Bodyline. (Leg theory)

[Goughy]

TBF, if I'd just invented leg theory, the first thing I'd do would be thinking of a way to beat it. Because if I could think of a way, Don Bradman could.

The point is he hadn't invented it. It had been around for a long, long time. It was just that he had a weapon that could do more damage then anyone else.

 

[Son Of Coco]

McCabe, no mean batsman under normal circumstances, was reckoned to have played a once-in-a-lifetime innings in that opening Test. I don't think anyone would have been expecting very many of such innings. Indeed, McCabe might have never played such a thing again in his career, had he faced 50 more leg-theory-espousing attacks. What chance did lesser players have?

Bradman used a tactic which would have been beyond most batsmen - he repeatedly backed away from the stumps to free the off (as I'm sure you know). Most batsmen would not have had the speed of foot, never mind the presence of mind, to employ such a method successfully. Only one as exceptional as Bradman could have managed it, and while the leg-theory tactic would not even have been used in the series but for him, the fact one so good as he managed to find a way to partially combat isn't particularly significant to how lesser players could have operated.

If you're saying McCabe wasn't a talented bat then I have to disagree. (Your turn of phrase has me slightly confused).

 

[archie mac]

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).

That is just simply wrong

Captains have a responsibility to the game, and deserved to be roundly attacked if they do things to harm it.

Time wasting, ball tampering etc

 

[archie mac]

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.

So that makes it ok?

 

[archie mac]

Nah, McCabe's magnificent ton showed that with skill (& balls) it was possible to bat successfully against it. It made it harder for the batsmen, but no fielding side should be looking to make it easier, should they?

Bradman also averaged over 50, which, whilst down on his usual superhuman returns, hardly suggests it was impossible to play.

As you know McCabe said he was lucky and it would not happen again, and indeed he struggled from that Test on

And Bradman was half the batsman, which means other great batsman who ave 50 would expect to only ave 25 against that attack

 

[archie mac]

No, they were using it as early as the MCC game at Lords before the first test. & doesn't the very fact that Jardine scored his only test century against leg theory suggest that maybe it wasn't as hard to effectively counter as all that?

I know you know better

The bowlers were no where near the pace of Larwood, the pitch was no where near as quick as some of the Aussie pitches, and after people in England watched that game it was quickly attacked as against the spirit of the game

 

[Pratters]

I was talking with a friend about Bodyline just 2-3 days back. Whether it was fair enough to employ it keeps being debated to this day (as evident in this thread). However, what it does show is how Jardine was a genius captain as he stopped Bradman and won in a side which contained Bradman among other fine Australians. We also agreed that Bradman's greatness being in the public's imagination has a lot to do with Bodyline, not just the stats. For instance, even Sydney Barnes had a superb bowling record. Yet, he got so few votes by even cricket pundits of the time at the turn of the millenium than he should have; a legend like WG Grace isn't talked about in a length which is close the amount Bradman is talked about. Many cricket fans who follow the game arduously do not even know much about Grace's achievements. A big reason why Bradman is in the mind's eyes of the people so much still is because of Bodyline.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't think the options are necessarily mutually exclusive. It was a brilliant tactical move, and it was a disgraceful moment.

I have no problems whatsoever with Jardine trying it. It was within the rules and they wanted to win. And I have no problems with the subsequent banning of it, either.

If you are allowed to do it within the rules, you should most definitely do it if its going to help you. It's the same as underarm - if I were in his position, I'd bowl underarm too...it's up to the administrators to outlaw it if they think it counters what they want in a game. As a player, my job is to win.

 

[archie mac]

I was talking with a friend about Bodyline just 2-3 days back. Whether it was fair enough to employ it keeps being debated to this day (as evident in this thread). However, what it does show is how Jardine was a genius captain as he stopped Bradman and won in a side which contained Bradman among other fine Australians. We also agreed that Bradman's greatness being in the public's imagination has a lot to do with Bodyline, not just the stats. For instance, even Sydney Barnes had a superb bowling record. Yet, he got so few votes by even cricket pundits of the time at the turn of the millenium than he should have; a legend like WG Grace isn't talked about in a length which is close the amount Bradman is talked about. Many cricket fans who follow the game arduously do not even know much about Grace's achievements. A big reason why Bradman is in the mind's eyes of the people so much still is because of Bodyline.

I think a much more interesting question is "do you think England would have won the series without the use of Bodyline?"

I think the answer is yes 3-2 for my money

Bradman missed the first Test and apart from Melbourne the pitches that series favoured the fast men and England clearly had the better pace attack and the Best fast bowler in the world at that time

Then again Aust did have Bradman

 

[neville cardus]

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

But for the rectitude of Bill Woodfull and a forgivable reluctance to blood Eddie Gilbert, they might well have done so. The series could have been even more squalid than it actually was, an unremitting tide of bean-balls and leg-slips, intensified with every retaliation.

I think it probable, though, that the English batsmen would have done far better than the Australians. Hammond's hook-stroke had long been consigned to the scrapheap, but there was never any suggestion that he didn't like it up him. DRJ handled Bodyline better than anyone, and was matched in icy self-assurance only by the unflinching Wyatt, who could play through crucibles of pain. Sutcliffe, although getting no younger, was as doggedly imperturbable as ever, while Ames was one of the best hookers and pullers in the game.

Retaliation might have rendered it a closer affair, but English triumph was still the most likely outcome. It could even be argued that retaliation would in fact have done further harm to Australia's chances. Many forget that Jardine only employed the gambit intermittently. The lengths to which reciprocation would have provoked him are chilling to contemplate.

 

[Goughy]

Any use of players such as "Bull" Alexander and Gilbert in retaliation would have made things far worse (and one would add the added dimention of Gilberts suspect action and the added controversy that would have brought).

To use the old expression, it would have been like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

The damage would have escalated and England would have caused havoc. Why? purely due to Larwood.

 

[Pratters]

I think a much more interesting question is "do you think England would have won the series without the use of Bodyline?"

I think the answer is yes 3-2 for my money

Bradman missed the first Test and apart from Melbourne the pitches that series favoured the fast men and England clearly had the better pace attack and the Best fast bowler in the world at that time

Then again Aust did have Bradman

Australia would have won I think... Bradman's runs apart, there is also the factor of the other Australian players not being able to score. Only McCabe crossed 40 apart from Bradman. The third highest by an Australian who played all 5 tests was by Bill Woodfull (33). Intriguing question...

 

[neville cardus]

And I have not read a terribly large amount on the use of the tactic pre-1932\33

Original research on the part of yours truly shows that the first quick bowler to employ the tactic was probably Spofforth, albeit after the end of his international career. The first recorded instance of its use by any bowler was in February 1882, when Tom Horan dispaired at Murdoch's irremovability.

 

[neville cardus]

From what I've heard, Constantine and Martindale used it for about 2 sessions in the Second Test (in which Jardine, of course, constructed his only Test century). Totally different to constant, repeated use throughout the course of a series.

You are correct in your use of "repeated", but what makes you think that it was "constant"? It is very difficult to imagine Hedley Verity, who effectively won the Fifth Test, digging 'em in to a packed legside field.

 

[jeevan]

Just perusing the scorecards (and Cricinfo page on Bodyline), seems that Hedley Verity and Gubby Allen did well too (and certainly were no part of leg theory bowling). And not only that, Bradman appears to have been bowled by Larwood as many times as he was caught. It is likely that he was rattled by leg theory bowling, but also seems like England had the conventional tools to make a series out of it any way - being one up to start with.

Australian bowling line up reads like the Indian ones in the 70's. Three slow bowlers (Ironmonger, OReily, Grimmett), was dimly aware that they were from the same general era, but apparently they played together as well. Would certainly need a different crew to retaliate (and which would involve benching your best bowlers - a situation that England did not have).

So it seems that BodyLine was a way of making really really sure of the Ashes.

 

[archie mac]

Just perusing the scorecards (and Cricinfo page on Bodyline), seems that Hedley Verity and Gubby Allen did well too (and certainly were no part of leg theory bowling). And not only that, Bradman appears to have been bowled by Larwood as many times as he was caught. It is likely that he was rattled by leg theory bowling, but also seems like England had the conventional tools to make a series out of it any way - being one up to start with.

Australian bowling line up reads like the Indian ones in the 70's. Three slow bowlers (Ironmonger, OReily, Grimmett), was dimly aware that they were from the same general era, but apparently they played together as well. Would certainly need a different crew to retaliate (and which would involve benching your best bowlers - a situation that England did not have).

So it seems that BodyLine was a way of making really really sure of the Ashes.

Bradman thought the best way to play Bodyline was to step away and try and hit the ball into the unguarded outfield, this made him a prime target for the yorker which will explain why Larwood bowled him a lot but only ever hit him once.

Also Bradman tried to score as many as he could against the bowlers not using BL and was often caught in the deep off Verity, although he was still a great bowler and would have troubled Bradman no matter what the Don's tactics.

It should also be said that the combination of Tiger and the Gnome won many a series for the Aussies including the umcoming 1934 series

 

[neville cardus]

Bradman thought the best way to play Bodyline was to step away and try and hit the ball into the unguarded outfield, this made him a prime target for the yorker which will explain why Larwood bowled him a lot but only ever hit him once.

That is as well-put, -thought-out and -balanced a refutation as I have seen here. Give the man an award.

 

[jeevan]

That is as well-put, -thought-out and -balanced a refutation as I have seen here. Give the man an award.

Seconded.

Good thread too, while we are handing out awards.

 

[archie mac]

That is as well-put, -thought-out and -balanced a refutation as I have seen here. Give the man an award.

Seconded.

Good thread too, while we are handing out awards.

Thanks lads

I love the BL series, and love to discuss it. It is well to remember that this forum has a lot of people at different levels at their learning of the history of this great game.

Although NC at the age of 18 with the knowledge he already has, scares me

Just kidding mate, it is good to see

 

[Richard]

You are correct in your use of "repeated", but what makes you think that it was "constant"? It is very difficult to imagine Hedley Verity, who effectively won the Fifth Test, digging 'em in to a packed legside field.

I was under the impression that Larwood and Voce in 1932\33 used the tactic rather more often than Constantine and Martindale in 1933. Maybe I was mistaken.