Hall of Fame Member
We did win there in 86/87 as well
News to me - the Bodyline series is and has and will always remain one of the most fascinating in cricket history, from a cricket and social POV.Richard doesn't like it
Nah, I told you, it was 1970/71. Before most of us on here were even born.TBH it's been so long I can't even remember the last Ashes series in Australia. When was it? 2003 right?
Banging it in short's one thing - any fool can do that and countless have down the years. What made it so realistically impossible to score very often against (unless you took Bradman's risk-heavy strategy of backing away and aiming into the wide spaces on the off) was the strong leg-side fields.Well I for one would have been proud to have worn the Harlequin cap and ordered the pit men to bang it in short against the colonial upstarts.
"If they don't like the heat, Gubby, they can **** off out of the kitchen"
Which is exactly why it was such a genius strategy.News to me - the Bodyline series is and has and will always remain one of the most fascinating in cricket history, from a cricket and social POV.
But there's no way you can equate it to "normal" cricket. England won via means that no-one had ever considered the unfairness of, and their victory meant it suddenly was considered, and the method was thenceforth outlawed.
Bowling consistently short, leg-side and quickly to 6-7 fielders behind square on the leg is a strategy no-one could hope to have consistent success against. Especially on deadly uneven decks like the Third Test of that series.
Fair enough, that's where you and I differ.That it was genius (in that no-one had thought to deploy it to the extent Jardine did) is not something I'm disputing for a second. That it was highly irregular is equally beyond dispute. Never again would such a strategy be deployed, and rightly so.
Winning is pointless without fair play IMO.
The way I see it, sport is what it is because people want to watch it. And by-and-large, one of the first things that is looked for in a sport by the masses is whether it's played fairly. Whenever play is not fair, you can bank on the masses baulking at it. The thing that intrudes on this is that these days, there are such massive short-term payoffs that make the difference between victory and defeat. Long-term damage can be done (ie, turning people off because of unfair play and thus in the long-run decreasing the audience so thus the pay-packet) in favour of short-term gain (ie, a victory and more win-bonuses).Fair enough, that's where you and I differ.
The rules are there to be worked with, if you can use the rules to your advantage, like Douglas Jardine did, then fair play to you.