aussies were squealing - England raised no complaint, well not publicly anyway, about Armstrong's gamesmanship generally nor specifically about Gregory and McDonald's assaults in 1920 and 1921

 

[Adders]

While the Bodyline tactics might have been developed as a tactic to contain, the results thereof changed cricket for the better because it reasserted the fact that cricket is a sporting contest between 2 teams and that nothing was more important than winning (within the confines of the rules). I personally give Jardine and co. a hand of applause everytime I read up on their exploits because it took big balls to continuously use the strategy in a hostile environment that some say bordered on physical violence being practiced on the visiting English team.

When I look at Bodyline through the context of cricket history, I always dwell on the irony that when negative tactics are being practiced against Australia, its deemed as bringing the game into disrepute but when Australia is doing it, its considered being competitive?

As an example, Lillee and Thomo totally decimated Clive Lloyds team on their first trip to Australia under Lloyds captaincy. When Lillee bowled, loud chants of "Kill, Kill, Kill" reverberated through the stadium and Lillee was trying to do just that...kill. Hit counts were gleefully tallied and wickets were a second attraction to Lillee hurting batsmen. When Lloyd returned back to the islands and rounded up Marshall, Garner Croft and Roberts and started practicing their own "kill, kill, kill", the aussies started playing possum and the Windies fast bowlers were labeled as being "unsportsman" like and "negative".

As far as I'm concerned, play the game hard, use any strategy if its within the confines of the rules and human decency and let the rest take care of itself.

Quality post.

But tbf the hypocrisy shown by the Aussies when the WI's returned to Aus with their own vicious assault was not dissimilar to that shown by England during the WI's tour when Tony Grieg made his infamous "grovel" comment. English players and press were equally outraged at such hostile bowling which always struck me as rather rich coming from the same people so proud of the bodyline tactics. I think we are all capable of these double standards. And looking back at these times now the racial undertones that the West Indies faced in both Australia and England were just appalling and it always amazes me how Holding, Richards et al can return to these countries with such apparent ill feeling.

As for bodyline itself, well I hold Jardine right at the top of the list of greatest English captains ever and that series as one of England's greatest wins. Nothing wrong with the tactic and the execution was perfect.

 

[jonbrooks]

People look at it and describe it in a really negative manner, almost as if it were cheating. I think Bodyline(or leg theory) was a top class strategy used by England. It was something really creative although there was a bit of danger involved in it since the players at that time didn't wear helmets. The wickets were extremely flat, I know someone will mention about sticky wickets and stuff but majority of the time the batting conditions were quite good. So in that case, I don't think there was much wrong with the tactics used by England.

Why was there so much criticism towards it? If a player is strong on the leg side, he can just score easy runs(no matter what the field settings are) with the bowlers bowling towards his body, its not like its impossible to score runs. Bodyline tactics would have eventually faded away once the batsmen would have found a way to counter it.

I think the bodyline tactics were excellent. What they demonstrated was how a batsman's run scoring ability could be contained and the tactic worked brilliantly against Bradman.

 

[the big bambino]

I think the racial problems faced by the WI, particularly in Oz are cricket forum fantasies. Yes some but there wasn't a seething under current or whatever. Don't know about England but in Oz they were popular. They weren't like Jack Johnson which is why they enjoy coming here and we enjoy seeing them. We live in political correct times and the 80s were little different. The WI rode roughshod over oppositions and exploited the rules as they existed to preserve their winning edge. In fact their colour may have been an advantage as the rule changes in response were much slower in coming than the rule changes in reaction to bodyline. I think there was a reluctance to change the rules in regard to a perception that to do so would result in accusations of racism. I think that fear was justified in light of even a few posts here.

Even then rule changes hardly nobbled the advantage the WI had as thoroughly as the one the English enjoyed with bodyline. Mandated overs and limits on bumpers didn't effect the WI pre eminence. Eng then however lost their one tactic to subdue Bradman. A comparison btwn the 2 incidents shows that if anything the WI rec'd a benefit and for politically correct reasons, than Eng back then did.

 

[Red]

It wasn't against the spirit of the game tbh. Bodyline bowling was also done in the 70s and 80s, do we consider it against the spirit of the game?

Plenty of people do. Including me. And that goes for all short pitched bowling that targets the head chest before helmets etc became common. Lillee and Thommo included.

Since the rules were changed, the chances of taking a wicket weren't the same, but the possibility of someone getting killed was always there and in fact it was even more dangerous at that time because of the quality pace bowlers and some of the wickets which had a lot of help for the quicks.

Anytime someone is in serious danger of being killed in a sporting contest, I'd say it's against the spirit of the game. That's the fundamental point here.

Nah the Aussies were squealing - England raised no complaint, well not publicly anyway, about Armstrong's gamesmanship generally nor specifically about Gregory and McDonald's assaults in 1920 and 1921

Dunno much about that series, but obviously the point stands, when there's a constant threat to someone's life, or wellbeing, then surely it's a negative tactic and against the spirit of the game.

 

[nightprowler10]

I think the bodyline tactics were excellent. What they demonstrated was how a batsman's run scoring ability could be contained and the tactic worked brilliantly against Bradman.

I recall reading Jardine was convinced Bradman missed the 1st Test out of nervousness rather than illness/injury.

 

[the big bambino]

No he was pretty crook that summer. Can't remember all the details but I think he had dental problems plus the interference of the Board over his status writing for a newspaper

 

[Burgey]

I recall reading Jardine was convinced Bradman missed the 1st Test out of nervousness rather than illness/injury.

I don't think that's necessarily right at all. There was a warm up match in Melbourne which Jardine himself missed, but I don't know that there was much inclination of what was to come at that time. You'd have to keep in mind that Bradman had dominated the same bowlers in England a couple of years before.

Bradman was embroiled in a contractual dispute at the time and iirc had said he wouldn't play if he wasn't allowed to write for the Packer press in order to honour his contract. That was going on before the first test, and it was only when Frank Packer released Bradman from his contract that he ended up being available to play. then I think he had some injury or illness which meant he missed the first test, but I cbf looking it up.

Edit: what BB said