What do you think about 'bodyline' tactics?

[PakLFC]

Lets talk about the the infamous "Bodyline" series of 1932-33 where the bowling tactics used by England came in to question. Do you guys think it was cheating by the English side using the tactics that they did to physically injure the Aussies or were the home side just bitter? Tactic's employed may have been below the belt but the then English captain Douglas Jardine sure did contain Don Bradman to a great degree. I would love to see such a series today

 

[Sarwar89]

Well it was not an extremely bad series for Sir Don Bradman, he still averaged 54 in that series. However as per his standards it was well below par. I wonder how much Tendulkar or Kohli would have averaged in that series against Larwood and Company. Plus extreme sledging of Legend Douglas Jardine. It was not until Ian Chappell again introduced sledging in cricket by early 70's, cuz he has lillee and thompson at that time.

 

[MMHS]

usual rubbish by British media to hype their legacy & past.

If anything that Body line footage tells me is the ineptness of batsmen that time, who were sitting ducks against 125KM thunderbolts - in first spell, with new ball; bowling round the wicket from 12 step runs-ups - that too, phast bowlers bowling 35-38 overs in a day of average 135+ overs/day work load.

If those players played in 70s & later - the guy who would have been at most awkward position is the laundry guy, who would have been washing the underwears at the end of every day's play ..........

 

[Tusker]

Well it was not an extremely bad series for Sir Don Bradman, he still averaged 54 in that series. However as per his standards it was well below par. I wonder how much Tendulkar or Kohli would have averaged in that series against Larwood and Company. Plus extreme sledging of Legend Douglas Jardine. It was not until Ian Chappell again introduced sledging in cricket by early 70's, cuz he has lillee and thompson at that time.

Sledging ehh ? thats a new one lol ... the only guy that could do sledging in those days was Santa Claus )

 

[Hitman]

Nothing but cowardice on the English teams part.

 

[DRsohail]

usual rubbish by British media to hype their legacy & past.

If anything that Body line footage tells me is the ineptness of batsmen that time, who were sitting ducks against 125KM thunderbolts - in first spell, with new ball; bowling round the wicket from 12 step runs-ups - that too, phast bowlers bowling 35-38 overs in a day of average 135+ overs/day work load.

If those players played in 70s & later - the guy who would have been at most awkward position is the laundry guy, who would have been washing the underwears at the end of every day's play ..........

i saw those videos on youtube..it doesnt look that those bowlers were that express fast,fro what i see is the awkward position of the batsman to leave or hook or fear in their minds,,,,,,??/

 

[Blitz]

Ah yes, the YouTube experts [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]. Gauging speed of cricket balls on an 85 year old video.

Firstly, the speeds as per the records were very quick, because at the end of the day it was a leather cricket ball, and you don't have to be superman to bowl 80mph.

Secondly, there was NO PROTECTION. No padding, no helmets, no nothing. You get hit once on the head, you're probably dead. Get hit on the elbow, that's your livelihood ended for the foreseeable future.

Thirdly, bodyline was something no one had experienced before. Bouncers were seen as really bad sportsmanship, so very few, if any players would've played that kind of bowling in practice or domestic cricket. Seeing it for the first would have been near impossible to deal with. Ofcourse their techniques were lacking.

That lack of technique further enforces how dangerous it was out there. Real danger.

Ultimately I feel you guys maybe need to dig up some old Sky Sports documentaries or read some of the Wisden books on it. Watching a 3 min crappy clip on youtube, and then going on forums acting like an expert is poor taste. Theres probably another 100 or so people who read this, and then went and told their dad or friends of how overrated the bodyline series was.

 

[wrongun]

usual rubbish by British media to hype their legacy & past.

If anything that Body line footage tells me is the ineptness of batsmen that time, who were sitting ducks against 125KM thunderbolts - in first spell, with new ball; bowling round the wicket from 12 step runs-ups - that too, phast bowlers bowling 35-38 overs in a day of average 135+ overs/day work load.

If those players played in 70s & later - the guy who would have been at most awkward position is the laundry guy, who would have been washing the underwears at the end of every day's play ..........

There is no evidence to suggest that bowlers from the 30's were not just as fast as today. In fact, quite the opposite. Despite advances in training, bowlers today are still not faster than guys from the 70s & 80s- and guys like Thommo didn't train or look after themselves any harder than guys from the 30s did.

Have you ever seen vintage "gloves" from the 30s? The pads? Might as well wear a rolled up newspaper. They had NO thigh pads, NO chest guards, no inner thigh nonsense etc. They were also not paid or insured much at all. They risked life & limb to face up to genuine quicks- just as fast as today.

Batting technology & protection has moved into the space age these days- modern players are protected species. But the ball and the ability of the human body to hurl it down quick (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/quiet-man-dealt-in-terror-at-100mph-1592794.html) has hardly changed in that time. Watch footage of Larwood- his action reminds me more of a more accurate Tait than a trundler.

Bodyline was shocking at the time because cricket has been a "gentlemans" game, full of unspoken rules about who could be bounced & when (unspoken rules which continued btw until well into the 90s & the fully professional era) & who it was fair to bowl flat out & dangerous at. Rules which were reciprocated by an unspoken rule that tai lenders, for the most [art would hit out or get out for the most part.

Bodyline advanced the game, made it more ruthless and was a well executed strategy by the British. I think it was good for the game in the long run, even if it caused issues at the time.

 

[MMHS]

Ah yes, the YouTube experts [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]. Gauging speed of cricket balls on an 85 year old video.

Firstly, the speeds as per the records were very quick, because at the end of the day it was a leather cricket ball, and you don't have to be superman to bowl 80mph.

Secondly, there was NO PROTECTION. No padding, no helmets, no nothing. You get hit once on the head, you're probably dead. Get hit on the elbow, that's your livelihood ended for the foreseeable future.

Thirdly, bodyline was something no one had experienced before. Bouncers were seen as really bad sportsmanship, so very few, if any players would've played that kind of bowling in practice or domestic cricket. Seeing it for the first would have been near impossible to deal with. Ofcourse their techniques were lacking.

That lack of technique further enforces how dangerous it was out there. Real danger.

Ultimately I feel you guys maybe need to dig up some old Sky Sports documentaries or read some of the Wisden books on it. Watching a 3 min crappy clip on youtube, and then going on forums acting like an expert is poor taste. Theres probably another 100 or so people who read this, and then went and told their dad or friends of how overrated the bodyline series was.

You look like a mind reading expert. Who told you that I am measuring speed from YouTube? Use your cricket sense & check where the wicket keeper is standing - than check how WKs in 70s afterwards gathered the ball for anything over 140km & where those WKs were gathering standing 12-15 metres behind, to apparently 90miles thunderbolts. I give you a clue - when 30 yeards inner circle was drawn in ODI, Jeff Doujon used to stand almost on the edge, still he'll gather many balls 'on the rise' - that's fingers pointing to heavens, sometimes jumping up. Now check where the WKs were standing & which direction their finger is pointing at gather. Obviously you can argue that because of their WK skills, 150km thunderbolts used to have a nose dive by the time it reached them.

Besides, that point of 135 overs/per day has gone above your head - let me explain. It's 130+ overs in 6 hours, while 2 pacers bowling around 18/hour; a pacer & spinner bowling around 20/hour & 2 spinners bowling around 23-25/hour. Forget about the momentum of run up & the rest required between overs for a fast bowler, just think about 35 overs in a day - that's 5 spells of 7 overs or 7 spells of 5 each. Unless, Larwood was a Cyborg, you know ... this one you can easily check in CricInfo without being an expert by looking at the numbers bowled in a Test & divided by playing time, for your information- no make up time those days, 6 hours & 125 overs at least. On top of that, matches were played timeless those days - around 130 overs/day, then go on for 5/6/7 even up to 10 days like that ....... even difficult for Cyborgs.

Regarding the protective gears, it only exposes your knowledge limitations. Go & check Duncan Ferneley, Dukes, Hunts County or Gray Nicklaus sites - some of these are cricket gear makers for 200+ years. Every protective gear that's been used today were used even before WW1, barring helmet which wasn't of much use even in 70s/80s. Players in 70s used to wear some sort of protective caps, which was available even from Vic Trumpers time. But, many players didn't use those that time - one reason being you don't need to wear head gear to face Robin Singh or Kairen Pollard; other being comfort, as Viv said - I don't need helmet to face Thompson, because that'll make me complesent & give a false feeling of safety.

Yes, those carbon fibre gears were not available then & those gears were heavier, but every protective gear was there - gloves, pads, box, chest pad, arm guard, thigh pads, inner gloves, metal plated boots to protect toes. The game it self was slow & low quality, hence players played till late 40s to even 50s and many many players played over 750 FC matches (many of them time less) over a career of 25-30 years. In a County season, average FC match was 35-38/player & average 400 overs in 3 days - 2 matches in every week for 6 months non stop.

You can check better footage of Typhoon Tyson in 50s, apparently bowling at 170km/hour sometimes with effort balls!!!!!!

 

[MMHS]

There is no evidence to suggest that bowlers from the 30's were not just as fast as today. In fact, quite the opposite. Despite advances in training, bowlers today are still not faster than guys from the 70s & 80s- and guys like Thommo didn't train or look after themselves any harder than guys from the 30s did.

Have you ever seen vintage "gloves" from the 30s? The pads? Might as well wear a rolled up newspaper. They had NO thigh pads, NO chest guards, no inner thigh nonsense etc. They were also not paid or insured much at all. They risked life & limb to face up to genuine quicks- just as fast as today.

Batting technology & protection has moved into the space age these days- modern players are protected species. But the ball and the ability of the human body to hurl it down quick (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/quiet-man-dealt-in-terror-at-100mph-1592794.html) has hardly changed in that time. Watch footage of Larwood- his action reminds me more of a more accurate Tait than a trundler.

Bodyline was shocking at the time because cricket has been a "gentlemans" game, full of unspoken rules about who could be bounced & when (unspoken rules which continued btw until well into the 90s & the fully professional era) & who it was fair to bowl flat out & dangerous at. Rules which were reciprocated by an unspoken rule that tai lenders, for the most [art would hit out or get out for the most part.

Bodyline advanced the game, made it more ruthless and was a well executed strategy by the British. I think it was good for the game in the long run, even if it caused issues at the time.

Bodyline was shocking that time because the game was "gentleman's" game that time. Obviously cricket went to lower class level by 70s hence Lloyd or Chappel's team wasn't accused ..... or may be those bowlers were just not fast enough.

Human body hasn't changed much in 100 years indeed. And forget about the training facilities, physiology or diet regime of modern days, the 3D bio mechanic science applied to the action/delivery stride these days - just focus on 3 things
1. 18 overs/hour
2. 125 overs/6 hours
3. 35 overs/day individually

Then see how fast Shoaib, Lee, Tait .... remains.

It was indeed a brilliant, brutal strategy by British Captain Jardin, history has recorded that way - same English media cried foul in 1974-75 against Lille & Thompson .... and cursed Lloyds team for a whole generation.

 

[TQ89]

I think it was good strategy. It was and still perceived as cruel by lot of people. But it was bound to happen. Perhaps he was the first ruthless captain who had his eyes on winning he match and not satisfy people's stupid expectations.

Bit like west indies short balling strategy in the 70's. Other teams whined about it a lot. But if they themselves team had that attack, you think they wouldn't bowl bouncers just to appease some chivalric code about how cricket must be played

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

I'm laughing at the complete and utter lack of knowledge in this thread.

Bodyline was difficult to face not just because of short pitched bowling, but because of the FIELD PLACINGS. If any of you had seen the youtube videos you claim to have seen for any reasonable length of time, you would have noticed that the Englishmen packed the leg side field with 7-8 fielders, with multiple catching close in. This is what made Bodyline impossible to face. The revisionist history where people only cry about bouncers is crazy. Imagine if a fast bowler today kept bowling bouncers at the body, with 8 fielders on the leg side. There is virtually NOTHING a batsman can do to counter it and score. Except for lucky slogging.

This is why the rules were changed post bodyline. Intimidatory bowling has always existed and will continue to exist forever... that was never the primary issue. But the field placings needed restrictions imposed on them to make it a fair and watchable game again. It was actually a genius tactic by Jardine because it was in no way against the rules, but it was in some ways underhanded because it was taking advantage of a flawed rule (or lack of restriction) on field placings on the leg side.

So next time before you guys shout off some of your dumb opinions on cricket history atleast do some basic reading. Peace out.

 

[Tusker]

I'm laughing at the complete and utter lack of knowledge in this thread.

Bodyline was difficult to face not just because of short pitched bowling, but because of the FIELD PLACINGS. If any of you had seen the youtube videos you claim to have seen for any reasonable length of time, you would have noticed that the Englishmen packed the leg side field with 7-8 fielders, with multiple catching close in. This is what made Bodyline impossible to face. The revisionist history where people only cry about bouncers is crazy. Imagine if a fast bowler today kept bowling bouncers at the body, with 8 fielders on the leg side. There is virtually NOTHING a batsman can do to counter it and score. Except for lucky slogging.
.

instead of just making a onesided statement (Which I can too BTW) Why don't you explain in pure technical terms how someone bowling short at 120Ks with about 4-5 fielders behind square on legside + 1-2 slips and therefore acres of free space everywhere else would make it impossible to face for TODAYS batsman?.

BTW the law regarding placement of not more than 2 fielders on legside was not changed until 1960.

Remember explain only in pure cricketing technical terms.

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] [MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION]

 

[Big Harvey]

It was a tactic that had been creeping into county cricket in England for a while. One of its pioneering exponents was an Australian, Ted McDonald of Lancashire, who along with Jack Gregory had a decade or so previously subjected the English batsmen to a fearful (by the standards of the day) barrage of bouncers in the 1921 Ashes series. Larwood and Voce had been employing the tactic for Notts for a couple of seasons. Jardine's plan was to use it as an occasional variation against perceived technical weaknesses, but having toured Australia before, he was familiar with the local psychology. When he saw how the tactic brought out the victim complex in the Australian players and supporters, he resolved to use it more often. Duncan Fletcher used exactly the same psychology in England's use of substitute fielders in the 2005 Ashes series. Remember that footage of Ricky Ponting ranting at the balcony as Fletcher grinned down at him like a Cheshire cat? The "bodyline" thing was a storm in a teacup. The tactic is still occasionally used in the modern game, although obviously with a slightly reduced leg trap. I recall Jimmy Anderson giving Phil Hughes a few overs of it at Lord's in 2009. Again it was targeting a specific weakness though. The idea being talked about at the time of the 32-33 series that leg theory was going to take over the game if left unchecked was always ridiculous. It was the change in the LBW law rather than the fielding restriction that was most responsible for reducing the use of leg theory. With modern bats and protective equipment I don't think it would unduly bother most batsmen today.

 

[MMHS]

It was a tactic that had been creeping into county cricket in England for a while. One of its pioneering exponents was an Australian, Ted McDonald of Lancashire, who along with Jack Gregory had a decade or so previously subjected the English batsmen to a fearful (by the standards of the day) barrage of bouncers in the 1921 Ashes series. Larwood and Voce had been employing the tactic for Notts for a couple of seasons. Jardine's plan was to use it as an occasional variation against perceived technical weaknesses, but having toured Australia before, he was familiar with the local psychology. When he saw how the tactic brought out the victim complex in the Australian players and supporters, he resolved to use it more often. Duncan Fletcher used exactly the same psychology in England's use of substitute fielders in the 2005 Ashes series. Remember that footage of Ricky Ponting ranting at the balcony as Fletcher grinned down at him like a Cheshire cat? The "bodyline" thing was a storm in a teacup. The tactic is still occasionally used in the modern game, although obviously with a slightly reduced leg trap. I recall Jimmy Anderson giving Phil Hughes a few overs of it at Lord's in 2009. Again it was targeting a specific weakness though. The idea being talked about at the time of the 32-33 series that leg theory was going to take over the game if left unchecked was always ridiculous. It was the change in the LBW law rather than the fielding restriction that was most responsible for reducing the use of leg theory. With modern bats and protective equipment I don't think it would unduly bother most batsmen today.

I think, Body Line was thought out in 1930 Ashes, during Oval Test, when for few hours (after rain), English pacers bowled on a leg stick spot & Bradman was extremely uncomfortable to face that short ball. He scored a double there, so it wasn't discussed much, but Jardine did take notes & before coming to AUS, he actually had a secret meeting with his two pacers regarding this tactics, if they were willing to execute the idea, what was regarded as unsportsmanlike those days. In fact, English Manager Sir P Warner had no prior clue of Jardin's tactics & he did apologize to Woodful, once he was hurt.

In terms of tactics, it was indeed unique & unsporting; but it was blown out of proportion by English media. Actually, the start of the bitterness started in 3rd Test (Adelaide), when Aussie WK was stuck by a conventional bouncer, which he mis-hooked to his head. Woodful was a perfect gentleman, who declined to deploy same tactics with his pacers (there were couple at his disposal as well) & made his feelings (regarding Jardin's tactics) public, which made Jardin look even worse. Truth is that, in that AUS side, there were only couple of players, who could play short staff - Stan MaCabe who pulled & hooked his way while Bradman moved to leg side to upper cut or move to off side to allow the ball to fly past.

Even with same LBW, without space age protective gears & fielding rules of 6/7 men leg side I don't think our Mashrafee or Deon Bravo could have done much bowling to current batsmen - that too bowling 14 overs/hour & 20 overs/day for daily 90 overs schedule. That leg trap with umbrella field is another over statement - average was 5 men on leg side, for sometimes 6 or at most very few times 7 - at average only 2 more than Lloyd's team, which kept a fine leg & long leg behind leg umpire, but a forward short leg, just in front of umpire for the change of law & a very short mid wicket with entire leg side in front of batsmen open - Lloyd didn't use leg slip, simply because bowling at that pace & bounce, one can't execute a bowling plan with a leg slip, which effectively had to be a short fine leg.

In terms of spirit, it was indeed controversial (or other way a brilliant but mean tactics) - in terms of playing merit, nothing much; just exposes the quality of cricket those days.

 

[Robert]

I'm laughing at the complete and utter lack of knowledge in this thread.

Bodyline was difficult to face not just because of short pitched bowling, but because of the FIELD PLACINGS. If any of you had seen the youtube videos you claim to have seen for any reasonable length of time, you would have noticed that the Englishmen packed the leg side field with 7-8 fielders, with multiple catching close in. This is what made Bodyline impossible to face. The revisionist history where people only cry about bouncers is crazy. Imagine if a fast bowler today kept bowling bouncers at the body, with 8 fielders on the leg side. There is virtually NOTHING a batsman can do to counter it and score. Except for lucky slogging.

This is why the rules were changed post bodyline. Intimidatory bowling has always existed and will continue to exist forever... that was never the primary issue. But the field placings needed restrictions imposed on them to make it a fair and watchable game again. It was actually a genius tactic by Jardine because it was in no way against the rules, but it was in some ways underhanded because it was taking advantage of a flawed rule (or lack of restriction) on field placings on the leg side.

So next time before you guys shout off some of your dumb opinions on cricket history atleast do some basic reading. Peace out.

Quite.

Everything was directed at the chest and head with in effect seven leg slips, like a wonky version of baseball. It killed the game as a spectacle because you could only fend off, pull or hook. A couple of players had an answer to it - Stan McCabe through pulling and hooking down, and Jardine himself, when the WI used Bodyline against England a year late.

Eventually it was outlawed because someone was likely to get killed or badly hurt, and because it was so boring to watch.

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=143255]Cuts_and_cuts_hard[/MENTION] ... No response to this ?

I'm laughing at the complete and utter lack of knowledge in this thread.

Bodyline was difficult to face not just because of short pitched bowling, but because of the FIELD PLACINGS. If any of you had seen the youtube videos you claim to have seen for any reasonable length of time, you would have noticed that the Englishmen packed the leg side field with 7-8 fielders, with multiple catching close in. This is what made Bodyline impossible to face. The revisionist history where people only cry about bouncers is crazy. Imagine if a fast bowler today kept bowling bouncers at the body, with 8 fielders on the leg side. There is virtually NOTHING a batsman can do to counter it and score. Except for lucky slogging.

This is why the rules were changed post bodyline. Intimidatory bowling has always existed and will continue to exist forever... that was never the primary issue. But the field placings needed restrictions imposed on them to make it a fair and watchable game again. It was actually a genius tactic by Jardine because it was in no way against the rules, but it was in some ways underhanded because it was taking advantage of a flawed rule (or lack of restriction) on field placings on the leg side.

So next time before you guys shout off some of your dumb opinions on cricket history atleast do some basic reading. Peace out.

instead of just making a onesided statement (Which I can too BTW) Why don't you explain in pure technical terms how someone bowling short at 120Ks with about 4-5 fielders behind square on legside + 1-2 slips and therefore acres of free space everywhere else would make it impossible to face for TODAYS batsman?.

BTW the law regarding placement of not more than 2 fielders on legside was not changed until 1960.

Remember explain only in pure cricketing technical terms.

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] [MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION]

 

[Bilal7]

instead of just making a onesided statement (Which I can too BTW) Why don't you explain in pure technical terms how someone bowling short at 120Ks with about 4-5 fielders behind square on legside + 1-2 slips and therefore acres of free space everywhere else would make it impossible to face for TODAYS batsman?.

BTW the law regarding placement of not more than 2 fielders on legside was not changed until 1960.

Remember explain only in pure cricketing technical terms.

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] [MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION]

This is like saying that geniuses of their time like Ibn Seena, Aristotle, etc were not smarter than the average 7th grader of today.

Remove the protective gear, the 24 different types of coaches, data analysis, video footage, short boundary ropes, flat pitches and T20 experience and then let's see how well the batsmen of today play 120 kph bouncers with five leg-side fielders.

Guys like Raina are bunnies against bouncers with all the above in place and even someone as hyped as Kohli, has had problems with the short ball. It is silly to think that these guys would rule the cricketing world if they were teleported back in time.

 

[James]

Interesting thread. Some very bad posts, and some very good ones!

 

[Tusker]

This is like saying that geniuses of their time like Ibn Seena, Aristotle, etc were not smarter than the average 7th grader of today.

Cricket skills unlike other fields is not something you can learn and master. You are either born with Talent or not. You seem to think that people born today start of with an advantage over those who were born 100 yrs ago. Thats not the case. People are not like some bacteria that have developed resistance to drugs over a long period of time due to genetic mutation.

Remove the protective gear, the 24 different types of coaches, data analysis, video footage, short boundary ropes, flat pitches and T20 experience and then let's see how well the batsmen of today play 120 kph bouncers with five leg-side fielders.

Coaches existed even back then ... and the bodyline strategy was devised after looking at footage of Bradman in a previous series. Boundary ropes are not short in Test Cricket infact a large ground would be even more difficult to protect with that kind of field setting. Pitches were as flat as they are now.

So the only thing different is protection. If you think bowling at 120Ks ( and thats the top speed ) would cause todays batsmen to run away in panic then you are dead wrong.

Guys like Raina are bunnies against bouncers with all the above in place and even someone as hyped as Kohli, has had problems with the short ball. It is silly to think that these guys would rule the cricketing world if they were teleported back in time.

Not at 120K's ... even Raina will murder any 120K short stuff.

 

[Chrish]

Would have loved to see Australia retaliate.. Bradman would target Hutton with barrage of bumpers when he got formidable pace bowlers later on. Miller once said that he was told by Bradman if he breaks couple of ribs, no one would mind.

The tactic would have killed the game with lack of protective gear as there was no way to face it consistently. McCabe tried compulsively pulling and hooking but it only worked in one game. Bradman's way of jumping on the leg side and trying to cut it to the off seemed to be the only consistent way to negate the tactic.

 

[PakLFC]

I would love to see a bodyline type series today. To much protection for batsman in today's game as Andy Roberts rightfully said. A lack of fast bowlers is killing the game.