SA Footy

Interesting discussion on 9 about Bodyline, and the difficulty with scoring because of the restrictive field.

The funny thing that nobody mentions is the two incidents that brought Bodyline to a head were Woodfull and Oldfield getting struck in Adelaide. I say "funny" because on both occasions, the restrictive leg side field wasn't being used at the time.

As a matter of fact, when Woodfull did get struck, Jardine ordered the bodyline field the very next ball. Great captain was Jardine .. just a little ahead of his time.

I only read that the other day...

Oldfield rattled out a few runs, and Larwood just dropped one short...

Media Park wrote:I only read that the other day...

Oldfield rattled out a few runs, and Larwood just dropped one short...

Yep, Oldfield was on 41 at the time and completely misplayed a legitimate short ball from Larwood. Oldfield always said it was completely his own fault he got hit.

Over many years of reading books, articles and watching docos, I'm starting to come to the un-Australian conclusion that we were a bunch of whingers during Bodyline.
Sure the attack must have been daunting to those facing it but it was within the rules and the good batsmen could make runs if they had the guts - McCabe is an example.
We were just over powered as we had no firepower to respond in kind with, at that time our attack was pretty much led by O'Reilly, Grimmett and Ironmonger, three spinners, and mediums of McCabe with Tim Wall as the fast bowler.
I'm not sure of Wall's pace but it was certainly never anywhere, from my understanding, of Larwood's pace.
Maybe if Jardine hadn't been such a prick.....

It'd be interesting to see the thoughts on others of this rough summation.

Dogwatcher wrote:Sure the attack must have been daunting to those facing it but it was within the rules and the good batsmen could make runs if they had the guts - McCabe is an example.
.

Doesn't necessarily justify it because it was in the rules.
Just ask Greg and Trevor Chappell.

Dogwatcher wrote:Over many years of reading books, articles and watching docos, I'm starting to come to the un-Australian conclusion that we were a bunch of whingers during Bodyline.

We must always remember that Bodyline came from nowhere so far as the Australians were concerned. They'd never seen it before, didn't know how to handle it, and doubted its validity because it was a total departure from conventional cricket at the time.

Had Vic Richardson been captain of Australia, you can bet he would have returned fire, and it is well documented a number of English players had said they would have threatened to quit if they did.

What exacerbated Bodyline was the contrasting styles and morals of the opposing captains. Rather than the Aussies being whingers, I think what we saw was an English captain better suited to the 1970s than the 1930s, and the game just wasn't ready for it.

The only thing was, Tim Wall was the only Test standard quick at the time (from what I read), and he did hit Jardine a couple of times...

Also I think the tactic (Bodyline), was more effective than Bradman's mid-50's series average told, as (again from what I read) often guys like Woodfull, Ponsford, VR, shielded him from strike, taking balls, and blows, from Larwood, whilst Bradman scored his runs at the other end...

Of course there was Eddie Gilbert who could've been brought into the line-up to wind them up.
He had a couple of problems A) Aboriginal, B) Debate over his action.
Also, he did face the English in a tour match and didn't impress overly much, which would've counted against him.

What other bowling options were there at the time?

Media Park wrote:The only thing was, Tim Wall was the only Test standard quick at the time (from what I read), and he did hit Jardine a couple of times...

Also I think the tactic (Bodyline), was more effective than Bradman's mid-50's series average told, as (again from what I read) often guys like Woodfull, Ponsford, VR, shielded him from strike, taking balls, and blows, from Larwood, whilst Bradman scored his runs at the other end...

They had some reasonable guys bowling leg theory at the other end too. Maybe not at the pace of Larwood but Voce was a handy bowler.

The fact that Bradman's average was fifty and they won justifies the tactics as they sat within the current rules however I'm glad the rules were changed.

Didn't Australia also moan a bit when the Windies were kings about slow over rates and intimidatory bowling?

As far as I recall, everyone moaned about that TW.
I remember a photo from the mid to late 80s with Mike Gatting wearing all his protective gear but no whites to illustrate all of the bruising from the battering he'd copped in one innings from them.

topsywaldron wrote: They had some reasonable guys bowling leg theory at the other end too. Maybe not at the pace of Larwood but Voce was a handy bowler.

Voce was pretty good.
Bowes was the third bowler in the Bodyline attack. However, from what I understand he only took the one test wicket - Bradman's at Melbourne for a duck.

Was it Maurice Tate who barely got a look in, as it was claimed he refused to bowl leg-theory?

Dogwatcher wrote:

topsywaldron wrote: They had some reasonable guys bowling leg theory at the other end too. Maybe not at the pace of Larwood but Voce was a handy bowler.

Voce was pretty good.
Bowes was the third bowler in the Bodyline attack. However, from what I understand he only took the one test wicket - Bradman's at Melbourne for a duck.

Was it Maurice Tate who barely got a look in, as it was claimed he refused to bowl leg-theory?

Gubby Allan - fine upstanding soon to President of the MCC, wasn't quite cricket what ol' chap.

There we go. Cheers.
What, what.

Dogwatcher wrote:We were just over powered as we had no firepower to respond in kind with, at that time our attack was pretty much led by O'Reilly, Grimmett and Ironmonger, three spinners, and mediums of McCabe with Tim Wall as the fast bowler.

Vic Richardson claims we had the bowlers out there (not necessarily all in the test team at the time) to return the favour but Woodfull as stated above didn't want to respond with tactics in kind. Think I read that in article/book by Ian Chappell.

One of the contexts you have to put Bodyline in from an sporting historial and sociological perspective is the Great Depression and the perceived sense of injustice about the cause of the depression in Australia (American and British industrialists -Britain suffering under the depression looking inward rather than outwards as it started to loosen its grip on its Empire (Keynesian economics), anti British feeling as the English league sides had been trying to offer Bradman huge sums of money to give up test cricket and play for them and growing Australian nationalism.

All put into the melting pot of what was viewed by the Astralian media as unsportsman like tactics and public reacted as it did. Another issue was Bodyline occured six months after the death of Phar Lap, so body line was seen as another attempt to "nobble" Australia.

I'm not saying these evenets jsutified our response to Bodyline but the early 30s was a very interesting period of Australain society, nationalism and sporting development.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Over many years of reading books, articles and watching docos, I'm starting to come to the un-Australian conclusion that we were a bunch of whingers during Bodyline.

We must always remember that Bodyline came from nowhere so far as the Australians were concerned. They'd never seen it before, didn't know how to handle it, and doubted its validity because it was a total departure from conventional cricket at the time.

Had Vic Richardson been captain of Australia, you can bet he would have returned fire, and it is well documented a number of English players had said they would have threatened to quit if they did.

What exacerbated Bodyline was the contrasting styles and morals of the opposing captains. Rather than the Aussies being whingers, I think what we saw was an English captain better suited to the 1970s than the 1930s, and the game just wasn't ready for it.

very good summation

topsywaldron wrote:

Media Park wrote:The only thing was, Tim Wall was the only Test standard quick at the time (from what I read), and he did hit Jardine a couple of times...

Also I think the tactic (Bodyline), was more effective than Bradman's mid-50's series average told, as (again from what I read) often guys like Woodfull, Ponsford, VR, shielded him from strike, taking balls, and blows, from Larwood, whilst Bradman scored his runs at the other end...

They had some reasonable guys bowling leg theory at the other end too. Maybe not at the pace of Larwood but Voce was a handy bowler.

The fact that Bradman's average was fifty and they won justifies the tactics as they sat within the current rules however I'm glad the rules were changed.

Didn't Australia also moan a bit when the Windies were kings about slow over rates and intimidatory bowling?

Indeed topsy.
yet the bumper pairing of Lindwall/Miller and Thomson/Lillee is regarded as a special time in Australian cricket.

And don't forget Ted McDonald and Jack Gregory after WWI.

Dogwatcher wrote:

topsywaldron wrote: They had some reasonable guys bowling leg theory at the other end too. Maybe not at the pace of Larwood but Voce was a handy bowler.

Voce was pretty good.
Bowes was the third bowler in the Bodyline attack. However, from what I understand he only took the one test wicket - Bradman's at Melbourne for a duck.

Was it Maurice Tate who barely got a look in, as it was claimed he refused to bowl leg-theory?

From what I read, and I didn't double check, I don't think he played again after Bradman's hundred in that series (Test 2).

Match winning tactic
But unsporting in my opinion
The plan was hatched, specificly for The Don
The Dons stats in that series
0
103*
8
66
76
24
48
71
Average of 56.6

On reading those stats it looks like Shane Watsons stats thesedays

QUESTION
If Bodyline was designed to blunt the Dons run getting, why was it used on the other batsmen ?

Mal - read the first sentence of your post and that will tell you why.