The Most Controversial Cricket Series | The Bodyline Ashes
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 янв 2024
- There have been many moments in the Ashes that have caused debates among cricket enthusiasts, such as the Bairstow incident in 2023. But the all pale in comparison to the Bodyline Ashes, a series in 1932 and 1933 that has cemented itself as one of the most brutal moments in cricket as a whole. But why does it have this infamous reputation?
Check out our other social media to stay on top of the latest cricket news:
Instagram: @bailsoffcricket
TikTok: @bailsoffcricket
#ashes #cricketlover #ashesseries 
Спорт
As an Aus I see no problem with aggressive tactics. In the last few years Australia has often resorted to fast, short, hostile deliveries as a method of avoidiing defeiat. It does not make for attractive cricket but its legit. I would love to have seen Harold Larwood bowl and Bradman bat - two of the msot natural players ever.
As devastating as it was, it is legitimate. I feel like people tend to underappreciate the tactic, and Harold executed it brilliantly
@@bailsoffcricketThe underarm delivery in 1981 was within the rules, executed brilliantly. Difference was no one was in danger of having their head knocked off.
Kudos to Jardine. He was given an almost impossible task of conquering Bradman and regaining the ashes. He accomplished both , by application and did this within the rules of the game. Legend!
You are right. It was squarely within the rules, no doubt. But in retrospect it was acknowledged that if allowed to continue it would ruin the game and physically injure people in the process.
I think it's possible to appreciate the tactical genus of Jardine and dislike the result. There is no doubt that this was the first and probably the only time Bradman's effectiveness was blunted and Jardine (plus Voce and Larwood) are to be congratulated for hatching and executing so well on their plan. Blokes got hurt in the process though and in the context of the times it was considered unsportsmanlike. That's all changed now though and bowling frequent short stuff is part of the game (without the leg theory field of course).
I'm fine with these sorts of tactics, so long as there is no complaining when other teams return fire, which they duly did.
I read somewhere that the Australians had used bodyline bowling on their previous England tour although not in the test matches, only in county games and that Jardines county was one of those on the receiving end. Perhaps there is a cricket historian who can confirm this?
@@alangledhill6454 that would be a juicy detail and a story I'd not heard before. Would be interested to see if it could be confirmed.
@@alangledhill6454 No evidence of this that I have seen. In the past, a leg theory attack had been tried at times by English and Australian teams but "fast leg theory" (aka "bodyline") was a plan hatched by Jardine and the English cricket bosses (Warner) specifically as a countermeasure against Bradman's ridiculously prolific scoring ability. Specifically, it involves the placement several fielders on the leg side from like mid-on to fine leg with Larwood & Voce pitching short balls aimed at the chest of the batter. Jardine would begin the match with a traditional field setting (several slips, gulley) with the ball aiming at off-stump and then transition to a bodyline field, which was when the fireworks would begin.
Aussies calling out others for lack of sportsmanship is peak irony.
Both countries have done some pretty foul activities, can't forget about Australia's sandpaper 😬
Shh Murray mints
@@bailsoffcricket don't forget about Atherton dirt in pocket to scuff the ball, Trescothic using mints to help shine the ball, Panesar using mints to shine the ball
It wasn't just about the lack of sportsmanship, it threatened to ruin the game as a spectator event and posed a high likelihood of physical harm to batsmen.
Poms consider themselves to be good sports when in truth they're worse than anyone.
While it's a effective tactic, my main problem with it was the fact that safety gear wasn't that great back then and no helmets.
It's obviously dangerous but England made the choice knowing that, so it will be forever controversial.
Thankfully equipment got better and batsmen learned to adapt.
If it was tried today against a top class batsmen, they'll just keep playing pull shots and probably make a lot of runs.
My parents still have the little booklet that came out in 1932 promoting the series with all the player profiles and match schedules.
It's a cool little piece of history.
It is used today. Wagner has been doing it for years. In the recent Ashes it was constantly used.
@@UmpireStrikesBack Yes, several years ago I watched Wagner bowl entire spells of chest/head-high bouncers to Oz batters. I live in the US and hadn't seen cricket for a while. "Isn't this *exactly* bodyline?" I thought, and wondered why the ump did nothing. Facing Wagner you can duck, get hit, hit him to the boundary, or get caught at deep square leg on a mishit. He was enormously effective at barely 130km. It didn't seem fair. I thought there was a two-bouncers-per-over rule.
For those interested in the Bodyline Series of 1932-33 in Australia I highly recommend The Knight Watchman's channel. Here is archival footage from the match at the MCG which I have never seen anywhere else: ruclips.net/video/W5zIFcAh9VQ/видео.html
Four things of particular interest: 1) Note when the English are using a bodyline field vs conventional field, 2) The unusual extra length of Larwood's arms (noted by many observers of the game, and which probably helped with pace), 3) Jardine's getting out for a duck, which would have thoroughly delighted the huge crowd, who hated the man, and 4) It was the only match won by the home team, as they lost the series 4-1.
The tactic was, basically, bowl bouncers endlessly at the batsman's head & set a field accordingly. How is that genius? lol
My father was a (very proud) Australian, who witnessed first-hand Harold Larwood bowling to the Australians, when my father attended the 4th Ashes Test at The Gabba in February 1933.
Bradman made 76 in Australia's first innings, but only 24 in the second, being dismissed in both innings by Larwood. In the first innings, Bradman was clean-bowled and in the second, caught in the deep by full-time coal-miner and renowned leg-spin bowler, Tommy Mitchell of Derbyshire. It was Mitchell's one-and-only catch in test cricket.
Growing up in England, I was regaled by my father Dad with endless tales of Donald Bradman (whom he admired greatly), telling me all about the water tank in Bowral NSW where Bradman had grown up, and of the endless hours Bradman had spent knocking a golf-ball against the side of the tank, hitting the ball on the full and never letting it touch the ground for hours at a time.
Ultimately, Dad and Mum would retire to Australia to live in Burradoo, just 3 km from Bowral, the Bradman Oval and the Bradman Museum. And an equal number of kilometres from the famed Water Tank, all of which I have also seen with my own eyes, during innumerable visits to see my parents Bowral.
All the above is prelude to telling you my father's opinion of 'Bodyline', with his having not only read about it at length, both at the time and afterward, but after having witnessed Larwood's bowling himself, both in person and endlessly on film.
In short: Dad thought the fuss over Bodyline was complete and utter nonsense and he just wasn't having any of it.
In his own words: Jardine and others in England had studied Bradman at great length and had discovered a weakness in his batting technique. Bradman was vulnerable to rising deliveries bowled at pace on the line of leg stump and he tended to 'pop up' simple catches to close-in fielders on the leg-side.
This was actually called; "leg theory" and was very effective.
But it was never the intention to hit Bradman (or other Australian bowlers) and indeed, Bradman himself was never hit. In the 1932/33 test matches, only two batsmen were hit by Larwood, but by deliveries on or outside off stump.
It needs also to be remembered here that leg theory was first introduced during the 1928/29 Ashes tour of Australia, which England won 4 - 1, with Larwood taking 18 test wickets during the tour. Notably, there were no complaints about leg theory during that tour.
It should also be noted that Bradman himself never complained about leg theory bowling.
But when England toured Australia again in 1932/33 and again won the test series 4 - 1 on Australian soil, Larwood taking 33 test wickets, Australia cricket authorities felt that something had to be done, or else Bradman might never again score shedloads of runs as he had before.
So, Australian cricket authorities created a furore, re-naming (and mis-naming) leg theory as "BODYLINE!!!!", even going so far as to lobby the Australian Government to make diplomatic protests to the UK Government, demanding that the rules of cricket be changed to protect Bradman.
And it worked.
To this day, it is unlawful to have more than three fielders behind square on the leg side.
Why?
Because, Bradman.
But please don't blame 'The Don', himself: he was a great sportsman and never demanded this change in the laws of a game he loved so much and served so brilliantly.
I am extremely jealous 😂, it's amazing that your dad witnessed both Larwood and Bradman on the pitch. As sympathetic as we feel about the injuries caused, the use of Bodyline was genius, it isn't something that should be overlooked. And Bradman not complaining about the tactic either shows that he may have been just as impressed
Body line balls get bowled still. And Australia calling another team out for unfair play is rich. All their great players have at some point dabbled with a bit of unfair gamesmanship. At times, these acts were illegal. Threatening to break arms, rubbing sand paper, sorry, sticky tape, or was a silky sunglasses holder on the ball? Don't hold it against them. It makes them great and human at the same time.
You calling out Australia is rich. EVERYONE has dabbled in unfair gamesmanship. This should never preclude the right to criticise others.
@UmpireStrikesBack a bit touchy, aren't you? Sugary sweets taste better than the feeling of sandpaper in one's underwear 😋
Really, what do you expect from us? We are the offspring of convict incorrigibles sent from the Old Bailey as involuntary passengers in chains on hulks bound for NSW or Tassie. We have criminal genes through no fault of our own - it's just our nature acting out. Try and make a cat bark like a dog sometime.
I wonder why no one discusses the West Indies tour of England in 1933 when the West Indies used bodyline against England. England crowds were crying foul when you received a taste of your own medicine
quite funny that the MCC made it illegal very shortly after their team being on the receiving end of it. They could dish it out, but couldn't take it.
@@brianeast9081 It was never made illegal. There was an agreement not to continue the tactic because otherwise Australia would refuse to tour England in 1934.
@@UmpireStrikesBack learn something new every day, thank you. I'll gladly stand corrected.
How Popular is the hundred in England?
It seems to be getting increasingly popular, Sky Sports has an article about how the 2023 Hundred tournament has broken some of its viewership records. Personally though, I've hardly spoken with people about it, and they seem to be much more focused on other series like the upcoming IPL.
The number of women who are watching the Hundred is significantly increasing though, so it could be getting more popular because it's appealing more to women's sports, which I haven't been catching up on. This would also explain my experience of not talking about it much as well. Are you a fan of the Hundred?
@@bailsoffcricket yes, fan from india
@@superherorises4460 Oh nice! I might make a video of The Hundred when the 2024 season starts if people want to see it
England got shellacked singlehandedly by Bradman in England in 1930. It looked like a massacre was in the offing in 1932-33 in Oz. It was observed that DB didn't like short balls aimed at the ribs. Who does? Jardine reintroduced the occasionally used leg theory bowling tactic and honed it as "fast leg theory" with short-pitched deliveries (later nicknamed "bodyline") and a packed leg-side field to catch pop-ups and mishits to the boundary from batters defending their bodies. Forget the off stump and all those catchers in the slips and gulley.
It worked and England won, and within the rules, too, and Bradman was (temporarily) reduced to mortal status. Without Larwood (and Voce, to a lesser extent) it would not have succeeded. Boycott said specifically that Larwood was the difference between the two teams, and he was right.
After the smoke cleared and the English sailed home, Jardine sent Larwood an ornamental ashtray with the inscription, "To Harold, for the Ashes. From a grateful skipper." Larwood and his family emigrated to Australia in 1950 and never left. Once an archenemy, he was embraced and treated well there.
Bodyline gave a clear advantage to the bowler and the fielding team. Whether it was unsportsmanlike or not is a matter of opinion but it had to be discarded as a strategy for the good of the game. Wisden said that bodyline "wasn't nice," and the MCC itself eventually stated that "direct attack" bowling "wasn't fair," and the rules were changed. Arthur Morris, an old Australian opening bat, said that spectators would reject if it were allowed to continue. "Who wants to come and watch batsmen ducking all day?" he said in an interview.
I read The Larwood Story three times as a cricket--crazy teenager in Australia in the early 1970s. It's Larwood's autobiography co-authored by Kevin Perkins. It is as gripping and dramatic as any adventure novel I've ever read. Larwood was my hero at the time.
Larwood was brilliant on the field, I wish I could've seen it first-hand. As great as Jardine was to come up with the strategy, there's a huge amount of respect due to Larwood for being able to bowl so consistently and quickly, not to mention the stamina it took to bowl for that long
@@bailsoffcricket Here are more tidbits from Larwood's autobiography:
His nickname was Lol, which is short for lollies, as he was known for always eating boiled candies.
He said that he only ever bowled really fast once, and that was in Australia in 1932-33. He said it was because the pitches were so dry and hard compared to those back home in England, which were subjected to a different climate.
When he wanted to bowl an especially quick one, he would reach into his pants pocket and take out a pinch of snuff, which is pulverized powdered tobacco, and inhale it sharply up a nostril, giving him instant power and zest. (I tried this as a teenaged bowler myself who wanted a few yards more pace and found that it only made me sneeze for minutes. It was like finely ground black pepper, with the same irritating qualities.)
He was once timed for velocity by a fellow standing at square leg with a stopwatch during a practice session. The guy did the calculations and the fastest delivery was measured at 96 mph (154.5 kmh). There is definitely human error built into this system as the man's eyes and thumb can hardly be expected to get it exactly right over a mere 22-yard distance. Larwood probably bowled 140-145 kmh during bodyline, which was likely 10-15 kmh faster than anyone else.
Typical of the entitled upper class of that period, my grandfather was one of them
That was not cricket
If this was invented by the Aussies it would be whinging pommes but since it was against them it was cheating and disgraceful.
It is not cheating. It is unsportsmanlike. At least Australia understands the English language. It appears Englishmen do not even understand their own language.
@@UmpireStrikesBack 🎣
This is nonsense. It was not cheating as it was within the rules. At the time cricket was considered a gentleman's game played in a friendly spirit of competition. Bodyline was successful and England won the series in Oz by essentially shutting DB down. They had a better strategy and executed it to perfection. However, while there were cries that it was unsportsmanlike, a real problem was that it would ruin the game, giving an unfair advantage to the bowling side plus it was inherently dangerous for the batters. Therefore rules were changed re field placement.
@@windigo44 You do not understand "gentleman's game". This is a reference to cricket being an elitist game. There was significant discrimination based upon social class. Modern society has misinterpreted it as meaning polite.
@@UmpireStrikesBack Actually my comment was a direct response to the nonsense of the original poster. But, to your response to my response: at the time of bodyline there were amateur and professional players in the English team. Jardine and Allen were amateurs. Allen refused to bowl bodyline. Larwood and Voce were professionals and cricket was their major or only source of income. When Jardine said "Jump!" their only question was "How high?" The Australian Board specifically called it "unsportsmanlike" in a cable and the MCC responded with a demand that the Australians retract the term. I am Australian and consider bodyline unsportsmanlike mainly in the sense that it upsets the power balance between bat and ball and that it unreasonably subjects batsmen to injury. It is no longer a sport but a war with casualties. I don't blame the English for devising a strategy within the rules to humble Bradman. I would also argue that cricket was "polite' at its inception, with the intent to bring "gentlemen" together to socialize in a spirit of fair play and then shake hands afterward without much concern over who won or lost. This easy affability changed once the colonials came over and beat the colonizers at their own game. Cheers.
Promo'SM 💞
What garbage - no tactical brilliance at all - just complete lack of human decency on Jardine's part and guys like you who praise " tactical brilliance ".
NAWAB pataudi of BHARAT 35 yrs later gave SPIN LINE by introducing 4 spinner bowling in a cricket and giving BHARAT first taste of victory...
I think that ENGLISH captain gave cricket new life, it was far bigger revolution than T20
Even close to when they changed under arm to over arm which change the Game
what’s the Point of ruining so hard
If a fat or coward can leave all the balls by keeping bat between his legs
At best one can have sympathy for first victims of a change so they reacted harshly by invoking very important yet sometime complicated cricket “creed”known as
“Spirit of the game”
If one watch Highlights of BOUNCERS
And that voice
“TAK OOOOooo AYEee O MY GOD 😅
Body line was banned in 1935 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline