Jimmy Anderson

[stephen]

I'm certainly enjoying this conversation in which a dangerous, outlawed and ultimately boring tactic is compared to fast bowling.

 

[the big bambino]

Where have I bitched about any purveyors of short pitch bowling? I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy of some Australian cricket fans - past and present.

Just because the term "bodyline" wasn't used until Jardine used it doesn't mean it wasn't employed before then.

To pick you up on a few points you have made. Any reputable article on bodyline refers to it as leg-theory. They are one and the same. What made it more effective for Jardine was a bowler called Larwood. Both Hirst and Foster (described as left arm medium fast and left-arm fast medium respectively) used leg theory during the dates indicated. The fact that they and Scott denied using bodyline is splitting hairs. They admit to employing leg-theory but deny bodyline ... probably due to the stigma. As an interesting aside, Scott (a right arm fast bowler) was the first bowler to dismiss Bradman in a first class game.
Regarding Armstrong, he used leg-theory, not as a bowler but as a captain setting leg theory fields for his quicks.

Re Lance Gun - true he was a batsman but this article might be of interest.

"Lance Gun was a left-handed batsman. He made his first-class debut at the age of 21 for South Australia in the Sheffield Shield match against New South Wales at the Adelaide Oval in January 1925. On the first day he batted at number seven, going to the wicket when South Australia were 5 for 122, and scoring 136 not out, taking the total to 389 all out.
On the second day, when New South Wales batted, Les Gwynne (also making his first-class debut) and Tommy Andrews were building a steady partnership for the third wicket against mediocre bowling when South Australia's captain Vic Richardson asked Gun to bowl. Gun set a bodyline field of seven fieldsmen on the leg side, including five behind square and one at forward short leg. Bowling right-arm fast-medium over the wicket to the right-handed batsmen, he proceeded to bowl short-pitched deliveries at the batsmen or just outside the line of leg stump. Andrews disdained to play strokes against such deliveries, but was surprised by a fuller ball from Gun that bowled him off his pads. Despite not quite knowing how to treat Gun's bowling, Gwynne reached his century, but was later dismissed by Gun, caught after skying the ball. Richardson then took Gun off, and he never bowled again in first-class cricket."

Finally, regarding Constantine.

"Freddie Calthorpe, the England captain, criticised Learie Constantine's use of short-pitched bowling to a leg side field in a Test match in 1930; one such ball struck Andy Sandham, but Constantine only reverted to more conventional tactics after a complaint from the England team."

In pointing out the hypocrisy of one set of fans and not others you are being selective and hypocritical. You are changing your story. You quoted Armstrong as a pre WW1 example. He only captained post war. i contained my comments to your original post when he bowled leg spin and can't find any mention of Armstrong setting bodyline fields to substantiate your backsliding iteration.

It is a meme that CW punters think themselves more knowledgeable than the cricketers themselves. Foster said he never bowled bodyline. Ditto Hirst. Bowling inswing to leg slips a familiar tactic back then. Even Fred Root used it. But all these examples involve fuller swinging rather than shorter lifting deliveries making the distinction between bodyline and leg theory real and not hair splitting. I believe them instead of you and the choice was an easy one. But if you think leg theory is indistinguishable from bodyline then let us believe Foster and Hirst liars, Englishmen its instigators and, as there was no controversy when they bowled out here, congratulate Aussie fans for being manful while they bowled it; hmmm?

The article you're quoting about Gun is wikipedia. Fair enough but hardly the gold standard for cricket history. No one identifies this singular incident as bodyline. It lacked the threat that Jardine's team presented. It was used once and in desperation. Whereas Jardine's tactic was the centre piece of his strategy and used continuously throughout the tour. The distinction is as great as Ponting bowling bumpers versus Brett Lee. If you don't have the threat or prolonged tactic you don't have bodyline. Citing examples like Constantine's are meaningless. Yes they bowled bumpers then they quickly stopped. There was no tactical planning like Jardine exhibited.

In any case its irrelevant. Australia weren't involved in that match and when bodyline was introduced here it was by Jardine, not Connie. But if you're happy we'll blame Englishmen Hirst and Foster instead.

 

[Daemon]

This debate’s the equivalent of james anderson with a kookaburra.

Long, unnecessary and mediocre with a few good points along the way.

 

[the big bambino]

Look up ... Its over your head.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Getting back to Ishant Sharma, he's certainly impressed me much much more in NZ conditions than Anderson has.

 

[Line and Length]

In pointing out the hypocrisy of one set of fans and not others you are being selective and hypocritical. You are changing your story. You quoted Armstrong as a pre WW1 example. He only captained post war. i contained my comments to your original post when he bowled leg spin and can't find any mention of Armstrong setting bodyline fields to substantiate your backsliding iteration.

It is a meme that CW punters think themselves more knowledgeable than the cricketers themselves. Foster said he never bowled bodyline. Ditto Hirst. Bowling inswing to leg slips a familiar tactic back then. Even Fred Root used it. But all these examples involve fuller swinging rather than shorter lifting deliveries making the distinction between bodyline and leg theory real and not hair splitting. I believe them instead of you and the choice was an easy one. But if you think leg theory is indistinguishable from bodyline then let us believe Foster and Hirst liars, Englishmen its instigators and, as there was no controversy when they bowled out here, congratulate Aussie fans for being manful while they bowled it; hmmm?

The article you're quoting about Gun is wikipedia. Fair enough but hardly the gold standard for cricket history. No one identifies this singular incident as bodyline. It lacked the threat that Jardine's team presented. It was used once and in desperation. Whereas Jardine's tactic was the centre piece of his strategy and used continuously throughout the tour. The distinction is as great as Ponting bowling bumpers versus Brett Lee. If you don't have the threat or prolonged tactic you don't have bodyline. Citing examples like Constantine's are meaningless. Yes they bowled bumpers then they quickly stopped. There was no tactical planning like Jardine exhibited.

In any case its irrelevant. Australia weren't involved in that match and when bodyline was introduced here it was by Jardine, not Connie. But if you're happy we'll blame Englishmen Hirst and Foster instead.

To quote you, "Now, now. No need for the snark."

Again, I'll address a couple of points.

"You quoted Armstrong as a pre WW1 example. He only captained post war. i contained my comments to your original post when he bowled leg spin and can't find any mention of Armstrong setting bodyline fields to substantiate your backsliding iteration."
I explained in a subsequent post that Armstrong didn't employ leg-theory personally, but as captain requested his bowlers to do so. This was as captain of Victoria pre WWI.

"It is a meme that CW punters think themselves more knowledgeable than the cricketers themselves."
I am not claiming to be more knowledgeable than cricketers themselves. I am simply pointing out information gleaned from various articles.

As for the rest of your post, I am simply quoting numerous cricketing authorities who described leg-theory as the foundation of bodyline. The fact is that it was still called leg-theory until the term "bodyline" was coined.
Leg-theory was a tactic employed to restrict scoring by bowling at or outside leg stump with a packed leg-side field. It was only a tactic that became dangerous when combined with short pitched bowling as employed by Jardine and others, as mentioned, before him. The tactic, at the time, was within the rules of the game albeit outside the spirit of the game.

My original post re fans' attitudes towards the use of bouncers stands. In the so called 'Bodyline Series' there were near riots at Adealiade, particularly when Bert Oldfield was felled by a Larwood delivery. The irony is that there was a conventional field in place and the delivery was top edged into Oldfield's head. The other incident I mentioned was the crowds behaviour when Terry Jenner was felled by John Snow. Snow was physically man-handled by a spectator and bottles and beer cans were thrown onto the ground. Later, while watching the 2nd Ashes Test in Perth ('74/75) I admired the fast bowling abilities of Lillee and Thomson - including their bouncers. What I objected to was the chant of "Kill! Kill! Kill!" from a section of the crowd as they (Lillee and Thomson) ran in to bowl. The same sort of fans who were near to rioting in Adelaide in the 1932/33 series and Sydney in the 1970/71 series were suddenly baying for blood in 1974/75. Not for one moment am I suggesting that all fans act in this manner, but it is the hypocrisy that I found (as I originally posted) amusing and bemusing.

 

[Line and Length]

I'm certainly enjoying this conversation in which a dangerous, outlawed and ultimately boring tactic is compared to fast bowling.

It certainly was dangerous and, thankfully, outlawed. As a negative, run-restricting tactic it was definitely boring.

 

[mr_mister]

Lillee and Thommo was payback for Larwood

Bill Woodfull was smiling in his grave

 

[Line and Length]

Lillee and Thommo was payback for Larwood

Bill Woodfull was smiling in his grave

Fair enough .... but it doesn't excuse poor crowd behaviour.

 

[the big bambino]

To quote you, "Now, now. No need for the snark."

"You quoted Armstrong as a pre WW1 example. He only captained post war. i contained my comments to your original post when he bowled leg spin and can't find any mention of Armstrong setting bodyline fields to substantiate your backsliding iteration."
I explained in a subsequent post that Armstrong didn't employ leg-theory personally, but as captain requested his bowlers to do so. This was as captain of Victoria pre WWI.

"It is a meme that CW punters think themselves more knowledgeable than the cricketers themselves."
I am not claiming to be more knowledgeable than cricketers themselves. I am simply pointing out information gleaned from various articles.

As for the rest of your post, I am simply quoting numerous cricketing authorities who described leg-theory as the foundation of bodyline. The fact is that it was still called leg-theory until the term "bodyline" was coined.
Leg-theory was a tactic employed to restrict scoring by bowling at or outside leg stump with a packed leg-side field. It was only a tactic that became dangerous when combined with short pitched bowling as employed by Jardine and others, as mentioned, before him. The tactic, at the time, was within the rules of the game albeit outside the spirit of the game.

My original post re fans' attitudes towards the use of bouncers stands. In the so called 'Bodyline Series' there were near riots at Adealiade, particularly when Bert Oldfield was felled by a Larwood delivery. The irony is that there was a conventional field in place and the delivery was top edged into Oldfield's head. The other incident I mentioned was the crowds behaviour when Terry Jenner was felled by John Snow. Snow was physically man-handled by a spectator and bottles and beer cans were thrown onto the ground. Later, while watching the 2nd Ashes Test in Perth ('74/75) I admired the fast bowling abilities of Lillee and Thomson - including their bouncers. What I objected to was the chant of "Kill! Kill! Kill!" from a section of the crowd as they (Lillee and Thomson) ran in to bowl. The same sort of fans who were near to rioting in Adelaide in the 1932/33 series and Sydney in the 1970/71 series were suddenly baying for blood in 1974/75. Not for one moment am I suggesting that all fans act in this manner, but it is the hypocrisy that I found (as I originally posted) amusing and bemusing.

Isn't it an irony when someone brings the snark then complain when they get some back? Just being cheeky. I can't find an instance of Armstrong setting such a field. Whenever his aggressive employment of Gregory and McDonald is mentioned it isn't in conjunction with such a field. I can't find a pre ww1 fc instance either. The difference between leg theory and bodyline is to be measured in the reactions to them. The former never was controversial.

No doubt crowds can be awful. But you have to be careful attributing hypocrisy by comparing incidents across generations. The fan of 74/75 was probably reacting to the incidents of 70/71, not Adelaide 40 years earlier. They would have seen Snow and Illingworth as instigators and Lillee/Thommo as payback. Whereas a fairer indication of the bodyline fan would have been say immediately after the war when we had Lindwall and Miller. I don't think there were chants back then. So i'm not sure if those examples are instances of hypocrisy. Though I agree chanting for blood is reprehensible irrespective of whether there was provocation.

 

[Line and Length]

Isn't it an irony when someone brings the snark then complain when they get some back? Just being cheeky. I can't find an instance of Armstrong setting such a field. Whenever his aggressive employment of Gregory and McDonald is mentioned it isn't in conjunction with such a field. I can't find a pre ww1 fc instance either. The difference between leg theory and bodyline is to be measured in the reactions to them. The former never was controversial.

No doubt crowds can be awful. But you have to be careful attributing hypocrisy by comparing incidents across generations. The fan of 74/75 was probably reacting to the incidents of 70/71, not Adelaide 40 years earlier. They would have seen Snow and Illingworth as instigators and Lillee/Thommo as payback. Whereas a fairer indication of the bodyline fan would have been say immediately after the war when we had Lindwall and Miller. I don't think there were chants back then. So i'm not sure if those examples are instances of hypocrisy. Though I agree chanting for blood is reprehensible irrespective of whether there was provocation.

Fair and rational comments. My observations have definitely been influenced by the crowd behaviour in 74/75.

An interesting follow-up to the whole bodyline saga is the decision to outlaw the practice. Many believe it was to restore Anglo-Australian cricketing harmony. Another source theorises that the decision came about after the West Indies employed the tactic in 1933 with Constantine and Manny Martingdale terrorising English batsmen.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The Lillee and Thomson onslaught in 74/75 had nothing to do with Bodyline or the Snow/Jenner incident. In the first innings of the First Test Tony Greig bowled several bouncers at Dennis Lillee and eventually got him out and pointed him back to the pavilion. When Lillee got back to the dressing room he tossed his bat and (according to Ian Chappell) was in a savage mood and said "remember who started this" - meaning England, and Greig in particular. By his own admission Lillee was angry when he bowled to Greig in the first innings and bowled short but wild. Greig made a century including several times upper cutting short deliveries over the slips. After that they bowled a lot of short stuff, but in a controlled manner. Greig and Knott handled it quite well, but most of the rest ended up in hospital at some point. At that time they didn't wear much body protection and there were no helmets.
On the original point I'm neither amused or bemused by crowds who bay for blood in favour of their own team and take umbrage when on the receiving end. It's not an Australian trait by any stretch above any other nationality. It's just the way a lot of people are around the world.

 

[wpdavid]

Lillee was pissed off because Greig had been obnoxious, and probably justifiably so. But are we really supposed to believe that L&T hadn't considered bouncing the crap out of England's batsmen before Greig sent down his medium pace half trackers? I've always viewed his 'remember who started this' comment as bs of the highest order.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Neither had played for nigh on two years. Thomson was an unknown aside from a wretched debut against Pakistan and Lillee was coming back from a stress fracture of the back. Whether they had a preplan to bounce England in the way they did we’ll never know, but I rather doubt it.

 

[Line and Length]

"The Lillee and Thomson onslaught in 74/75 had nothing to do with Bodyline or the Snow/Jenner incident."

While this is obviously true, all were mentioned in the context of short pitched bowling and crowd reactions in Australia, Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Victor Ian]

Aussies cant win. Bounce the ball, 'waaah'. Roll the ball, 'waaaah'.

 

[SteveNZ]

Which makes it potentially more meritorious that he was able to take 600 wickets without having an overly threatening short ball.

 

[Coronis]

Which makes it potentially more meritorious that he was able to take 600 wickets without having an overly threatening short ball.

Nobody who’s taken 600 has had a threatening short ball, he’s just run of the mill. Speaking of others, Anderson vs Kumble?

 

[Burgey]

Lillee was pissed off because Greig had been obnoxious, and probably justifiably so. But are we really supposed to believe that L&T hadn't considered bouncing the crap out of England's batsmen before Greig sent down his medium pace half trackers? I've always viewed his 'remember who started this' comment as bs of the highest order.

If you watch the footage of Lillee opening the bowling in Brisbane after being bounced out by Greig, you can tell he's genuinely pissed off. I saw an interview with Deniss Amiss where he said they'd seen Lillee bowling off a short run since he'd come back, and when he was pacing out the long run, Luckhurst turned to Amiss and asked wtf was going on, to which Amiss said he didn't know, but you take the first one. And then all hell pretty much broke loose

 

[Chubb]

Why don't you just agree that all cricketers are self interested hypocrites, all fans are terrible and no sports team has a monopoly on righteousness and leave it at that?