Cardus on Bodyline series
Cricketislife!
fallen. His strokeplay has plainly been dazzling. Yet such is the modern
conception of batsmanship, that a cricketer is supposed to be playing
badly if he takes a chance and cracks the ball in the manner of J.T.
Tyldesley. Bradman was the only Australian, I gather, really to
counter-attack Larwood. He moved away to the leg-side and hit the ball
audaciously to the unprotected off-side. As a consequence of this piece
of superb resource, even his best friends accuse him of recklessness;
indeed they say he 'ran away'. But how on earth is any batsman going to
tackle fast leg-side bowling (to a crowded leg-trap) unless he hits it
to the off? And how can you hit leg bowling to the off-side unless you
do move away and get on the proper side of it for the stroke?
'.. Nobody will deny that the better side won the rubber, even in
Australia, where, despite the 'rumpus' about the fast bowling, the
newspapers have, on the whole, been fair and generous to the England
cricketers.'
To read more click
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/osm/story/0,10541,824342,00.html
.
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.sport.cricket
Uday Rajan
>
> 'Bradman is reported ...Bradman was the only Australian, I gather
As he makes clear, Cardus did not go to Australia for this
tour, so much of what he has to say about the tour itself
would be second-hand. IIRC, there was only one English
journalist along on that tour...don't remember who it was
now, perhaps RC Robertson-Glasgow. Maybe Jim Swanton, but
that may have been early for him (IIRC, his journalistic
career began a little later).
John Hall
Swanton didn't go, though he very nearly did. He always maintained
afterwards that had he gone the English public would have been provided
with a much clearer idea of what Bodyline entailed. Bruce Harris, the
tennis correspondent of the Evening Standard, was sent by his paper.
Jardine apparently was shrewd enough to befriend him. There were also
someone from the Press Association, who in news agency style kept his
reports strictly factual with no comment, and Jack Hobbs (presumably
ghosted), who was inhibited by not wishing to criticise his county
captain.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"
Bob Dubery
"Cricketislife!" <cricketislif...@web2news.net> wrote in message
news:3768...@web2news.com...
> '.. Nobody will deny that the better side won the rubber, even in
> Australia, where, despite the 'rumpus' about the fast bowling, the
> newspapers have, on the whole, been fair and generous to the England
> cricketers.'
Some have opined that the real pity about bodyline is that although England
didn't have a batsman in Bradman's class they were so superior overall, and
especially in their attack, that they would probably have won the series
anyway without resorting to leg theory.
Arvind Borde
news:3ee22cb1$0$2...@hades.is.co.za...
> Some have opined that the real pity about bodyline is that although
England
> didn't have a batsman in Bradman's class they were so superior overall,
and
> especially in their attack, that they would probably have won the series
> anyway without resorting to leg theory.
Bodyline has always been a bit of a mystery to me. It's true that
England had lost to Australia in 1930, but it was a 2-1 loss,
with two draws. In the series that had preceded that one, 1928/29,
England had inflicted a heavier 4-1 defeat on Australia. Why the
feeling that radical new tactics were needed?
Even the 1930 Bradman factor is a little hard to fathom. Bradman had
made 974 runs @ 139 in 1930 but Hammond had made 905 @ 113 in 1928/29.
Bradman had bettered Hammond's aggregate by less than 10%. It can't
have been completely clear to the England of Hobbs (averaging around
60 in 1930) and Sutcliffe (averaging 65) that they were facing
someone who was, statistically, in a quite different class. It must
have only become clear that Bradman was Bradmanesque later in his
career, with his average always stubbornly hovering around 100. It's
true that Bradman must have exhibited a frightening mastery when he
batted, and a speed of scoring that must have seemed appallingly
poor form to the English, but he wasn't scoring, say, thrice as
fast as anybody else or twice as many runs or even showing the
dazzling grandeur that, say, Trumper in his day appeared to have
shown. Why the extreme fear of him?
Arvind
Arvind Borde
news:UqsEa.44362$ca5....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> fast as anybody else or twice as many runs or even showing the
I meant to say "thrice as many runs".
Arvind
Uday Rajan
>
> Even the 1930 Bradman factor is a little hard to fathom. Bradman had
> made 974 runs @ 139 in 1930 but Hammond had made 905 @ 113 in 1928/29.
> Bradman had bettered Hammond's aggregate by less than 10%. It can't
> have been completely clear to the England of Hobbs (averaging around
> 60 in 1930) and Sutcliffe (averaging 65) that they were facing
> someone who was, statistically, in a quite different class. It must
> have only become clear that Bradman was Bradmanesque later in his
> career, with his average always stubbornly hovering around 100. It's
> true that Bradman must have exhibited a frightening mastery when he
> batted, and a speed of scoring that must have seemed appallingly
> poor form to the English, but he wasn't scoring, say, thrice as
> fast as anybody else or twice as many runs or even showing the
> dazzling grandeur that, say, Trumper in his day appeared to have
> shown. Why the extreme fear of him?
Two things come to mind. For one, he was scoring more runs
than anyone else, and scoring them more quickly than anyone
else. His 254 at Lord's in 1930 is often talked about as his
most destructive innings, and no one had ever (and indeed no
one has since) scored 300 runs in day until Bradman did it
at Leeds. It wasn't just the volume of runs, but the ability
to put the match beyond reach with his first innings that
was striking. Cardus wrote once of an innings of Hammond in
which he batted a day and a half, scored 240, and still had
not made England safe. He then said that Bradman in that
same time span would have put all bowling to rout. Bradman
had three scores over 200 in the last 4 Tests of that
series. I'm not sure if that has been matched by any other
batsman in history, but there can't be too many players who
have done it.
Secondly, he did play a couple of series between the tour to
England in 1930 and the time that Jardine would have been
planning the Ashes campaign of 1932-33. Against South Africa
in 1931-32, he scored 806 runs at 201.50, finishing with
299*. Against the WI a year earlier, he was a relative
failure, only 447 runs at 74-odd, but still including a 223
in there. His ability to make large scores was what set him
apart from other batsmen, even early in his career. The 299*
against South Africa made it 6 double tons (including the
334) in his last 13 Tests, and I think it was reasonably
clear by then that he was some kind of phenomenon.
Arvind Borde
news:3EE2614F...@andrew.cmu.edu...
> Two things come to mind. For one, he was scoring more runs
> than anyone else, and scoring them more quickly than anyone
> else.
The "more quickly" bit is certainly true, and it must
have shocked his opponents. The "more runs" bit seems
less clear. It's literally true, of course, but not,
it seems to me, on a scale that seemed to obviously call
for radical tactics. Hammond, although he was scoring
more slowly, was also making a lot of runs. If Bradman
had the three 200+ scores you mention, Hammond had
a 3-test sequence in the '28/29 series in which he made
251, 200 & 32, 119* & 177.
> at Leeds. It wasn't just the volume of runs, but the ability
> to put the match beyond reach with his first innings that
> was striking.
Yet, as I mentioned, the Hammondonian English victory
in Australia in '28/29 was lot more emphatic than the
Bradmanian Australian victory in England in 1930.
> Secondly, he did play a couple of series between the tour to
> England in 1930 and the time that Jardine would have been
> planning the Ashes campaign of 1932-33.
It's not clear how impressed English cricket -- players or
officials -- would have been in those years by runs against
South Africa or the West Indies. Even with those runs,
after the 4th test of the South Africa series,
Bradman was averaging 112 in 18 tests (he didn't bat in the
5th test). After the first 18 tests of his career Sutcliffe
was averaging 75. It's clear that Bradman represented
a force that English cricket would have to reckon with,
but the invention of a radical new approach still seems
to me a somewhat exaggerated response *given the evidence
available at the time*. It would have been more reasonable
to assume that Bradman wouldn't be able to maintain this
level of production for long. But Jardine was probably not
a reasonable man, and, with hindsight, correct to see
Bradman as a radically new threat.
Arvind
Winston Churchill
news:UqsEa.44362$ca5....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
>
Uday Rajan's comments address this fairly well, but I'll add
that the fear of Bradman was partly inspired by the clinical
way that he set about getting his runs. Bradman, for all his
fast scoring, was largely about the elimination of risk. He
eliminated the risk in a slightly unorthodox fashion, almost
never playing the ball into the air, but nearly always
playing the ball.
He was incredibly gifted, yet unlike many gifted players, he
had a work ethic second to none. His concentration didn't
waver, his hunger for runs was never sated. He has said of
his 254 that it was his favourite innings because every ball
went precisely where he intended it to go until the ball
that dismissed him.
Add to this the points that you and Uday raise and you can
understand Jardine's reasoning. At the time of bodyline,
Australia without Bradman were not especially strong.
Certainly they were not as strong as England. In fact,
between 1928 and 1938, Australia had precisely one victory
against England without Bradman contributing a century.
So now we have Jardine, about to head off to Australia, with
a *very* good side and coming up against a team that, less
one man, would be palpably inferior to his own. Hardly
surprising that he then set about finding ways to stop that
one man.
cheers
--
Winny
==========
"I believe you find life such a problem
because you think there are the good
people and the bad people. You're
wrong, of course. There are, always and
only, the bad people, but some of them
are on opposite sides."
T. Pratchett
Arvind Borde
news:icwEa.650$B_5....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> Uday Rajan's comments address this fairly well,
I want to make clear that I'm not disagreeing with the
broad points Uday and you make, just fumbling towards an
understanding of Jardine's mindset. My thanks to both
of you for giving me something to chew on.
Arvind
Winston Churchill
> "Uday Rajan" <ura...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
> news:3EE2614F...@andrew.cmu.edu...
> > Two things come to mind. For one, he was scoring more
runs
> > than anyone else, and scoring them more quickly than
anyone
> > else.
>
> The "more quickly" bit is certainly true, and it must
> have shocked his opponents. The "more runs" bit seems
> less clear. It's literally true, of course, but not,
> it seems to me, on a scale that seemed to obviously call
> for radical tactics. Hammond, although he was scoring
> more slowly, was also making a lot of runs. If Bradman
> had the three 200+ scores you mention, Hammond had
> a 3-test sequence in the '28/29 series in which he made
> 251, 200 & 32, 119* & 177.
In 1932, you could easily have made the argument that
Hammond was at least as good as Bradman, in fact you would
be just as likely to be arguing that Bradman was at least as
good as Hammond. I recall Mike Holmans posting as much in
November 1932, just before the first test, but it seems to
have been deleted from google.
However Bradman was to Australia as Murali is to Sri Lanka,
or as Hadlee was to New Zealand, a player exceptionally more
dangerous than his colleagues. For this reason alone, he
became the focus of attention for the Englishmen.
If a young Bangladeshi batsman emerges with a couple of
centuries against Australia next month and then follows that
up with some big scores against Pakistan, I imagine that he
will occupy the thoughts of many of the English cricketers
as they head off for the Dhaka test in October. They may not
consider him as good a batsman as (errrm trying to think of
some decent English batsmen) say Vaughan, but they will
consider him their major threat nonetheless.
Whether they will adopt radical tactics to remove him as a
threat depend largely, in my opinion, on whether they can
think of any.
alvey
On the topic of mindsets, let's do a balance sheet, by country, on
mindset. Bags starting with the poms.
Negative:
Bodyline
Planned slow over rates (1954/5 in Aust)
Reluctance to accept fielding circles in odo's
Reluctance to accept use of lights in Test cricket
Leg-theory (Fred Root)
Reluctance to schedule home Test play on Sundays.
Reluctance to stick a camera at both ends of the ground.
Reluctance of the law making (I think) Club to accept women members.
Refusal to let the Ashes out of Lords.
The practice "Gentlemen" & Players.
Positive:
The invention of the screw-in stud. (Although I'm not certain about
this. I read somewhere that a pom invented this but, as it's a positive
innovation I suspect the article was incorrect. Probably written by a pom.)
Their women's enthusiasm for foreign cricketers.
Alvey
Mad Hamish
wrote:
Dunno, they had superior pace bowlers and medium pacers but generally
pace wasn't the deciding factor in series in the 30s - of course that
might have had a fair bit to do with the pace bowlers who were
actually around rather than being a real comment on the conditions.
In addition Larwood had done very little against Australia up to the
time of bodyline - as Mike has previously pointed out it's not unusual
for a bowler to take a while to adjust to test level so it certainly
can't be ruled out but
Verity in australia apart from bodyline
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1936/37 [Series]
Aus 5 1567 455 10 3/79 5/103 45.50 1.74 156.7 0 0
Gubby Allen in Australia apart from Bodyline
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1936/37 [Series]
Aus 5 1031 526 17 5/36 8/107 30.94 3.06 60.6 1 0
Voce in Australia apart from Bodyline _before_ WWII (I don't think his
figures 14 years later say anything about what he'd have been likely
to do in 32-33)
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1936/37 [Series]
Aus 5 1297 560 26 6/41 10/57 21.53 2.59 49.8 1 1
Larwood against Australia apart from Bodyline
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1926 [Series]
Eng 2 95 252 9 3/34 6/116 28.00 2.65 63.3 0 0
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1928/29 [Series]
Eng 5 259.1 724 18 6/32 8/62 40.22 2.79 86.3 1 0
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1930 [Series]
Aus 3 101 292 4 1/9 2/21 73.00 2.89 151.5 0 0
O'Reilly, Grimmett and Ironmonger all being available for Australia
isn't exactly a bad spin attack.
nor is Ponsford, Woodfull, McCabe a bad basis for a batting lineup.
of course if Bodyline wasn't in use Tate might well have played and he
certainly had been effective in Australia over a long period...
So it's certainly possible that England were stronger but I'm not sure
about it.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@aardvark.net.au
Cricketislife!
> Swanton didn't go, though he very nearly did. He always maintained
> afterwards that had he gone the English public would have
> been provided> with a much clearer idea of what Bodyline entailed.
Swanton didnt go cos I think before that tour he muffed up big time in
reporting within a dead line or something. So the bosses werent pleased
and thought he might not be the right guy in Australia, so instead sent
a tennis writer harris.
kenhiggs8
Well, perhaps a lot has been made of actually quite a little.
Bodyline was actually only used for 2, perhaps 3, of the Tests. It
wasn't even used all the time. I came across an interesting line (in
the course of looking up info on Proctor, which led me to some
interesting stuff on Pollock, which led me onto this 334 site):
(http://www.334notout.com/bodyline/hist3test1.htm)
"Larwood bowling to an orthodox field ran in and hit Woodfull just
above the
heart with a short pitched delivery. Woodfull stumbled away from the
crease
rubbing his chest in agony. Eventually he made his way back to the
crease
and as he was doing so the now common clap of the hands from Jardine
signalled the change in field to that of Bodyline. Still under the
field of Bodyline
some overs later Bradman popped up a catch to Gubby Allen at short leg
for
only 8 runs. On his way back to the dressing room he said to the
Australian
board "Something has to be done about this"."
(report on the 3rd Test. Bodyline was used, to much less effect
earlier, England lost the previous Test).
So rather than Woodfull being felled by Bodyline, it would appear he
was injured playing a regulation short delivery.
The site has match reports for all the Tests, Bradman, save the 2nd
Test when the pitch was noticeably slower, struggled against the
bowling. Far from moving away to the leg-side and hitting the ball
audaciously to the unprotected off-side, this set of reports charges
Bradman with being intent on avoiding being hit and backing away. He
never looked comfortable and Larwood had his measure.
Further, at the time, both Sutcliffe & Hammond were very well
credentialled batsmen, they had climbed almost to the heights Bradman
had attained in 1930, though time was to show that they couldn't
maintain their position there, unlike Bradman.
And not to forget that Australia had bolwers of the calibre of
O'Reilly & Grimmet. It was a reasonably even contest, though, say what
you will about Jardine, England had the more astute skipper.
I think there was more politics than actual drama in the Bodyline
series.
Bradman played a part here, leaking the infamous words to the press
and inflaming opinion.
Higgsy
Bob Dubery
> Even the 1930 Bradman factor is a little hard to fathom. Bradman had
> made 974 runs @ 139 in 1930 but Hammond had made 905 @ 113 in 1928/29.
> Bradman had bettered Hammond's aggregate by less than 10%. It can't
> have been completely clear to the England of Hobbs (averaging around
> 60 in 1930) and Sutcliffe (averaging 65) that they were facing
> someone who was, statistically, in a quite different class.
But Hammond wasn't facing Larwood and Voce. England had a clearly superior
bowling attack, but here was Bradman outscoring Hammond.
Still it does seem to have been an overeaction, or maybe a bit of panicking
by England.
Or maybe Jardine would have deployed leg theory anyway. There had been
flirtations with fast leg theory in England, notably by Notts who had real
firepower available to them. So maybe it was just in Jardine's mind, as it
later was in Lloyd's, that he had a fearsome pace attack and so why not play
everything right up to but not past the letter of the law if that was the
way you were most likely to win games?
Bob Dubery
> However Bradman was to Australia as Murali is to Sri Lanka,
> or as Hadlee was to New Zealand, a player exceptionally more
> dangerous than his colleagues. For this reason alone, he
> became the focus of attention for the Englishmen.
>
> If a young Bangladeshi batsman emerges with a couple of
> centuries against Australia next month and then follows that
> up with some big scores against Pakistan, I imagine that he
> will occupy the thoughts of many of the English cricketers
> as they head off for the Dhaka test in October. They may not
> consider him as good a batsman as (errrm trying to think of
> some decent English batsmen) say Vaughan, but they will
> consider him their major threat nonetheless.
>
> Whether they will adopt radical tactics to remove him as a
> threat depend largely, in my opinion, on whether they can
> think of any.
Well put.
It might be so that Australia were not guaranteed to win the Ashes. But what
was probably in England's mind was that Bradman was the key. Neutralise the
man who was clearly the outstanding Australian player and the Ashes were
yours.
Then, as you say, it's just a question of how ruthless you were prepared to
be. And Jardine was about as ruthless as they came.
Winston Churchill
news:6af2bb1.03060...@posting.google.com...
> Well, perhaps a lot has been made of actually quite a
little.
> Bodyline was actually only used for 2, perhaps 3, of the
Tests.
I'm not sure that this is completely accurate and I would be
interested in your sources. Bodyline was certainly used in
the first test - this was the test in which McCabe made his
187 - and I understand that it was used in the second test
against Bradman when he made his 103.
The third test is famed as being the most unpleasant of the
series and there is no doubt that bodyline was part of the
reason for it.
Contemporary reports suggest that bodyline was used in the
fourth test (though with less effect than in the third) and
it seems that it was used in the fifth test as well.
The details above are based on the press clippings in "The
Bradman Albums", Jack Pollard's "Australian Cricket 1918 -
1948" and "Barclays World of Cricket - 1980 edition".
There is a popular view that Larwood, Voce and Bowles bowled
nothing but bodyline throughout the tour. While this is a
long way from the truth, I think you are leaning a little
too far the other way when you say "Bodyline was actually
only used for 2, perhaps 3, of the Tests".
<snip>
John Hall
Of course, it may be that Australia _were_ just as concerned about
Hammond as England were about Bradman. But if the possibility of using
Bodyline had occurred to them, they didn't have the quality of fast
bowling needed to implement it. (It is said that Larwood was
exceptionally accurate for a fast bowler, and that it was this that made
Bodyline so efective.)
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)
John Hall
alvey <alvey_side...@yahoo.com> writes:
>On the topic of mindsets, let's do a balance sheet, by country, on
>mindset. Bags starting with the poms.
>
>Negative:
>
>Bodyline
>Planned slow over rates (1954/5 in Aust)
>Reluctance to accept fielding circles in odo's
>Reluctance to accept use of lights in Test cricket
>Leg-theory (Fred Root)
>Reluctance to schedule home Test play on Sundays.
>Reluctance to stick a camera at both ends of the ground.
>Reluctance of the law making (I think) Club to accept women members.
>Refusal to let the Ashes out of Lords.
>The practice "Gentlemen" & Players.
>
>
>Positive:
>
>The invention of the screw-in stud. (Although I'm not certain about
>this. I read somewhere that a pom invented this but, as it's a positive
>innovation I suspect the article was incorrect. Probably written by a
>pom.)
>Their women's enthusiasm for foreign cricketers.
The invention of cricket.
Providing Australia with someone to beat in Ashes series.
The "obituary" notice that led to the concept of the Ashes.
John Hall
Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> writes:
>In addition Larwood had done very little against Australia up to the
>time of bodyline - as Mike has previously pointed out it's not unusual
>for a bowler to take a while to adjust to test level so it certainly
>can't be ruled out but
>
>Verity in australia apart from bodyline
>The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1936/37 [Series]
>Aus 5 1567 455 10 3/79 5/103 45.50 1.74 156.7 0 0
Huh? Verity bowled slow left-arm. Were you thinking of Bowes?
>
>Gubby Allen in Australia apart from Bodyline
>The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1936/37 [Series]
>Aus 5 1031 526 17 5/36 8/107 30.94 3.06 60.6 1 0
Given 1930s Australian wickets, this seems like a pretty fair
performance. He refused to bowl Bodyline in 1932-3 (being an amateur, he
could afford to defy Jardine, unlike the pros), but may well have gained
from the pressure exerted by the other fast bowlers using it.
>
>Voce in Australia apart from Bodyline _before_ WWII (I don't think his
>figures 14 years later say anything about what he'd have been likely to
>do in 32-33) The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1936/37 [Series]
>Aus 5 1297 560 26 6/41 10/57 21.53 2.59 49.8 1 1
These are fine figures.
>
>Larwood against Australia apart from Bodyline
>The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1926 [Series]
>Eng 2 95 252 9 3/34 6/116 28.00 2.65 63.3 0 0
He was recognised at this stage as highly promising.
>The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1928/29 [Series]
>Eng 5 259.1 724 18 6/32 8/62 40.22 2.79 86.3 1 0
Not outstanding figures, but he played an important role in England's
comfortable series victory.
>The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1930 [Series]
>Aus 3 101 292 4 1/9 2/21 73.00 2.89 151.5 0 0
Like everybody else, he suffered from Bradman (and Ponsford), on pitches
that I think generally lacked much in the way of pace or bounce.
John Hall
kenhiggs8 <kenh...@hotmail.com> writes:
>So rather than Woodfull being felled by Bodyline, it would appear he
>was injured playing a regulation short delivery.
Yep. AIUI, it was the change to Bodyline immediately after Woodfull's
injury that - understandably - did more than anything to stir up
Australian public opinion.
Mike Holmans
>"Bob Dubery" <mega...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3ee22cb1$0$2...@hades.is.co.za...
>> Some have opined that the real pity about bodyline is that although
>England
>> didn't have a batsman in Bradman's class they were so superior overall,
>and
>> especially in their attack, that they would probably have won the series
>> anyway without resorting to leg theory.
>
>Bodyline has always been a bit of a mystery to me. It's true that
>England had lost to Australia in 1930, but it was a 2-1 loss,
>with two draws. In the series that had preceded that one, 1928/29,
>England had inflicted a heavier 4-1 defeat on Australia. Why the
>feeling that radical new tactics were needed?
I've wondered a lot about that too, and you use of the word "radical"
is something of a key to it.
Jardine *loathed* Australia and Australians. Why he was so virulent
about it remains something of a mystery, but he was, and he was
utterly determined to win back the Ashes and would do anything legal
to further that aim.
In England, there was sometimes swing in the air or the ball would do
a bit off the pitch. In Australia, pitches were true and the
atrmosphere dry. Bowling off-theory as most people do today was
pointless because balls pitching outside off couldn't get a batsman
lbw, and anyway the stumps were smaller. In the 20s and 30s, the
batsman reigned supreme.
Bowling leg theory to a packed leg trap was not new, and it remained
part of the game until the mid-50s, even though nobody thought it was
very attractive.
Intimidatory bowling with the batsman as the target wasn't all that
new either; since Tibby Cotter and Gregory & Macdonald had both
indulged in it on occasion, it wasn't as though Australians were
completely namby-pamby about it.
Bradman had apparently been seen to flinch and be uncomfortable at
some short stuff on the tour of England.
So, whilst it was never going to be thought to be the most gentlemanly
way of playing cricket, Bodyline was not really a *radical* new
departure. It was, in fact, a fairly logical answer to the extreme
difficulty of dismissing batsmen on flat, true wickets; it simply drew
together a number of elements of the fast bowler's armoury of the
time, and the only new things about it were the combination of the
elements and the willingness to bowl it *systematically* for ball
after ball and over after over, rather than just pinging in the
occasional bouncer.
A recent modern parallel was Hussain's use of Ashley Giles to bottle
up SRT. Slow left-armers had bowled over the wicket outside leg stump
before, but not usually to an 8-1 field for hour after hour. It wasn't
really *radical*, and in some senses it wasn't really new either, but
it hadn't been deployed with such iron purpose before. The
circumstances were also fairly similar, since it was clearly the
English view that if they could bring Tendulkar down to the scoring
rate and volume of a merely good Test batsman, they were at least a
match for the rest of the Indian side and would be in with a chance of
winning the series - and that was how they decided to go about it.
I'm not attempting to defend Bodyline as being perfectly normal. I'm
simply saying that in my view, Bodyline was not *radically* new but
was in many ways a pretty logical development in the ongoing war
between bat and ball, which was at the time being comprehensively won
by the bat.
Chers,
Mike
Uday Rajan
>
> In article <bbu705$d4gqr$1...@ID-155113.news.dfncis.de>,
> alvey <alvey_side...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
> The invention of cricket.
When you put it that way...game, set and match.
Arvind Borde
news:t0b6evon3epjmes6b...@4ax.com...
> Bradman had apparently been seen to flinch and be uncomfortable at
> some short stuff on the tour of England.
I've read that, too, but I've been looking through the
limited literature to which I have ready access, and
can't find evidence that this weakness was, in fact,
particularly noticed over the span of the 1930 tour.
As a minor curiosity, Cardus (who, I'll admit, doesn't
always let a fact get in the way of a flowery phrase)
seemed to feel that Bradman's one weakness was leg spin.
Arvind
Arvind Borde
<snip>
> The site has match reports for all the Tests,
It's a little hard to tell whether the reports here are
taken directly from contemporary accounts. In the history
section, some of what they say about Bradman in 1930
(especially the Oval test, where Bradman supposedly showed
discomfort with fast, short-pitched bowling on the leg side)
isn't the same as what Cardus wrote in his match reports.
Accounts of anything written much after the fact are
problematic -- we know both too little and too much.
Arvind
Mike Holmans
>"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:t0b6evon3epjmes6b...@4ax.com...
>> Bradman had apparently been seen to flinch and be uncomfortable at
>> some short stuff on the tour of England.
>
>I've read that, too, but I've been looking through the
>limited literature to which I have ready access, and
>can't find evidence that this weakness was, in fact,
>particularly noticed over the span of the 1930 tour.
It was in one or two matches, not on a regular basis.
Of course, on the shirt-fronts prevalent in England at the time, and
with a crop of bowlers who were mostly quick only in name, it wasn't
like there was all that much opportunity to test him with it.
>As a minor curiosity, Cardus (who, I'll admit, doesn't
>always let a fact get in the way of a flowery phrase)
>seemed to feel that Bradman's one weakness was leg spin.
I've just read Ian Peebles' autobiography. Peebles had Bradman caught
for 14 at Old Trafford in 1930, and he was a leg-spinner. He talked
about Bradman a bit, and said that Bradman himself admitted that if he
had a weakness, it was on the drive against the ball going away from
him, and also that the bowler who troubled him by far the most in his
career was Bill O'Reilly. SF Barnes also felt that he would have been
able to get Bradman with the "Barnes ball", his trademark fast
leg-break (which Peebles could apparently bowl in his young days - but
only indoors at Aubrey Faulkner's cricket school: inexplicably to
himself, once he got out on a real pitch, he couldn't hack it).
However, in 1932-33, Bradman was still pretty young, and such
weaknesses as there were hadn't been fully identified by that time.
Cheers,
Mike
Cricketislife!
Originally posted by Balakrishnan Nair
Edited extract of Nair' posting.
=
"Anyway, here are some clippings, salient points etc from the book,
(cricket crisis) which might seem surprising. I was really surprised to
find a player of that Australian team holding some of my views on the
subject!!!
#1 Bradman was always uncomfortable against short pitched quick
bowling.
In 1930 against Larwood, he had a torrid time when the ball bounced
and even later on in the series against SA before bodyline, he
had concerns against the bouncing ball(which was rarely bowled). The
South African paceman, Bell send down a few bumpers which caught
Bradman on the wrong foot and this was apparantly instrumental in
hatcing the final plans for bodyline.
#2 The 90 Mph claim was not Fingleton's but was by Michael Parkinson in
a short introduction which was written in 1984. BTW, the first
edition of this book was published in 1946.
#3 Voce and Bowes were supposed to be "Nowhere as quick" as Larwood and
Fingleton was of the opinion that Bodyline worked only because of the
pace and bounce of Larwood.
#4 Fingleton doesnt think too much about Oldtimers who claimed that the
bowlers of their era were faster than Larwood :) He also thinks the
best batsmen were those of his era, with the exception of Victor
Trumper.
Here are some snippets:
After a lot of praise for Bradman's uncanny timing:
I hasten to add that all this concerned Bradman the Great, of the Good
wicket. In that category he stood alone. He was towering, majestic,
omniscient-until the platter, the platter on his palace roof told him
that the rains had arrived. Then he put off his majestic plumes and
stole out to mix with the rabble, his features indistinguishable in
the ranks of wet-wicket mediocrities.
Bradman's repeated failures on wet wickets must remain the mystery
or his career. I saw him bat on innumerable occasions on damaged
wickets, but only twice did I see him succeed- Once for NSW against
England, and again for Australia against Yorkshire.
About Bradman's attitude on a wet wicket:
It always seemed that Bradman refused to take wet wickets seriously.
This was not in his gait to the wickets that slow, measured tread so
common to him. He came in a hurry and invariably left in a hurry, as
if he were in the middle of a telephone conversation in the pavilion
when his turn came to bat. It seemed he could not be interested in
such wickets; that he knew the good wicket would soon enough come
along and provide him with his customary big score, thus effacing any
memory of his failure on a bad wicket.
Abouts bradman's dismissal in the second test of the bodlyline series
whena lot of expectation rested on him after Australia lost the first
test badly:
Never could there have been such a dramatic anti-climax. I was at the
other end and saw Bradman take his gaurd. Bowes. whose pace in
Australia was not comarable with that of Voce, let alone Larwood, began
his lumbering run, and to my surprise, I saw Bradman leave his gaurd
and move accross the wicket before Bowes had bowled the ball.
The first natural and obvious principle of batsmanship is not to make
up one's mind before the ball had been bowled. Not even Bradman could
flout the cannons of the game in such a manner, for if much could be
done and disguised under the guise of unorthodoxy, that unorthodoxy
itself had it's earthly limitations and did not embarace a miraculous
foresight which told by the bowler's run to the wicket where the
ball would pitch and it's direction.
Bradman was outside the off-stump when the ball reached him. He swung
at it and it hit into the base of his leg-stump. A hush fell over the
ground, an unbelievable hush of calmity, for men refused to believe
what they had seen. Bradman left the wickets in silence.
Was Bradman afraid?(The first Paragraph is about Bradman's 71 at Sydney)
Bradman's stumps were left open not once but a dozen times. An ordinary
straight ball from Larwood would have been enough to end Bradman's
innings, but it seemed that the stumps were of minor concern to both
Larwood and Bradman. It seemed that Larwood was anxious to claim a
hit on Bradman in the final test - a thing that the Englishman had not
done previously. And Bradman seemed just as determined that Larwood
shouldnt. Larwood got a hit, late in Bradman's innings, with a stinging
blow high on Bradman's left arm.
In some quarters Bradman drew criticism upon himself with this type
of batting. In others he was given lavish praise for the plan he had
evolved to defeat bodyline. Was it not better, it was claimed, to die
thus than to give a simple popping catch to the leg-trap?
Larwood made the blatant statement on returning to England that
Bradman was frightened. The taunt stung Bradman.
"I resent Larwood's accusation and deny it emphatically", he said.
"According to Larwood's ideas, it would seem that to adopt orthodox
methods and get hit is displaying courage. Any other method whereby
his theory might be defeated evinced fear"
"Actually", continued Bradman."My method of playing Larwood exposed
me to considerably more danger than the orthodox way. Anyone who
understands cricket knows that."
These divergent opinions on the two leading actors of the Bodyline
drama are worth recording, though Bradman will not find an Australian
batsman of that series to agree with him that he took more risks than
they did.
When an acquaintance wished Bradman as he was leaving for the fourth
test in Brisbane, he replied:"I would sooner return from Brisbane with
a pair of ducks rather than with a pair of broken ribs" The person to
whom this was said was amazed at what seemed to be Bradman's lack of
thought for Australia's test prospects, but Bradman at this stage
and earlier, saw bodyline clearly for what it was.
Here is where Fingeleton's honesty shines through(Well after all, he is
supporting my viewpoint)
Hobbs wrote that Larwood of that year was at the peak of his career,
and his figures compared to those of four years before, when the
Australian batting wasnt so compact nor established as in 1932-33
lend support to the contention. A portion of his success, and a good
portion, was due to the indimidatory nature of Badyline; but the truth
is that Larwood was so fast and so skilful in the 1932-33 season that
his figures would still have set a standard in history had he contented
himself with an orthodox means of attack.
I write this with conviction and a true appreciation of the ability
of Woodful and Ponsford, the might of Bradman, of the induvidual
Artistry of Kippax and McCabe and the rugged honesty of Richardson.
That orthodoxy would have had to include the occasional bumper, a
nessasary shaft in the armoury of all fast bowlers worthy of the name.
It could also have included a concentration on the line of flight
of the ball around the area of the hip, a delivery which gave Hendren
many a catch at short leg.
One or two of the Australians might have grumbled at the bumper, as
one or two of any country would, but they would not have recieved a
word of sympathy from their team-mates or the public. Nobody, either,
could have made a winning case against a battery of balls rising on the
hip, even if the leg-side was packed. But the case passed from this
category to that of bodyline as soon as the ball went higher than the
hip, when it reared above the chest and especially the head. This,
together with the cramping leg-side field, was intimidation and
Body-line and a batsman's first concern was for his personal saftey.
A little foot-note about the infamous Warner-Woodful incident:(Warner
had accused Fingleton of releasing this information to the media)
The story as told me by Claude Corbett, then writing for the Sun,
and a collegue of mine, was this: 'I got a call from Don Bradman
who told me he wanted to tell me something. Don was also working
on a third sense for the Sun, being assosciated with a broadcasting
firm and a sports store. We arranged a meeting in North Terrace, and,
while we sat in his car, he told me all about the Warner-Woodful
incident. It was too hot a story for me to run on my own, and I
gave it all to the press'
I have always held it against the Don that he did not own up and clear
me. Warner himself had the cheek to think such a sensational story
would not leak out, as there were several in the team who maintained
a 'leaking' connection to the press.
Bradman obviously didnt like what I wrote about him in Cricket Crisis
and for years ignored me. Then one night we were both with the English
team at dinner at Government house, perth, and throughout the
evening we studiously ignored each other. I thought it was all too
silly and wrote the Don accordingly, and we agreed to bury the hatchet.
No doubt this explanation will unearth the old fued again, but I think
I owe it to myself to tell the story as Claude Corbett told it to me.
At least Don Bradman was a very good and observant reporter. He had
every detail correct.
-Balky
(The Debo-Nair)
Message 2 in thread
From: Balakrishnan G Nair (bala...@cae.wisc.edu)
Subject: Re: Fingleton on Bodyline
Ugh. Bad form to follow up to your own articles, I know! I just found
that Fingleton does indeed say that Larwood "delivered the ball at you
at an estimated speed of ninety miles an hour".
Here is some more stuff on Larwood:
[Contrary to what someone said, Larwood had a long run up according to
Fing.]
Bowes had the bodyline spirit, but lacked the pace, and even though Voce
,swinging into the batsman with the new ball, could be exceedingly
difficult at times, he had neither the sustained pace nor control of
Larwood. Larwoodwas the master, Voce merely the coadjuctor, whose haul
was ripe because he followed in the footsteps of the master.
It will thus be seen that the first essential of bodyline was control.
And Larwood had control. It is my conviction that had Larwood not been
in the 1932-33 side and bodyline had to rely on it's existence on Voce
and Bowes, the theory would not have survived the first test.
I will never see a greater fast bowler than Larwood. I am sure of that,
and at this moment pay a tribute to him as a truly magnificent bowler.
His genius that season with the ball was of the same mould as Bradman's
with the bat in 1930. he had the advantage of a canny, astute captain in
Jardine, who carefully nurtured him in quick, small bursts of bowling
and who moreover (apart from the bodyline field placing), was as artful
a skipper as you would ever meet in a day's walk in smelling out the
weaknesses of batsmen.
I, for one, will never cease to sing Larwood's praises as a bowler. I
saw so much of pace bowlers from other lands, but I dont hesitate to put
him on the highest pinnacle by himself(I never saw McDonald). One could
tell his art from his run to the wickets. It was a poem of atheletic
grace, as each muscle gave over to the other with perfect balance and
power. He began his LONG run slowly, this splendidly proportioned
athelete, like a sprinter unleashed for a hundred yards dash. His legs
and arms pistoned up his speed and as he neared the wickets, he was in
very truth like the flying Scotsman thundering through an east coast
station. He was full of power, fire and
fury - or so he looked at the batting end just before he delivered the
ball at you at an estimated 90 miles an hour.
Hmm, the more I read that last paragraph, the more seems the
possibility that Larwood might have been an exception to my theory that
Lindwall, Trueman or Tyson might have been the first to touch that
incredible 90 Mph mark.
An interesting two-liner I found in the book:
Since all is fair in love and cricket,
Bowl at the batsman and not at the wicket.
That there was no love lost between Bradman and himself seems further
evident from the following:
On Bradman as a captain:
Bradman did not have an inspiring influence on those who played under
him.His leading bowlers did not consider him as a good captain. In the
first place,he was not an idolized leader of men like Richardson was,
for instance. TheAustralian team in South Africa in 1935-36, without
Bradman and under the captaincy of Richardson pulled better together and
was a superior all-round side to the Australian Eleven Bradman led in
Australia in 1936-37 and 1938.
No one made a 200 on the South African tour, but the fifties, sixties
and centuries of the players gave all the margin McCormick, O'Reilly,
Grimmet and Fleetwood-Smith desired for victory.
The prescence of Bradman in a side, because he was so much an
induvidualist,often had a bad effect. he swamped the others and made
them indifferent. Only a batsman knows how difficult it is to score a
century, but Bradman made thatpoor meat and he made the scoring of 50 in
a test match, once considered a splendid feat, almost go unrecognized.
What some people might not know was that Bodyline was not over with
that series. There was a follow up in.. Guess where? India and later
by the West Indian Bowlers in England. But no-one seems to care about
the Indian bit of the story.
About the Indian tour:
India was almost Australia all over again. Larwood, Voce and Bowes were
not there. But Jardine, Clark, of Northants, and the Bodyline field were
sufficient for a hot curry of trouble.
Here is a portion of what happened in India: Merchant had his chin
split; Naomal had his eye cut open; a ball in madras narrowly missed the
Maharajah of Patalia's turban and bitterly incensed the crowd. Dilawar
Hussain was hit on the head at Culcutta and like Oldfield at Adelaide,
was carried off the field. Clark, at Colombo amazed everyone by walking
down the wicket and deliberately scraping off with his sprigs that part
of the pitch where the good length ball would land. Clark's action was
so blatant that the MCC batsman at the
other end apologized to the Cingalese captain, Dr. Gunesakari.
About the West Indies giving something back to England in 1935:
I am credibly informed that the west Indians bowled bodyline in that
match on an agreed understanding with some influencial MCC member who
wnated to see what the theory was like. Grant, the West Indies skipper
was agreeable, but some of his fast bowlers protested that if there was
to be an exibition of bodyline, it should be on some more responsive
Cricketislife!
Here are some snippets:
-Balky
(The Debo-Nair)
--
Cricketislife!
=====
Message 2 in thread
From: Balakrishnan G Nair (bala...@cae.wisc.edu)
Subject: Re: Fingleton on Bodyline
About the Indian tour:
wicket rather than Old trafford whichg was notoriously lifeless.
Even at that, the West Indies, with Constantine, Martindale and
Griffiths greatly inconvinienced the batsmen. Hammond had three stitches
put in a gaping cut that stretched from eye to ear he looked a very sick
warrior when he was out after making a few runs against the theory.
Jardine, full of pluck as usual, batted 65 runs to score 14 runs.
=========Balakrishnan G Nair=================
Source:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=2upn80%24p1p%4
0news.doit.wisc.edu
.
Arvind Borde
> It was in one or two matches, not on a regular basis.
>
> Of course, on the shirt-fronts prevalent in England at the time, and
> with a crop of bowlers who were mostly quick only in name, it wasn't
> like there was all that much opportunity to test him with it.
That's true. Here's a snippet from the Cardus report of the
1930 Oval test that faintly suggests this Bradman weakness:
"When the match was continued at three o'clock, Larwood
attacked with a determination he had not shown at any
other time of the day. He made one or two balls rise
awkwardly, Bradman edging one not all handsomely"
To be filed under "What was Jardine thinking?", he (Jardine)
didn't even play in the 1930 series. At that point, his test
career had consisted of 7 tests in which he had made 446 runs.
Did he watch the Oval episode from the stands and think,
"I'm going to captain England in two years and get that
bugger Bradman"?
> I've just read Ian Peebles' autobiography. Peebles had Bradman caught
> for 14 at Old Trafford in 1930, and he was a leg-spinner.
Here's Cardus on that:
"The innings was highly significant. I make nothing of the fact
that Bradman failed to get runs; it was his turn to fail. What was
instructive was his tentative methods against Peebles. The innings
justified those of us who throughout the season have argued that
the weak spot in Bradman's technique would most likely be found out
by slow-medium spin pitching on the wicket and turning away from the
bat."
Arvind
John Hall
Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes:
>"Arvind Borde" <cricd...@hotmail.com> decided to say:
>
>>"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:t0b6evon3epjmes6b...@4ax.com...
>>> Bradman had apparently been seen to flinch and be uncomfortable at
>>> some short stuff on the tour of England.
>>
>>I've read that, too, but I've been looking through the
>>limited literature to which I have ready access, and
>>can't find evidence that this weakness was, in fact,
>>particularly noticed over the span of the 1930 tour.
>
>It was in one or two matches, not on a regular basis.
Yep. I think it was supposed to have been during The Oval Test, when the
wicket was briefly enlivened by rain and Larwood got a couple of balls
to rear at him.
>
>Of course, on the shirt-fronts prevalent in England at the time, and
>with a crop of bowlers who were mostly quick only in name, it wasn't
>like there was all that much opportunity to test him with it.
>
>>As a minor curiosity, Cardus (who, I'll admit, doesn't
>>always let a fact get in the way of a flowery phrase)
>>seemed to feel that Bradman's one weakness was leg spin.
>
>I've just read Ian Peebles' autobiography. Peebles had Bradman caught
>for 14 at Old Trafford in 1930, and he was a leg-spinner. He talked
>about Bradman a bit, and said that Bradman himself admitted that if he
>had a weakness, it was on the drive against the ball going away from
>him, and also that the bowler who troubled him by far the most in his
>career was Bill O'Reilly.
Since O'Reilly was probably the best bowler around during Bradman's
time, I'm not sure that that proves much. In Simon Wilde's book "Number
One", between 1932 and 1946, when Wilde rated O'Reilly as the world's
best bowler, Bradman scored 1194 runs in 17 innings against attacks
including him, at an average of 91.84, and O'Reilly took his wicket only
6 times. So Bradman seems to have coped with him pretty well.
> SF Barnes also felt that he would have been
>able to get Bradman with the "Barnes ball", his trademark fast
>leg-break (which Peebles could apparently bowl in his young days - but
>only indoors at Aubrey Faulkner's cricket school: inexplicably to
>himself, once he got out on a real pitch, he couldn't hack it).
>
>However, in 1932-33, Bradman was still pretty young, and such
>weaknesses as there were hadn't been fully identified by that time.
Yep. Looking back on his whole career, you can say that if he had a real
weakness then no-one apart from Jardine was ever consistently able to
exploit it. It was said that he wasn't a good player of spin on sticky
wickets, compared to a player such as Hobbs, but such pitches weren't
frequent enough to greatly affect his overall productivity.
--
John Hall
"I don't even butter my bread; I consider that cooking."
Katherine Cebrian
John Hall
Arvind Borde <cricd...@hotmail.com> writes:
>"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:nm07ev0gbr724dsib...@4ax.com...
>> It was in one or two matches, not on a regular basis.
>>
>> Of course, on the shirt-fronts prevalent in England at the time, and
>> with a crop of bowlers who were mostly quick only in name, it wasn't
>> like there was all that much opportunity to test him with it.
>
>That's true. Here's a snippet from the Cardus report of the
>1930 Oval test that faintly suggests this Bradman weakness:
>
>"When the match was continued at three o'clock, Larwood
>attacked with a determination he had not shown at any
>other time of the day. He made one or two balls rise
>awkwardly, Bradman edging one not all handsomely"
>
>To be filed under "What was Jardine thinking?", he (Jardine)
>didn't even play in the 1930 series. At that point, his test
>career had consisted of 7 tests in which he had made 446 runs.
>Did he watch the Oval episode from the stands and think,
>"I'm going to captain England in two years and get that
>bugger Bradman"?
Once he was appointed captain for the 1932-3 series, as a methodical man
he would naturally have picked the brains of those who had played
against Bradman in 1930. For example, at his own county of Surrey, he
had Hobbs, whose own last Test that Oval match had been.
>
>> I've just read Ian Peebles' autobiography. Peebles had Bradman caught
>> for 14 at Old Trafford in 1930, and he was a leg-spinner.
>
>Here's Cardus on that:
>
>"The innings was highly significant. I make nothing of the fact
>that Bradman failed to get runs; it was his turn to fail. What was
>instructive was his tentative methods against Peebles. The innings
>justified those of us who throughout the season have argued that
>the weak spot in Bradman's technique would most likely be found out
>by slow-medium spin pitching on the wicket and turning away from the
>bat."
That innings was in the 4th Test. In the following match at The Oval,
Peebles must have bowled pretty well to get 6 for 204 out of a total
score of 695. But Bradman scored 232 and Peebles did not get his wicket.
Winston Churchill
> "Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message
> news:nm07ev0gbr724dsib...@4ax.com...
> > It was in one or two matches, not on a regular basis.
> >
> > Of course, on the shirt-fronts prevalent in England at
the time, and
> > with a crop of bowlers who were mostly quick only in
name, it wasn't
> > like there was all that much opportunity to test him
with it.
>
> That's true. Here's a snippet from the Cardus report of
the
> 1930 Oval test that faintly suggests this Bradman
weakness:
>
> "When the match was continued at three o'clock, Larwood
> attacked with a determination he had not shown at any
> other time of the day. He made one or two balls rise
> awkwardly, Bradman edging one not all handsomely"
It was this match that for many was the genesis of bodyline.
It's interesting to read the various accounts of it. Jardine
says (I am quoting Bradman quoting Jardine here, so
apologies for any inaccuracies);
"Though I did not take part in the Test Match against
Australia at the Oval in 1930, I have been told on all sides
that Bradman's innings was far from convincing on the leg
stump while there was any life in the wicket."
Larwood's view is similar. From "The Larwood Story";
"In the match at the Oval came a sign of a possible chink in
[Bradman's] armour. A drop of rain had fallen and for about
half an hour while the sun dried out the pitch, it gave the
bowler an opportunity.
...
[Bradman} was hit once or twice but the real significance in
his play during the duel was that he kept drawing away.
...
I began to notice that he flinched."
Bradman sees it differently and quotes match reports that
seem to support his view. In "Farewell to Cricket" he notes
that he "scored 98 runs before lunch in that period when the
ball was flying on a rain damaged pitch, and also that I was
given out caught behind off Larwood when I did not hit the
ball."
> To be filed under "What was Jardine thinking?", he
(Jardine)
> didn't even play in the 1930 series. At that point, his
test
> career had consisted of 7 tests in which he had made 446
runs.
> Did he watch the Oval episode from the stands and think,
> "I'm going to captain England in two years and get that
> bugger Bradman"?
See above. Apparently he had heard reports at second hand.
Curiously enough, both Bradman and Larwood seem to be of the
opinion that the initial discussions on bodyline (or fast
leg-theory) took place in the grill-room of the Piccadilly
Hotel shortly after the touring squad was announced. Bradman
quotes Hammond in support of this. Larwood was actually
there and provides an account of the discussions.
According to Larwood, Arthur Carr (Larwood's captain at
Notts) invited both Larwood and Voce to dinner after a
Notts/Surrey match, where they were met by Jardine. The
discussion centred more on Voce as he was a left hander able
to swing the ball back into the batsman, although Jardine
directly asked Larwood whether he would be able to bowl
leg-theory as well and Larwood indicated that he could.
It was also at this meeting that Jardine suggested that if
leg-theory could unsettle Bradman, it would probably work on
the other Australian batsmen.
Larwood goes on to note that "(t)he only time leg theory was
mentioned to me after that night out was on the voyage to
Australia."
Jardine himself is slightly less forthcoming and seems to
suggest that fast leg-theory was simply a natural
progression, based on Bradman's perceived weakness on the
leg stump and Larwood's accuracy.
Something else I found interesting was Bradman's antipathy
toward Jardine. "Farewell to Cricket" will never be
considered a great work of literature. Bradman writes in
much the same way as he batted. He makes his points clearly
and unambiguously, but there is little emotion or
flamboyance in his writing. Much of it reads like a press
report, very factual. The one place where he lets down his
guard is while he is discussing bodyline and more
specifically while he is discussing Jardine. He even
indulges in a touch of sarcasm!
There's plenty more I could say about bodyline, but I will
leave it there. Happy to elaborate if you wish.
Winston Churchill
wrote in message news:3793...@web2news.com...
> Here is Fingleton on Bodyline
I'd be cautious when reading anything by Fingleton on
Bradman. They were not the best of friends!
Mad Hamish
the ideas were claimed to be inspired on the 5th test where on a rain
affected wicket where the ball was jumping off a length Bradman looked
uncomfortable a few times evading the ball.
He was facing somebody bowling at 90 odd mph on a wet wicket with
uneven bounce.
He made 232, we should all be so uncomfortable.
A Farewell To Cricket quotes several English papers on the innings
(I've posted extracts a few times)
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>
>Yep. Looking back on his whole career, you can say that if he had a real
>weakness then no-one apart from Jardine was ever consistently able to
>exploit it. It was said that he wasn't a good player of spin on sticky
>wickets, compared to a player such as Hobbs, but such pitches weren't
>frequent enough to greatly affect his overall productivity.
You've also got to be a bit careful about that line seeing as it's a
Fingleton story.
Fingleton lists Bradman's innings on rain affected pitches,
interestingly he seems to have used an additional filter as he
_doesn't_ include the last test of 1930 where Bradman made 232 on a
rain affected pitch.
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>In article <AzwEa.45628$ca5....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>,
> Arvind Borde <cricd...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>"Winston Churchill" <th...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:icwEa.650$B_5....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>>> Uday Rajan's comments address this fairly well,
>>
>>I want to make clear that I'm not disagreeing with the
>>broad points Uday and you make, just fumbling towards an
>>understanding of Jardine's mindset. My thanks to both
>>of you for giving me something to chew on.
>
>Of course, it may be that Australia _were_ just as concerned about
>Hammond as England were about Bradman. But if the possibility of using
>Bodyline had occurred to them, they didn't have the quality of fast
>bowling needed to implement it. (It is said that Larwood was
>exceptionally accurate for a fast bowler, and that it was this that made
>Bodyline so efective.)
The idea was tossed about, Woodful refused.
Vic Richardson said that it would have happened if he was the captain.
As for bowlers to do it
Alexander was meant to be pretty quick and was as aggressive as
anybody around, Laurie Nash had already played 1 test so he could have
been recalled and was fairly successful in the 1 test he played
against Allen's team, Eddie Gilbert had made an impact in Shield
Cricket
I don't think Australia had anybody who could have done it as well as
Larwood - certainly not for a long time, Gilbert might have been able
to chuck down a similar burst of it for a couple of overs -.but it's
Alexander, Gilbert and Nash together might have been more effective
overall than Larwood, Voce and Allen.
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>In article <fd65evkrstts1kn5n...@4ax.com>,
> Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> writes:
>>In addition Larwood had done very little against Australia up to the
>>time of bodyline - as Mike has previously pointed out it's not unusual
>>for a bowler to take a while to adjust to test level so it certainly
>>can't be ruled out but
>>
>>Verity in australia apart from bodyline
>>The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1936/37 [Series]
>>Aus 5 1567 455 10 3/79 5/103 45.50 1.74 156.7 0 0
>
>Huh? Verity bowled slow left-arm. Were you thinking of Bowes?
Well Verity often bowled almost medium pace left arm, but in any case
Bowes only played 1 test in Australia, he took 1-70.
Verity played in 4 tests in 32-33 and took 11 wickets @ 24.63
If I recall the context I was actually looking at the idea that the
English team was so much stronger overall that it'd win without
bodyline.
>>
>>Gubby Allen in Australia apart from Bodyline
>>The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1936/37 [Series]
>>Aus 5 1031 526 17 5/36 8/107 30.94 3.06 60.6 1 0
>
>Given 1930s Australian wickets, this seems like a pretty fair
>performance.
it is, however his 8 wicket haul came in the first test where
Australia was caught on a sticky. Fair enough that's part of cricket
on uncovered wickets, iirc it happened to Australia in 2 tests and
England for 2 tests. However it's a poor indication of what he could
have done in Australia in 32-33 where I don't think there was a rain
affected pitch at all...
> He refused to bowl Bodyline in 1932-3 (being an amateur, he
>could afford to defy Jardine, unlike the pros), but may well have gained
>from the pressure exerted by the other fast bowlers using it.
I think he and Verity both gained from the pressure of Larwood and
Voce.
>>
>>Voce in Australia apart from Bodyline _before_ WWII (I don't think his
>>figures 14 years later say anything about what he'd have been likely to
>>do in 32-33) The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1936/37 [Series]
>>Aus 5 1297 560 26 6/41 10/57 21.53 2.59 49.8 1 1
>
>These are fine figures.
Yes, although again he took 17 out of 26 wickets on the 2 rain
affected pitches.
I'm not saying that England were rubbish or anything just that I don't
think that the argument that they'd have won the Ashes without
bodyline is certain.
Some of the Australian bowling figures for the Bodyline series weren't
too bad
H Ironmonger 245.1 96 405 15 27.00 4-26 0 0
WJ O'Reilly 383.4 144 724 27 26.81 5-63 2 1
TW Wall 170.1 33 409 16 25.56 5-72 1 0
(Grimmett had a very poor series, whether it was due to a fall off of
his bowling, England playing him brilliantly or just one of those
things is unknowable)
Tim Wall was very effective in Australian conditions
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1928/29 [Series]
Eng 1 75 189 8 5/66 8/189 23.62 2.52 56.2 1 0
West Indies in Australia, 1930/31 [Series]
Aus 1 26 84 0 - - - 3.23 - 0 0
South Africa in Australia, 1931/32 [Series]
Aus 3 129.1 263 13 5/14 7/53 20.23 2.03 59.6 1 0
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1932/33 [Series]
Eng 4 170.1 409 16 5/72 6/147 25.56 2.40 63.8 1 0
O'Reilly is certainly in the top couple of bowlers ever.
Without Bodyline it's certainly possible that England still could have
won but I don't think it's anything like a given.
>>
>>Larwood against Australia apart from Bodyline
>>The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1926 [Series]
>>Eng 2 95 252 9 3/34 6/116 28.00 2.65 63.3 0 0
>
>He was recognised at this stage as highly promising.
>
>>The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1928/29 [Series]
>>Eng 5 259.1 724 18 6/32 8/62 40.22 2.79 86.3 1 0
>
>Not outstanding figures, but he played an important role in England's
>comfortable series victory.
>
>>The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1930 [Series]
>>Aus 3 101 292 4 1/9 2/21 73.00 2.89 151.5 0 0
>
>Like everybody else, he suffered from Bradman (and Ponsford), on pitches
>that I think generally lacked much in the way of pace or bounce.
Yeah, quite possible.
OTOH there's not exactly a great deal of evidence to suggest that he'd
have run through Australia without Bodyline.
Uday Rajan
>
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 10:44:51 +0100, John Hall <news_...@jhall.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Huh? Verity bowled slow left-arm. Were you thinking of Bowes?
>
> Well Verity often bowled almost medium pace left arm, but in any case
>
> Bowes only played 1 test in Australia, he took 1-70.
> Verity played in 4 tests in 32-33 and took 11 wickets @ 24.63
Didn't know Verity bowled any medium-pace, but there is
possibly some merit to the notion that he too benefitted
from bodyline. ISTR Bradman writing of one of his dismissals
to Verity in that series that he was trying to hit the
bowler at one end before the bowler at the other hit him.
John Hall
Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> writes:
>On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 20:36:52 +0100, John Hall <news_...@jhall.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Yep. Looking back on his whole career, you can say that if he had a real
>>weakness then no-one apart from Jardine was ever consistently able to
>>exploit it. It was said that he wasn't a good player of spin on sticky
>>wickets, compared to a player such as Hobbs, but such pitches weren't
>>frequent enough to greatly affect his overall productivity.
>
>You've also got to be a bit careful about that line seeing as it's a
>Fingleton story.
Not just Fingleton, though. I've seen other writers make the same claim.
>
>Fingleton lists Bradman's innings on rain affected pitches,
>interestingly he seems to have used an additional filter as he
>_doesn't_ include the last test of 1930 where Bradman made 232 on a
>rain affected pitch.
My understanding is that the rain only freshened up the pitch for a
fairly short time, and that it wasn't a full-blown "sticky".
--
John Hall
"I look upon it, that he who does not mind his belly,
will hardly mind anything else."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84)
John Hall
Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> writes:
>I'm not saying that England were rubbish or anything just that I don't
>think that the argument that they'd have won the Ashes without bodyline
>is certain.
I agree with you here. What happened in the series before and after
1932-3 strongly suggests that there wasn't that much between the sides.
kenhiggs8
> "kenhiggs8" <kenh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6af2bb1.03060...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Well, perhaps a lot has been made of actually quite a
> little.
> > Bodyline was actually only used for 2, perhaps 3, of the
> Tests.
>
> I'm not sure that this is completely accurate and I would be
> interested in your sources. Bodyline was certainly used in
> the first test - this was the test in which McCabe made his
> 187 - and I understand that it was used in the second test
> against Bradman when he made his 103.
>
Eh?
I gave you the link in my post.
However, I've also read this on various other occasions.
Hamish has asked for all my references, which I gave in a previous
thread.
(incidentally, he rubbished them all)
> The third test is famed as being the most unpleasant of the
> series and there is no doubt that bodyline was part of the
> reason for it.
>
Yup.
But given that the felling of Woodfull is often quoted as THE example
of the dastardly nature of Bodyline, it's rather pertinent that
Woodfull was felled by a regualtion short pitched delivery.
> Contemporary reports suggest that bodyline was used in the
> fourth test (though with less effect than in the third) and
> it seems that it was used in the fifth test as well.
>
Well, I'd be interested in your sources.
I was not aware that Bodyline was used in the 5th Test.
> The details above are based on the press clippings in "The
> Bradman Albums", Jack Pollard's "Australian Cricket 1918 -
> 1948" and "Barclays World of Cricket - 1980 edition".
>
What details?
> There is a popular view that Larwood, Voce and Bowles bowled
> nothing but bodyline throughout the tour. While this is a
> long way from the truth, I think you are leaning a little
> too far the other way when you say "Bodyline was actually
> only used for 2, perhaps 3, of the Tests".
>
Perhaps the contemporary Australian view of Bodyline relies a little
too much on the tv series of the same name.
Higgsy
kenhiggs8
>
> > However Bradman was to Australia as Murali is to Sri Lanka,
> > or as Hadlee was to New Zealand, a player exceptionally more
> > dangerous than his colleagues. For this reason alone, he
> > became the focus of attention for the Englishmen.
> >
> > If a young Bangladeshi batsman emerges with a couple of
> > centuries against Australia next month and then follows that
> > up with some big scores against Pakistan, I imagine that he
> > will occupy the thoughts of many of the English cricketers
> > as they head off for the Dhaka test in October. They may not
> > consider him as good a batsman as (errrm trying to think of
> > some decent English batsmen) say Vaughan, but they will
> > consider him their major threat nonetheless.
> >
> > Whether they will adopt radical tactics to remove him as a
> > threat depend largely, in my opinion, on whether they can
> > think of any.
>
> Well put.
>
> It might be so that Australia were not guaranteed to win the Ashes. But what
> was probably in England's mind was that Bradman was the key. Neutralise the
> man who was clearly the outstanding Australian player and the Ashes were
> yours.
>
> Then, as you say, it's just a question of how ruthless you were prepared to
> be. And Jardine was about as ruthless as they came.
That he was, but he was not the first, nor will he be the last.
There is some credence in the view that Warwick Armstrong had used his
fast bowlers 10 years previously to intimidate the English batsmen and
win back the Ashes.
I don't know that it's any different to Steve Waugh now justifying
getting Brett Lee to bounce tailenders because it's not a picnic out
in the middle, and besides, the WI did no-one any favours when they
were the top team.
In short, teams who have the firepower of fast bowlers generally tend
to use it.
Higgsy
kenhiggs8
There are plenty of reprts written at the time about Bodyline.
There is also a body of opinion that Bradman was uncomfortable with
fast, short pitched bowling, a view expressed by O'Reilly, Fingleton &
Warwick Armstrong, among aothers
Higgsy
kenhiggs8
> "Cricketislife!" <cricketislif...@web2news.net>
> wrote in message news:3793...@web2news.com...
> > Here is Fingleton on Bodyline
>
> I'd be cautious when reading anything by Fingleton on
> Bradman. They were not the best of friends!
>
> cheers
> --
> Winny
Well, yes, but of course it cuts both ways.
Bradman is dismissive of most things Fingleton says.
On the whole, I've found Fingleton to be more balanced on his
reporting of events than Bradman. Especially vis Bodyline
Higgsy
Shripathi Kamath
> > Then, as you say, it's just a question of how ruthless you were
prepared to
> > be. And Jardine was about as ruthless as they came.
>
> That he was, but he was not the first, nor will he be the last.
> There is some credence in the view that Warwick Armstrong had used his
> fast bowlers 10 years previously to intimidate the English batsmen and
> win back the Ashes.
> I don't know that it's any different to Steve Waugh now justifying
> getting Brett Lee to bounce tailenders because it's not a picnic out
> in the middle, and besides, the WI did no-one any favours when they
> were the top team.
> In short, teams who have the firepower of fast bowlers generally tend
> to use it.
>
> Higgsy
now run along higgsy troll rugby ngs adult cricket piss off 2/3 to 3/5 of
fuckall talking cricket
--
Shripathi Kamath
kenhiggs8
piss of shropathi u australian troll the adults r trying to talk about
cricket and why dont u ever put Ot in the title like I doo when u
don't talk about cricket sometimes ever*
Watch
* this sentence has NOT been run through the Kamath Regurgitator
Winston Churchill
news:6af2bb1.03060...@posting.google.com...
> "Winston Churchill" <th...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<7uCEa.723$B_5....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...
> > "kenhiggs8" <kenh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:6af2bb1.03060...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > Well, perhaps a lot has been made of actually quite a
> > little.
> > > Bodyline was actually only used for 2, perhaps 3, of
the
> > Tests.
> >
> > I'm not sure that this is completely accurate and I
would be
> > interested in your sources. Bodyline was certainly used
in
> > the first test - this was the test in which McCabe made
his
> > 187 - and I understand that it was used in the second
test
> > against Bradman when he made his 103.
>
> Eh?
> I gave you the link in my post.
Yes you did. I guess I was thinking that you might have had
other sources as you suggest below that you do.
> However, I've also read this on various other occasions.
> Hamish has asked for all my references, which I gave in a
previous
> thread.
> (incidentally, he rubbished them all)
Do these references suggest that bodyline was only bowled in
2 or 3 tests? If so, would you mind posting a link to the
relevant post or indicating what the thread might have been
called?
> > The third test is famed as being the most unpleasant of
the
> > series and there is no doubt that bodyline was part of
the
> > reason for it.
>
> Yup.
> But given that the felling of Woodfull is often quoted as
THE example
> of the dastardly nature of Bodyline, it's rather pertinent
that
> Woodfull was felled by a regualtion short pitched
delivery.
Certainly is, although it's also pertinant that Jardine
immediately moved the field to the bodyline formation. Do
you accept that bodyline was used in the first three tests
then? If not, could you tell me which of them it wasn't used
in?
> > Contemporary reports suggest that bodyline was used in
the
> > fourth test (though with less effect than in the third)
and
> > it seems that it was used in the fifth test as well.
>
> Well, I'd be interested in your sources.
> I was not aware that Bodyline was used in the 5th Test.
Larwood is one of my sources. "The Larwood Story"
co-authored by Kevin Perkins has this to say about he fifth
test;
"After a few overs Jardine moved the field over to the
leg-side for the bodyline attack just as if the ashes were
still to be decided."
Ronald Mason's "Ashes in the Mouth - The Story of the
Body-Line Tour" indicates that bodyline was used in the
fifth test in both innings (Jardine has little to say about
the second innings - he was off the field for much of it).
Jack Pollard's "Australian Cricket 1918 - 1948" also says
that bodyline was used in the fifth test.
All of these sources suggest that bodyline was less
effective in this test, but they all indicate that it was
used intermittently.
> > The details above are based on the press clippings in
"The
> > Bradman Albums", Jack Pollard's "Australian Cricket
1918 -
> > 1948" and "Barclays World of Cricket - 1980 edition".
>
> What details?
OK, the information that bodyline was used in all 5 tests.
kenhiggs8
> Do these references suggest that bodyline was only bowled in
> 2 or 3 tests? If so, would you mind posting a link to the
> relevant post or indicating what the thread might have been
> called?
>
Some of them do.
I'm currently reading 'Bodyline Autopsy' (David Frith) & 'The Big
Ship' (Gideon Haigh). In the former, there appears to be some dispute
as to when Bodyline was used. There was certainly some short stuff in
the 1st Test and some batsmen got hit, Kippax saying of Larwood 'he's
too bloody fast for me'. Gubby Allen says Bodyline didn't start until
the 2nd Test. MA Noble gave full credit to the England bowlers,
calling any suggestion of unfair play 'humbug'. So, yes, there was
fast aggressive bowling and it would seem some commentators found this
on the nose and passions had already become aroused but I haven't
found a definitive source saying Bodyline was used in that 1st Test.
I can't recall which thread I argued with Hamish on, it wasn't
specifically about Bodyline, but I gave some references that Hamish
questioned.
I'll have another look.
> > > The third test is famed as being the most unpleasant of
> the
> > > series and there is no doubt that bodyline was part of
> the
> > > reason for it.
> >
> > Yup.
> > But given that the felling of Woodfull is often quoted as
> THE example
> > of the dastardly nature of Bodyline, it's rather pertinent
> that
> > Woodfull was felled by a regualtion short pitched
> delivery.
>
> Certainly is, although it's also pertinant that Jardine
> immediately moved the field to the bodyline formation. Do
> you accept that bodyline was used in the first three tests
> then? If not, could you tell me which of them it wasn't used
> in?
>
I can't see why it's that pertinent that Bodyline was used after
Woodfull was felled, if the incident is oft quoted as one of the
effects of Bodyline (ie the batsman got hurt). It does, however, shed
some light on the nature of Jardine's character.
As I say above, I can't find evidence of Bodyline being used in Test
1.
It was used in Test 2 (but Bradman's 1st ball duck was not to a
Bodyline field), but wasn't greatly effective, most accounts describe
the pitch as lifeless.
I think the 3rd Test was where the balloon went up, but even then,
both Woodfull & Oldfield were felled by non-Bodyline balls.
> > > Contemporary reports suggest that bodyline was used in
> the
> > > fourth test (though with less effect than in the third)
> and
> > > it seems that it was used in the fifth test as well.
> >
> > Well, I'd be interested in your sources.
> > I was not aware that Bodyline was used in the 5th Test.
>
> Larwood is one of my sources. "The Larwood Story"
> co-authored by Kevin Perkins has this to say about he fifth
> test;
>
> "After a few overs Jardine moved the field over to the
> leg-side for the bodyline attack just as if the ashes were
> still to be decided."
>
> Ronald Mason's "Ashes in the Mouth - The Story of the
> Body-Line Tour" indicates that bodyline was used in the
> fifth test in both innings (Jardine has little to say about
> the second innings - he was off the field for much of it).
>
> Jack Pollard's "Australian Cricket 1918 - 1948" also says
> that bodyline was used in the fifth test.
>
> All of these sources suggest that bodyline was less
> effective in this test, but they all indicate that it was
> used intermittently.
>
Well, Bodyline Autopsy would seem to support your contention that
Bodyline was used in the 5th Test.
I'll have to check some of my other sources, but it appears you are
correct.
However, Bodyline was always used intermittently, at least according
to Bodyline Autopsy, never really being used for more than an hour at
a time. Larwood was the one who really made it work, with his extra
speed and accuracy. Jardine was (mostly) careful to make sure he
didn't overbowl him.
> > > The details above are based on the press clippings in
> "The
> > > Bradman Albums", Jack Pollard's "Australian Cricket
> 1918 -
> > > 1948" and "Barclays World of Cricket - 1980 edition".
> >
> > What details?
>
> OK, the information that bodyline was used in all 5 tests.
>
> cheers
> --
> Winny
I think that a number of myths have grown up around Bodyline, a couple
of those being that it was used in all Tests and all the time. I'd not
deny it was used, to some extent, as a shock tactic, but I think
people have confused regulation short deliveries with Bodyline.
Larwood, according to most accounts, was at the height of his powers
in 1932/3, he was the fastest bowler around (ok, some Australians
will tell you Eddie Gilbert was faster) and he wasn't averse to
putting in a few short ones, much like most quicks before and since.
His teammates like Voce were probably fired up and followed his
example. From what I've read, the Australians were on the back foot
before Bodyline was used, the fast bowling from Larwood & Voce had
them rattled before they used Bodyline. Armstrong contends that both
Bradman and McCabe were frightened out several times in the series.
I wonder what Steve Waugh and his mental disintegration would make of
this?
Higgsy
Mad Hamish
What references were they Kennyboy?
>Do these references suggest that bodyline was only bowled in
>2 or 3 tests? If so, would you mind posting a link to the
>relevant post or indicating what the thread might have been
>called?
>
>> > The third test is famed as being the most unpleasant of
>the
>> > series and there is no doubt that bodyline was part of
>the
>> > reason for it.
>>
>> Yup.
>> But given that the felling of Woodfull is often quoted as
>THE example
>> of the dastardly nature of Bodyline, it's rather pertinent
>that
>> Woodfull was felled by a regualtion short pitched
>delivery.
>
>Certainly is, although it's also pertinant that Jardine
>immediately moved the field to the bodyline formation.
Anybody who hasn't realised that Woodfull and Oldfield were both hit
when Bodyline _wasn't_ being bowled shouldn't comment on Bodyline at
all.
I've yet to see a source that _didn't_ mention that. So I'm bemused
that Kenny's only just discovering it.
I've never seen any evidence that Bodyline was only bowled in 2 or 3
tests and, considering that there is considerable testimony that it's
not the burdon of proof there is on Kennyboy.
If he comes up with something I hope somebody will quote it.
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>In article <a6j7evkjt4outdcn2...@4ax.com>,
> Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> writes:
>>On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 20:36:52 +0100, John Hall <news_...@jhall.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Yep. Looking back on his whole career, you can say that if he had a real
>>>weakness then no-one apart from Jardine was ever consistently able to
>>>exploit it. It was said that he wasn't a good player of spin on sticky
>>>wickets, compared to a player such as Hobbs, but such pitches weren't
>>>frequent enough to greatly affect his overall productivity.
>>
>>You've also got to be a bit careful about that line seeing as it's a
>>Fingleton story.
>
>Not just Fingleton, though. I've seen other writers make the same claim.
How many of them were contemporaries?
How many were regurgitating from Brightly Fades The Don?
I'm not claiming that Bradman was up there with best wet wicket
batsmen, Hobbs was probably the best there has been, but the idea that
Bradman was hopeless on a wet wicket is overdone considering how rain
affected 1930 was.
(Failing against Verity on a sticky is not a weakness, success would
be evidence of divine favour)
It's also worth pointing out that Bradman had never batted on a rain
affected pitch until his first test. His batting when he made 173* in
48 suggests that he improved on poor wickets with experience...
>>
>>Fingleton lists Bradman's innings on rain affected pitches,
>>interestingly he seems to have used an additional filter as he
>>_doesn't_ include the last test of 1930 where Bradman made 232 on a
>>rain affected pitch.
>
>My understanding is that the rain only freshened up the pitch for a
>fairly short time, and that it wasn't a full-blown "sticky".
The Daily Mail
"the courage of Bradman and Jackson when facing the fast stuff on a
wicket which was distinctly unpleasant after the rain, and when they
were hit repeatedly and painfully, but stuck to their task with
unflinching determination."
Sounds a touch dodgy...
Mike Holmans
<h_l...@aardvark.net.au> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>I'm not claiming that Bradman was up there with best wet wicket
>batsmen, Hobbs was probably the best there has been, but the idea that
>Bradman was hopeless on a wet wicket is overdone considering how rain
>affected 1930 was.
>
>(Failing against Verity on a sticky is not a weakness, success would
>be evidence of divine favour)
>
>It's also worth pointing out that Bradman had never batted on a rain
>affected pitch until his first test. His batting when he made 173* in
>48 suggests that he improved on poor wickets with experience...
The difficulty about discussing Bradman's "weaknesses" is that he
didn't have any in the conventional sense. There were, however, a few
aspects of his play which were less ludicrously superior to all
others.
It seems to me that the stuff about Bradman on wet wickets is mostly
of the "See! There's something he wasn't the best-ever at!" variety.
Whether the best-ever wet-wicket player was Hobbs or Hutton is one of
those debates that could go on for centuries, and probably will, and
Bradman was clearly inferior to both. The interesting discussion,
which I've never seen, is whether he was a worse wet-wicket player
than the generality of English Test batsmen of the time. How did he
stack up against, say, Maurice Leyland, Patsy Hendren, Bob Wyatt or
Duleepsinhji, or, going a bit higher, Hammond or Compton on wet
wickets?
I think we can take it that the evidence for Bradman being scared of
fast bowling on the leg stump, especially bouncers in that region, is
mostly spurious. A whole edifice was built on a tenuous hint dropped
early in his career, and my basic suspicion is that his reaction in
that game at The Oval was more to do with surprise than fear, as there
had been precious little evidence in 1930 that England possessed any
bowler with the ability to make the ball lift like that and he was
probably taken a little aback.
The contemporary accounts, particularly from those who actually played
against him, seem to suggest that there were two blemishes on his
perfection. One was starting his innings: he wasn't really comfortable
until he'd turned his trademark single round the corner to leg, and
you could play on him a bit by making it very difficult for him to get
that tickle safely. The other was, by his own admission as well, that
he would occasionally misjudge a drive off a leg-break or outswinger -
which correlates well with a number of contemporary opinions that
Hammond was a rather better off-side player than Bradman while being a
much worse on-side player.
Cheers,
Mike
John Hall
Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> writes:
>On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 19:55:40 +0100, John Hall <news_...@jhall.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <a6j7evkjt4outdcn2...@4ax.com>,
>> Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> writes:
>>>On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 20:36:52 +0100, John Hall <news_...@jhall.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yep. Looking back on his whole career, you can say that if he had a real
>>>>weakness then no-one apart from Jardine was ever consistently able to
>>>>exploit it. It was said that he wasn't a good player of spin on sticky
>>>>wickets, compared to a player such as Hobbs, but such pitches weren't
>>>>frequent enough to greatly affect his overall productivity.
>>>
>>>You've also got to be a bit careful about that line seeing as it's a
>>>Fingleton story.
>>
>>Not just Fingleton, though. I've seen other writers make the same claim.
>
>How many of them were contemporaries?
>How many were regurgitating from Brightly Fades The Don?
I seem to recall one of them being Cardus, who saw most of Bradman's
innings in England and who certainly wasn't regurgitating.
>
>I'm not claiming that Bradman was up there with best wet wicket
>batsmen, Hobbs was probably the best there has been, but the idea that
>Bradman was hopeless on a wet wicket is overdone considering how rain
>affected 1930 was.
>
>(Failing against Verity on a sticky is not a weakness, success would
>be evidence of divine favour)
I'd agree with all that you say above.
The suggestion that Cardus (if I've remembered correct) made was that
Bradman seemed to feel that rain-affected wickets in some sense weren't
"proper", and so - consciously or subconsciously - didn't fully apply
himself.
>
>It's also worth pointing out that Bradman had never batted on a rain
>affected pitch until his first test. His batting when he made 173* in
>48 suggests that he improved on poor wickets with experience...
Yep, though that was a dusty pitch rather than a wet one.
>>>
>>>Fingleton lists Bradman's innings on rain affected pitches,
>>>interestingly he seems to have used an additional filter as he
>>>_doesn't_ include the last test of 1930 where Bradman made 232 on a
>>>rain affected pitch.
>>
>>My understanding is that the rain only freshened up the pitch for a
>>fairly short time, and that it wasn't a full-blown "sticky".
>
>The Daily Mail
>"the courage of Bradman and Jackson when facing the fast stuff on a
>wicket which was distinctly unpleasant after the rain, and when they
>were hit repeatedly and painfully, but stuck to their task with
>unflinching determination."
>
>Sounds a touch dodgy...
Yep, though it doesn't necessarily contradict my point.
--
John Hall
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick
themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Bob Dubery
> That he was, but he was not the first, nor will he be the last.
> There is some credence in the view that Warwick Armstrong had used his
> fast bowlers 10 years previously to intimidate the English batsmen and
> win back the Ashes.
> I don't know that it's any different to Steve Waugh now justifying
> getting Brett Lee to bounce tailenders because it's not a picnic out
> in the middle, and besides, the WI did no-one any favours when they
> were the top team.
> In short, teams who have the firepower of fast bowlers generally tend
> to use it.
I think that's right. Bradman certainly didn't seem to mind telling Miller
and Lindwall to bowl bouncers - though not to a bodyline style leg trap. And
when Hutton got the chance to unleash pace against the Australians he took
it.
I guess it's a case of those who can do, and those who have been on the
receiving end having long memories and being keen on retribution. Lloyd's
deployment of a battery of fast bowlers was at least partly due to the
torrid time his side had had against Lillee and Thomson.
Bob Dubery
"John Hall" <news_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8UGmdESU...@jhall.demon.co.uk...
> Yep. I think it was supposed to have been during The Oval Test, when the
> wicket was briefly enlivened by rain and Larwood got a couple of balls
> to rear at him.
OK... here's Simon Rae describing the incident as described by Larwood
himself.
<start quote>
The genesis of what came to be called 'bodyline' was as vehemently disputed
as it's morality. According to Larwood the whole thing started "in the test
match at Kennington Oval in August, 1930". The pitch was slightly damp and
the ball popped up. Larwood remembered that Archie Jackson "stood up to me,
getting pinked once or twice in the proces, and he never flinched". His next
sentence is crucial: "With Bradaman it was different." Not that Larwood had
managed to exploit this perceived chink in the Don's armour. Bradman went on
to 232 (and Australia to 695), and Larwood to figures of 1 for 132.
But a seed had been sown. Larwood "determined, then and there" that if
selected to play against Australia again, "I would not forget the
difference."
<end quote>
Rae is quoting Larwood's 1933 book "Bodyline?", and it would seem that
Larwood was certainly of the opinion that Bradman was not fond of fast,
short bowling.
Bob Dubery
"Mad Hamish" <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote in message
news:a6j7evkjt4outdcn2...@4ax.com...
> Fingleton lists Bradman's innings on rain affected pitches,
> interestingly he seems to have used an additional filter as he
> _doesn't_ include the last test of 1930 where Bradman made 232 on a
> rain affected pitch.
In England.
Weren't Australian stickies supposed to be far nastier than English
stickies? Something to do with the Aussie strips drying in a hotter climate
and thus reacting differently to their English counterparts?
Mad Hamish
Yeah, in one interview that I've seen Bradman comments that often an
English wet wicket was not that much harder to bat on than a dry
wicket, in Australia it was (in his opinion) much more difficult to
survive the first handfull of balls that you faced which gave you some
idea of how the wicket would play and a better chance of surviving
RS Whitington is of the opinion that Melbourne had the worst sticky
there was and Brisbane can't have been far behind.
kenhiggs8
> >
> What references were they Kennyboy?
>
Oh for Pete's sake.
Why do I have to put up with your twaddle, Hamish?
You know very well.
I quoted, in the thread 'Did Bradman ever have a form slump?', amongst
others, Fingleton, Warner, O'Reilly & Hammond. You disputed all my
sources and found fault with what they'd said in every instance. And
to top it off, you made the false claim that Gideon Haigh was a Packer
lackey, and when I asked you for your source of that, you said you
couldn't remember it, but would continue to believe it correct until I
could prove otherwise!
Your blindness when it comes to anything remotely less than total
adulation to Bradman is legendary.
> >Do these references suggest that bodyline was only bowled in
> >2 or 3 tests? If so, would you mind posting a link to the
> >relevant post or indicating what the thread might have been
> >called?
> >
> >> > The third test is famed as being the most unpleasant of
> the
> >> > series and there is no doubt that bodyline was part of
> the
> >> > reason for it.
> >>
> >> Yup.
> >> But given that the felling of Woodfull is often quoted as
> THE example
> >> of the dastardly nature of Bodyline, it's rather pertinent
> that
> >> Woodfull was felled by a regualtion short pitched
> >delivery.
> >
> >Certainly is, although it's also pertinant that Jardine
> >immediately moved the field to the bodyline formation.
>
> Anybody who hasn't realised that Woodfull and Oldfield were both hit
> when Bodyline _wasn't_ being bowled shouldn't comment on Bodyline at
> all.
>
Anyone who makes false claims about minor criticisms of Bradman really
doesn't deserve to be included in any discussion.
> I've yet to see a source that _didn't_ mention that. So I'm bemused
> that Kenny's only just discovering it.
>
WTF?
> I've never seen any evidence that Bodyline was only bowled in 2 or 3
> tests and, considering that there is considerable testimony that it's
> not the burdon of proof there is on Kennyboy.
>
Yet Gubby Allen, who was on record as being anti-bodyline, on being
questioned as to whether Bodyline was used in the 1st Test, insisted
that it wasn't used until Test 2 .
'When queried again, he placed a hand on the author's arm and said
huskily: "My dear chap, I was there!"'
Bodyline Autopsy p.120
So seeing as you seem unable to believe participants in the actual
matches, unless they say what you believe, seem unable to believe any
eye-witness accounts unless they again match what you believe and
generally make up totally untrue allegations about anyone you believe
to indulge in what you perceive to be misplaced criticism AND refuse
to verify your sources, I'd say that the level of proof we can expect
from you would be about zero.
> If he comes up with something I hope somebody will quote it.
So do I.
Hamish, I'm happy to debate Bodyline or other cricketing events with
you, but your pathetic 'provide proof or retract' retorts count for
nothing if you aren't prepared to play by the same rules you demand of
everyone else.
It's Glen McGrath(tm) behaviour
Haigh Watch
Aditya Basrur
> Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote in message
> news:<t3rdev4keqt022djo...@4ax.co
>
I've responded to this for Hamish's information, without prejudice to
either party.
Aditya
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.sport.cricket
kenhiggs8
>
> I think that's right. Bradman certainly didn't seem to mind telling Miller
> and Lindwall to bowl bouncers - though not to a bodyline style leg trap. And
> when Hutton got the chance to unleash pace against the Australians he took
> it.
>
> I guess it's a case of those who can do, and those who have been on the
> receiving end having long memories and being keen on retribution. Lloyd's
> deployment of a battery of fast bowlers was at least partly due to the
> torrid time his side had had against Lillee and Thomson.
The first part of Bodyline Autopsy (I'm not even half way through it)
details a whole litany of tit for tat exchanges on fast bowling dating
back to the beginning of the 20th Century (including those you mention
above)and cites examples of leg theory (with and without the Bodyline
tag) dating from even earlier (Tom Moran of Victoria 1882), including
Lance Gun being instructed to bowl 'the nearest thing to Bodyline
almost eight years before English Bodyline itself exploded into
reality' by none other than Vic Richardson. The Adelaide Advertiser
called it 'diagonal bowling'.
To give Jardine his due, he wasn't afraid to face up to short, fast
bowling dished up to him. Some of the others involved in that (and
other) series weren't so devoid of cant.
Higgsy
kenhiggs8
>
> I think we can take it that the evidence for Bradman being scared of
> fast bowling on the leg stump, especially bouncers in that region, is
> mostly spurious. A whole edifice was built on a tenuous hint dropped
> early in his career, and my basic suspicion is that his reaction in
> that game at The Oval was more to do with surprise than fear, as there
> had been precious little evidence in 1930 that England possessed any
> bowler with the ability to make the ball lift like that and he was
> probably taken a little aback.
>
Well, there is some evidence to suggest he was certainly less than
comfortable against really fast stuff. Certainly O'Reilly thought so.
And Armstrong (I've not got the book 'The Big Ship' handy just now,
but there are a number of quotable quotes.
Fast Eddie Gilbert is famous for having knocked over Bradman's wicket.
Whilst Larwood won the battle (for The Ashes), Bradman won the war.
Larwood, the first, and only, bowler to consistently best him, never
played Ashes cricket again. In some part, due to Bradman (he was,
after all, more than likely the one who leaked the 'only one side out
there playing cricket' quote. Who else of Larwood's calibre did
Bradman face?
There's a revealing (at least to me) quote from Bradman, about
Bodyline:
"No-the subject wont ever die....the reason being that publishers and
editors (like you) appreciate the news value of the subject. It
creates interesting reading matter and the only people who suffer (or
should I say the main person who suffers) is me, because I am the
focal point. Larwood doesn't suffer because he adopts the pious,
innocent stance"
(p.8 Bodyline Autopsy)
Higgsy
Mad Hamish
<aditya.ne...@web2news.net> wrote:
>kenhiggs8 wrote:
>> Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:<t3rdev4keqt022djo...@4ax.co
>>
>>> What references were they Kennyboy?
>>>
>> Oh for Pete's sake.
>> Why do I have to put up with your twaddle, Hamish?
>> You know very well.
>> I quoted, in the thread 'Did Bradman ever have a form
>> slump?', amongst
>> others, Fingleton, Warner, O'Reilly & Hammond.
Where did they say that Bodyline was only used in 2 or 3 tests
Kennyboy?
>You disputed all my
>> sources and found fault with what they'd said in every instance. And
>> to top it off, you made the false claim that Gideon Haigh
>> was a Packer
>> lackey,
We've been over that repeatedly Kennyboy.
My original quote
"By an offsider of Kerry Packer isn't it?
Perhaps not the best source for an unbiased view of an establishment
figure."
in another post I responded to you with
">you describe him as Kerry Packers offsider.
>I don't know where you get this view from.
Because I think he was tight with Packer and the WSC people at the
time. Maybe I'm wrong but it certainly hasn't been disputed that he
was."
another quote
"As I've said, I think Haigh was involved in WSC. Nobody's come up
with
anything to say that I'm wrong yet. If evidence is put forwards I'll
look at it."
another comment from you and my response
">The reason that I haven't disputed it is because I'm not sure. I
know he now works as an
>author. What he did 25 years ago, I don't know.
>What is your reason for believing he was a Packer man?
>
Because I remember reading about him being involved in it. I don't
know the source and I wouldn't swear to it under oath"
another comment
"If I'm right about Haigh's position at the time then that's a fair
call. Somebody heavily involved in WSC is not well positioned to write
about events that were occuring in meetings of the ABC...
Which was the original claim that I was addressing. It was making
claims about Bradman's stance on WSC."
So I've never claimed that it was proven or anything...
> and when I asked you for your source of that, you said you
>> couldn't remember it, but would continue to believe it
>> correct until I
>> could prove otherwise!
The closest I can find to that was
"I've never claimed to have proof that Haigh was involved in WSC, I
said in my original post that I wouldn't swear to it in court. I've
said that I'd consider any evidence that he wasn't. None has been
forthcoming.
If evidence is not provided then I'll go with my memory over your
views."
in the same post I wrote
"I still thing Haigh was involved in WSC.
I've never claimed that it was proven or that I'm infallible."
>> Your blindness when it comes to anything remotely less than total
>> adulation to Bradman is legendary.
bah.
Well I've known that Bodyline wasn't being bowled when Woodfull was
hit in the famous incident since about 1983.
I was 9 when I discovered it, every book that I can recall that
discusses the incident mentions that bodyline wasn't being bowled on
that delivery.
>>
>>> I've never seen any evidence that Bodyline was only bowled in 2 or 3
>>> tests and, considering that there is considerable
>>> testimony that it's
>>> not the burdon of proof there is on Kennyboy.
>>>
>> Yet Gubby Allen, who was on record as being anti-bodyline, on being
>> questioned as to whether Bodyline was used in the 1st Test, insisted
>> that it wasn't used until Test 2 .
>> 'When queried again, he placed a hand on the author's arm and said
>> huskily: "My dear chap, I was there!"'
>> Bodyline Autopsy p.120
O'Reilly on McCabe's 187*
"He scored most of his runs in this innings from the pull and the
hook....So then of course the close men on the leg side had to depart,
and the whole bodyline theory fell to pieces."
from the Datsun book of Australian Test cricket, on test 1
"across the righthanded Woodfull and Ponsford's bodies with a packed
seven and eight man leg side field setting."
sounds like Bodyline really...
Considering your past history of misrepresentation and
misunderstanding what's written I suspect you're grabbing something
out of context there.
>>
>> So seeing as you seem unable to believe participants in the actual
>> matches, unless they say what you believe, seem unable to believe any
>> eye-witness accounts unless they again match what you believe and
>> generally make up totally untrue allegations about anyone you believe
>> to indulge in what you perceive to be misplaced criticism AND refuse
>> to verify your sources, I'd say that the level of proof we can expect
>> from you would be about zero.
You'd say that but then again your view on Australians is up there
with a Klansman's view on Martin Luther King, Jr...
>>
>>> If he comes up with something I hope somebody will quote it.
>>
>> So do I.
>>
>> Hamish, I'm happy to debate Bodyline or other cricketing events with
>> you,
you've never debated anything, you constantly restate your views and
ignore all evidence against...
Winston Churchill
> "Winston Churchill" <th...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<GHiFa.317$um2....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...
>
> > Do these references suggest that bodyline was only
bowled in
> > 2 or 3 tests? If so, would you mind posting a link to
the
> > relevant post or indicating what the thread might have
been
> > called?
>
> Some of them do.
> I'm currently reading 'Bodyline Autopsy' (David Frith) &
'The Big
> Ship' (Gideon Haigh). In the former, there appears to be
some dispute
> as to when Bodyline was used. There was certainly some
short stuff in
> the 1st Test and some batsmen got hit, Kippax saying of
Larwood 'he's
> too bloody fast for me'. Gubby Allen says Bodyline didn't
start until
> the 2nd Test.
Well I guess we have neglected, so far, to clarify what it
is that we mean when we say "bodyline". Speaking for myself,
"bodyline" is fast, short-pitched bowling, directed at or
around the leg-stump and accompanied by a leg-theory field.
By this count, I can't see that there is much doubt that
bodyline was bowled in the first test. Browsing quickly
through the books that I noted previously, there are plenty
of references to bodyline bowling, especially at McCabe, in
the first test. Larwood and Voce opened the bowling and
"Ashes in the Mouth" claims that while he started off
bowling an off-stump line to an orthodox field, Voce bowled
bodyline from the first. The bowlers during that match, as
they did for all others, changed from bodyline to an
orthodox attack fairly regularly.
Larwood himself makes no bones about having bowled
leg-theory during that match and also indicates that it was
bowled in the lead-up matches.
Furthermore, this was the match when McCabe made his
celebrated 187*. The innings is famous as McCabe was facing
bodyline for a great deal of the time but seemed unperturbed
by it. He hit 25 fours in the innings, 13 of them from hook
shots.
Based on this and in the absence of further evidence, I
would suggest that Allen is mistaken.
<snip>
> I haven't
> found a definitive source saying Bodyline was used in that
1st Test.
What would you consider definitive? Larwood's recollections?
> > Certainly is, although it's also pertinant that Jardine
> > immediately moved the field to the bodyline formation.
Do
> > you accept that bodyline was used in the first three
tests
> > then? If not, could you tell me which of them it wasn't
used
> > in?
>
> I can't see why it's that pertinent that Bodyline was used
after
> Woodfull was felled, if the incident is oft quoted as one
of the
> effects of Bodyline (ie the batsman got hurt).
I felt it was pertinent as we were discussing which tests
bodyline was bowled in and this confirms that it was bowled
in the third test.
> As I say above, I can't find evidence of Bodyline being
used in Test
> 1.
Is the evidence provided above satisfactory?
> It was used in Test 2 (but Bradman's 1st ball duck was not
to a
> Bodyline field), but wasn't greatly effective, most
accounts describe
> the pitch as lifeless.
> I think the 3rd Test was where the balloon went up, but
even then,
> both Woodfull & Oldfield were felled by non-Bodyline
balls.
Fair enough, but it would seem that you agree that it was
bowled in tests 2 and 3. I have provided some evidence that
it was bowled in test one and I await your comments on that.
Further on in your post, you agree with me that it was used
in the 5th test and you don't dispute my contention that it
was used in the fourth (although you don't explicitly agree
either).
It would seem that we are on the verge of agreeing that
bodyline was indeed used in all five tests?
> However, Bodyline was always used intermittently, at least
according
> to Bodyline Autopsy, never really being used for more than
an hour at
> a time. Larwood was the one who really made it work, with
his extra
> speed and accuracy. Jardine was (mostly) careful to make
sure he
> didn't overbowl him.
I certainly agree that it was always used intermittently.
I'm not sure that Larwood wasn't overbowled though. He seems
to feel he might have been and, in fact, asked Jardine to be
left out in the fifth test.
> Larwood, according to most accounts, was at the height of
his powers
> in 1932/3, he was the fastest bowler around (ok, some
Australians
> will tell you Eddie Gilbert was faster)
Whether or not Gilbert was marginally faster than Larwood is
a moot point. Larwood's strength wasn't just his speed
(although he was certainly very quick) it was his accuracy.
cheers
--
Winny
Cricketislife!
>> Whether or not Gilbert was marginally faster than Larwood is
> a moot point. Larwood's strength wasn't just his speed
> (although he was certainly very quick) it was his accuracy.
As a aside, Eddie Gilbert did bowl to Jardine in that bodyline tour.
And obviously operated really fast, one ball hitting the hipbone of
Jardine. The crowd roared in glee but Jardine whose face apparently
turned really white in pain and shock, carried on waving the fielders
away. At the end of the days play, he asked for the dressing room door
to be shut and apparently fell on the masseur' table. Closer inspection
revealed a ugly weal in the hip bone.
.
kenhiggs8
Yes.
Are you saying that Frith (or Allen) didn't understand what Bodyline
was?
> By this count, I can't see that there is much doubt that
> bodyline was bowled in the first test. Browsing quickly
> through the books that I noted previously, there are plenty
> of references to bodyline bowling, especially at McCabe, in
> the first test. Larwood and Voce opened the bowling and
> "Ashes in the Mouth" claims that while he started off
> bowling an off-stump line to an orthodox field, Voce bowled
> bodyline from the first. The bowlers during that match, as
> they did for all others, changed from bodyline to an
> orthodox attack fairly regularly.
>
As I said, sources I have would say differently. Frith's book is very
recent, and meant to quote authoritative sources. He does seem a bit
put out by Allen's comments. But he doesn't seem to be able to gainsay
it.
> Larwood himself makes no bones about having bowled
> leg-theory during that match and also indicates that it was
> bowled in the lead-up matches.
>
Both players were involved in the matches.
Why do you believe one and say the other must be mistaken?
> Furthermore, this was the match when McCabe made his
> celebrated 187*. The innings is famous as McCabe was facing
> bodyline for a great deal of the time but seemed unperturbed
> by it. He hit 25 fours in the innings, 13 of them from hook
> shots.
>
I'm not sure about that.
Like I said earlier, a lot of legends have grown up around Bodyline.
> Based on this and in the absence of further evidence, I
> would suggest that Allen is mistaken.
>
Of course you would.
> <snip>
> > I haven't
> > found a definitive source saying Bodyline was used in that
> 1st Test.
>
> What would you consider definitive? Larwood's recollections?
>
Allen's?
What do YOU consider definitive?
Hamish?
> > > Certainly is, although it's also pertinant that Jardine
> > > immediately moved the field to the bodyline formation.
> Do
> > > you accept that bodyline was used in the first three
> tests
> > > then? If not, could you tell me which of them it wasn't
> used
> > > in?
> >
> > I can't see why it's that pertinent that Bodyline was used
> after
> > Woodfull was felled, if the incident is oft quoted as one
> of the
> > effects of Bodyline (ie the batsman got hurt).
>
> I felt it was pertinent as we were discussing which tests
> bodyline was bowled in and this confirms that it was bowled
> in the third test.
>
Eh?
I said that the 3rd Test was when the poo hit the fan.
I didn't deny Bodyline being used in that Test, I said it wasn't in
use when Woodfull was hit.
A substantial difference.
> > As I say above, I can't find evidence of Bodyline being
> used in Test
> > 1.
>
> Is the evidence provided above satisfactory?
>
No more or less than what I've provided.
> > It was used in Test 2 (but Bradman's 1st ball duck was not
> to a
> > Bodyline field), but wasn't greatly effective, most
> accounts describe
> > the pitch as lifeless.
> > I think the 3rd Test was where the balloon went up, but
> even then,
> > both Woodfull & Oldfield were felled by non-Bodyline
> balls.
>
> Fair enough, but it would seem that you agree that it was
> bowled in tests 2 and 3. I have provided some evidence that
> it was bowled in test one and I await your comments on that.
> Further on in your post, you agree with me that it was used
> in the 5th test and you don't dispute my contention that it
> was used in the fourth (although you don't explicitly agree
> either).
>
WTF?
I'd initially said it was used in Tests 2,3&4.
Further research would indicate that it was also used in Test 5.
Don't misrepresent my position.
> It would seem that we are on the verge of agreeing that
> bodyline was indeed used in all five tests?
>
No, it would seem that you are on the verge of proclaiming your view
to be correct, based on the evidence you have produced, and that my
view is incorrect because the evidence I have produced is somehow
flawed (or as Hamish contends, I've doctored it).
> > However, Bodyline was always used intermittently, at least
> according
> > to Bodyline Autopsy, never really being used for more than
> an hour at
> > a time. Larwood was the one who really made it work, with
> his extra
> > speed and accuracy. Jardine was (mostly) careful to make
> sure he
> > didn't overbowl him.
>
> I certainly agree that it was always used intermittently.
> I'm not sure that Larwood wasn't overbowled though. He seems
> to feel he might have been and, in fact, asked Jardine to be
> left out in the fifth test.
>
And the word 'mostly' is missing from your server, I presume?
> > Larwood, according to most accounts, was at the height of
> his powers
> > in 1932/3, he was the fastest bowler around (ok, some
> Australians
> > will tell you Eddie Gilbert was faster)
>
> Whether or not Gilbert was marginally faster than Larwood is
> a moot point. Larwood's strength wasn't just his speed
> (although he was certainly very quick) it was his accuracy.
>
Bradman always said Gilbert was faster, though I don't know that he
faced him that much.
Higgsy
kenhiggs8
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 06:19:19 +0200, "Aditya Basrur"
> <aditya.ne...@web2news.net> wrote:
>
> >kenhiggs8 wrote:
> >> Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote in message
> >> news:<t3rdev4keqt022djo...@4ax.co
> >>
> >>> What references were they Kennyboy?
> >>>
> >> Oh for Pete's sake.
> >> Why do I have to put up with your twaddle, Hamish?
> >> You know very well.
> >> I quoted, in the thread 'Did Bradman ever have a form
> >> slump?', amongst
> >> others, Fingleton, Warner, O'Reilly & Hammond.
>
> Where did they say that Bodyline was only used in 2 or 3 tests
> Kennyboy?
>
As I said before, why do I have to put up with your twaddle?
I'd made it quite clear that the thread (Did Bradman ever have a form
slump?)
was not solely about Bodyline, I'd said that I qouted various
references, about, amongst other things, Bodyline, but you'd rubbished
them all. Like who leaked the quote, for example.
You go on to do the same in this post.
Spot the pattern?
>You disputed all my
> >> sources and found fault with what they'd said in every instance. And
> >> to top it off, you made the false claim that Gideon Haigh
> >> was a Packer
> >> lackey,
>
> We've been over that repeatedly Kennyboy.
> My original quote
> "By an offsider of Kerry Packer isn't it?
> Perhaps not the best source for an unbiased view of an establishment
> figure."
>
But he wasn't a Packer offsider, he was a schoolboy.
So you were wrong.
An acknowledgement of such might be in order, don't you think?
> in another post I responded to you with
>
> ">you describe him as Kerry Packers offsider.
> >I don't know where you get this view from.
>
> Because I think he was tight with Packer and the WSC people at the
> time. Maybe I'm wrong but it certainly hasn't been disputed that he
> was."
>
No, Hamish, you said he was a lackey, I asked you for your proof.
It had been disputed, by me. You refused to give proof and put the
onus on me to disprove your contention.
> another quote
> "As I've said, I think Haigh was involved in WSC. Nobody's come up
> with
> anything to say that I'm wrong yet. If evidence is put forwards I'll
> look at it."
>
But at this point in time, you demanded absolute proof and references
for any statement that I was making (and I was providing them).
I don't think it unreasonable that I should ask you for your proof.
I do think it unreasonable that you should demand that I provide the
proof, or otherwise, for your (false) statements.
I also supplied you with a Bill O'Reilly quote, which you discounted
because it was held on a sound recording in the NLA and therefore you
couldn't easily check it yourself.
> another comment from you and my response
> ">The reason that I haven't disputed it is because I'm not sure. I
> know he now works as an
> >author. What he did 25 years ago, I don't know.
> >What is your reason for believing he was a Packer man?
> >
> Because I remember reading about him being involved in it. I don't
> know the source and I wouldn't swear to it under oath"
>
So your memory was wrong, wasn't it?
> another comment
> "If I'm right about Haigh's position at the time then that's a fair
> call. Somebody heavily involved in WSC is not well positioned to write
> about events that were occuring in meetings of the ABC...
>
> Which was the original claim that I was addressing. It was making
> claims about Bradman's stance on WSC."
>
> So I've never claimed that it was proven or anything...
>
But you insisted that you would continue to hold this view (and, by
extension, the notion that 'someone heavily involved in WSC is not
well positioned to write
about events that were occuring in meetings of the ABC') until you
were proven wrong.
(which you subsequently were......)
> > and when I asked you for your source of that, you said you
> >> couldn't remember it, but would continue to believe it
> >> correct until I
> >> could prove otherwise!
>
> The closest I can find to that was
>
> "I've never claimed to have proof that Haigh was involved in WSC, I
> said in my original post that I wouldn't swear to it in court. I've
> said that I'd consider any evidence that he wasn't. None has been
> forthcoming.
> If evidence is not provided then I'll go with my memory over your
> views."
>
So because I wasn't able to provide evidence, you disbelieved me?
In much the same way that, though I provided evidence on O'Reilly, you
disbelieved me because you weren't easily able to check my source. Or
so you said.
And now, in much the same way, you're accusing me of taking Allen's
words out of context.
Look, the quote + reference is there.
If you don't believe me, go check for yourself.
Look, in one case I couldn't provide evidence (and we both agree that
you were wrong anyway), so you disbelieved me; in the other two, I
provided the evidence, but you still disbelieved me.
Spot the pattern here?
> in the same post I wrote
>
> "I still thing Haigh was involved in WSC.
> I've never claimed that it was proven or that I'm infallible."
>
Obviously you aren't.
You were wrong.
But that didn't stop you dismissing the claims of Haigh as to
Bradman's involvement (and subsequently going on to attempt to
discredit more of Haighs writings).
> >> Your blindness when it comes to anything remotely less than total
> >> adulation to Bradman is legendary.
>
> bah.
cockcrap?
Of course you did, Hamish, of course you did.
> >>
> >>> I've never seen any evidence that Bodyline was only bowled in 2 or 3
> >>> tests and, considering that there is considerable
> >>> testimony that it's
> >>> not the burdon of proof there is on Kennyboy.
> >>>
> >> Yet Gubby Allen, who was on record as being anti-bodyline, on being
> >> questioned as to whether Bodyline was used in the 1st Test, insisted
> >> that it wasn't used until Test 2 .
> >> 'When queried again, he placed a hand on the author's arm and said
> >> huskily: "My dear chap, I was there!"'
> >> Bodyline Autopsy p.120
>
> O'Reilly on McCabe's 187*
> "He scored most of his runs in this innings from the pull and the
> hook....So then of course the close men on the leg side had to depart,
> and the whole bodyline theory fell to pieces."
>
> from the Datsun book of Australian Test cricket, on test 1
> "across the righthanded Woodfull and Ponsford's bodies with a packed
> seven and eight man leg side field setting."
>
> sounds like Bodyline really...
>
What, the Allen quote?
(O'Reilly was virulently anti-Bodyline, BTW).
> Considering your past history of misrepresentation and
> misunderstanding what's written I suspect you're grabbing something
> out of context there.
Considering your outright dishonesty and antipathy toward anything I
say or put forward, frankly, I don't know why I'm bothering. If I gave
you unquestionable and unassailable proof (if there is such a thing),
you'd still refuse to accept it.
> >>
> >> So seeing as you seem unable to believe participants in the actual
> >> matches, unless they say what you believe, seem unable to believe any
> >> eye-witness accounts unless they again match what you believe and
> >> generally make up totally untrue allegations about anyone you believe
> >> to indulge in what you perceive to be misplaced criticism AND refuse
> >> to verify your sources, I'd say that the level of proof we can expect
> >> from you would be about zero.
>
> You'd say that but then again your view on Australians is up there
> with a Klansman's view on Martin Luther King, Jr...
No it isn't (and cut the racist inferences, thanks ever so, Hamish).
We have a fundamental difference of opinion over many cricket issues,
you ask me for my proof, and whenever I produce any, you claim I've
doctored it or misrepresented it or you simply disbelieve it.
If it's so easy to prove me wrong on these references, why don't you
go right ahead and do it?
Why don't you check my references and point out where I've
misrepresented Allen (or O'Reilly, or whoever) and expose me?
Go on, put your money where your mouth is ($50?).
> >>
> >>> If he comes up with something I hope somebody will quote it.
> >>
> >> So do I.
> >>
> >> Hamish, I'm happy to debate Bodyline or other cricketing events with
> >> you,
>
> you've never debated anything, you constantly restate your views and
> ignore all evidence against...
I might lay that charge firmly at your door.
I've quoted Allen, you accuse me of misrepresenting him and then you
quote O'Reilly and The Datsun Book (Wow!) of cricket and declare
yourself correct.
Perhaps you're the one who's misrepresented the quotes you're
offering.....
Bah Watch
(over to you, Aditya)
kenhiggs8
> Winston Churchill wrote:
> >> Whether or not Gilbert was marginally faster than Larwood is
> > a moot point. Larwood's strength wasn't just his speed
> > (although he was certainly very quick) it was his accuracy.
> ========
>
> As a aside, Eddie Gilbert did bowl to Jardine in that bodyline tour.
> And obviously operated really fast, one ball hitting the hipbone of
> Jardine. The crowd roared in glee but Jardine whose face apparently
> turned really white in pain and shock, carried on waving the fielders
> away. At the end of the days play, he asked for the dressing room door
> to be shut and apparently fell on the masseur' table. Closer inspection
> revealed a ugly weal in the hip bone.
>
>
>
Allow me to misrepresent another snippet from Bodyline Autopsy, on
Bradman facing Fast Eddie Gilbert:
"He toppled onto his backside, his cap-peak was knocked askew, for the
only time in his career the bat was knocked from his hands, and after
swinging and missing the next two balls he got a touch and was caught
by the keeper. It was the hottest and most humiliating of his
ducks-"the luckiest duck I ever made"-and the reports of it would have
been studied in England."
Misrepresented Quote Watch
Cricketislife!
> Allow me to misrepresent another snippet from Bodyline Autopsy, on
> Bradman facing Fast Eddie Gilbert:
Higgs, Here is the actual Newspaper report of that incident. Press Next
on the top of linkpage to see more.
Also ON Eddie Gilbert
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/sportsf/stories/s695690.htm
Aditya Basrur
Posted for Hamish's benefit. For the last time. Please continue your flame
wars by email, or perhaps Hamish can alter his killfile. Up to you.
Aditya
Bob Dubery
<h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 06:19:19 +0200, "Aditya Basrur"
><aditya.ne...@web2news.net> wrote:
>
>>kenhiggs8 wrote:
>>> Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote in message
>>> news:<t3rdev4keqt022djo...@4ax.co
>>>
>>>> What references were they Kennyboy?
>>>>
>>> Oh for Pete's sake.
>>> Why do I have to put up with your twaddle, Hamish?
>>> You know very well.
>>> I quoted, in the thread 'Did Bradman ever have a form
>>> slump?', amongst
>>> others, Fingleton, Warner, O'Reilly & Hammond.
>
>Where did they say that Bodyline was only used in 2 or 3 tests
>Kennyboy?
FFS Hamish. You don't agree with what Ken says, that's one thing. But
you might find things get a little less acrimonious if you didnt'
constantly belittle him.
Unless, of course, it's the acrimony that you want.
kenhiggs8
> kenhiggs8 wrote:
> > Allow me to misrepresent another snippet from Bodyline Autopsy, on
> > Bradman facing Fast Eddie Gilbert:
>
>
> Higgs, Here is the actual Newspaper report of that incident. Press Next
> on the top of linkpage to see more.
>
> http://snurl.com/EddievsDon
Yes, which would tend to suggest that wherever Frith got his report
from, it was possibly exaggerated, although the actual reports seems
confused about the number of balls Bradman faced, the first one says 3
balls, the 2nd one says 5, and mentions him on his backside (but no
mention of bat knocked out of hand). And it does say 4 newspaper
articles, but there are only two shown, aren't there?
The Frith book doesn't actually list the source for that anecdote.
>
>
> Also ON Eddie Gilbert
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/sportsf/stories/s695690.htm
>
Yes, quite interesting that Bradman was one of the 5 who complained
about Gilbert. As noted, later on, Bradman was quite taciturn about
Gilbert's action.
I've noticed before that Bradman was quite protective of his public
image, things he did behind the scenes he was not always willing to
verify in the public arena
Higgsy
Cricketislife!
> And it does say 4 newspaper
> articles, but there are only two shown, aren't there?
Two, no There are 3 articles that I read there. and probably the 3rd one
(which has writeups in LHS and RHS) are two different articles? and
hence 4?) cos both report different no of balls bowled at Bradman.
>>
> Yes, quite interesting that Bradman was one of the 5 who complained
> about Gilbert. As noted, later on, Bradman was quite taciturn about
> Gilbert's action.> I've noticed before that Bradman was quite
protective of his public> image, things he did behind the scenes he was
not always willing to> verify in the public arena
ya like that one about who leaked the Bodyline story. As Frith writes
'Now who was responsible for Woodfull’s words making them into the
public print, which incidentally horrified him. Jack Phelan got the
blame for years. He was the only journalist in the Australian side. But
Fingo told me in 1968 that it was Don Bradman, and eventually he went to
print with that view and of course Don Bradman was very upset and
counter-accused Fingo, so they’re both gone now, and we’re left to
guess, except that I was left a document by Gilbert Mant who was
Reuter’s man on the tour. He lived well into his 90s and he said, ‘I
don’t want you to publish this until I’m dead, and Don Bradman’s dead,
but it was Don Bradman.’ '
to read more click
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/sportsf/stories/s719533.htm
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
FFS Bob. When did you last try having a "debate" with the Higgs
entity? I don't recall your ever having been involved in one of these
pointless exchanges where you say one thing and Ken-Paul says you said
something else and continues to argue against the case you haven't
made. Three or four of those and it is impossible for any rational
being to be less than contemptuous.
Cheers,
Mike
Winston Churchill
news:6af2bb1.03061...@posting.google.com...
> "Winston Churchill" <th...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<co_Fa.373$5e4....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...
> > "kenhiggs8" <kenh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:6af2bb1.03061...@posting.google.com...
> > Well I guess we have neglected, so far, to clarify what
it
> > is that we mean when we say "bodyline". Speaking for
myself,
> > "bodyline" is fast, short-pitched bowling, directed at
or
> > around the leg-stump and accompanied by a leg-theory
field.
>
> Yes.
> Are you saying that Frith (or Allen) didn't understand
what Bodyline
> was?
Not at all. I just wanted to be sure that when you and I say
"bodyline" we mean the same thing. Can I assume that you
agree with my definition?
> > By this count, I can't see that there is much doubt that
> > bodyline was bowled in the first test. Browsing quickly
> > through the books that I noted previously, there are
plenty
> > of references to bodyline bowling, especially at McCabe,
in
> > the first test. Larwood and Voce opened the bowling and
> > "Ashes in the Mouth" claims that while he started off
> > bowling an off-stump line to an orthodox field, Voce
bowled
> > bodyline from the first. The bowlers during that match,
as
> > they did for all others, changed from bodyline to an
> > orthodox attack fairly regularly.
>
> As I said, sources I have would say differently. Frith's
book is very
> recent, and meant to quote authoritative sources. He does
seem a bit
> put out by Allen's comments. But he doesn't seem to be
able to gainsay
> it.
Is there any other source apart from Allen to claim that
bodyline wasn't bowled in the first test? To be frank, the
Allen quote is the first time I have heard that suggestion.
If you wouldn't mind elaborating on what Allen has to say, I
would be very pleased to hear it. Does he contend that
bodyline wasn't used on that tour *until* the second test,
or merely that it wasn't used during the first test?
> > Larwood himself makes no bones about having bowled
> > leg-theory during that match and also indicates that it
was
> > bowled in the lead-up matches.
>
> Both players were involved in the matches.
> Why do you believe one and say the other must be mistaken?
Primarily because there is so much supporting evidence for
Larwood.
A point that I have neglected to mention to date is that the
term "bodyline" was coined during the first test. From
"Ashes in the Mouth";
"A week or two before the game, the Melbourne weekly 'The
Australiasian' had carried an article by ... Jack Worrall,
who described the bowling of Larwood and Voce in an earlier
match as 'half-pitched slingers on the body-line' ... This
caught the eye of Hugh Buggy, correspondent of the
'Melbourne Herald' and he ... [included] the following
phrase: 'Voce was hit for six, again body-line bowling'.
> > Furthermore, this was the match when McCabe made his
> > celebrated 187*. The innings is famous as McCabe was
facing
> > bodyline for a great deal of the time but seemed
unperturbed
> > by it. He hit 25 fours in the innings, 13 of them from
hook
> > shots.
>
> I'm not sure about that.
> Like I said earlier, a lot of legends have grown up around
Bodyline.
Which aren't you sure about? The number of fours, the number
of fours from hooks or simply the fact that McCabe faced
bodyline?
> > > I haven't found a definitive source saying Bodyline
was
> > > used in that 1st Test.
> >
> > What would you consider definitive? Larwood's
recollections?
>
> Allen's?
> What do YOU consider definitive?
> Hamish?
Where there are two conflicting eye-witness opinions, I
would look to the supporting evidence. On my reading, this
seems to favour Larwood.
> > > As I say above, I can't find evidence of Bodyline
being
> > > used in Test 1.
> >
> > Is the evidence provided above satisfactory?
>
> No more or less than what I've provided.
Well, with respect, I believe that it is. Perhaps I have
missed something, but it would seem that you are putting
Allen's word against Larwood's *and* a host of supporting
evidence. Pollard's "Australian Cricket 1918 - 1948" says
"Barracking against the English tactics began from the first
inning of the series when Larwood and Voce bowled to the
later familiar Bodyline field."
It also includes a photograph taken during during McCabe's
innings. Larwood is bowling and the photograph shows a
fine-leg, a leg slip, a leg gully, a short square leg and a
short forward square.
> > Fair enough, but it would seem that you agree that it
was
> > bowled in tests 2 and 3. I have provided some evidence
that
> > it was bowled in test one and I await your comments on
that.
> > Further on in your post, you agree with me that it was
used
> > in the 5th test and you don't dispute my contention that
it
> > was used in the fourth (although you don't explicitly
agree
> > either).
>
> WTF?
> I'd initially said it was used in Tests 2,3&4.
> Further research would indicate that it was also used in
Test 5.
> Don't misrepresent my position.
I apologise if I have misrepresented your position. In one
of your earlier postss you said;
"Bodyline was actually only used for 2, perhaps 3, of the
Tests."
You opined that it was certainly used in test 3, but didn't
elaborate on which of the other tests you felt that it might
have been used.
In any case, it would appear that we can now agree that
bodyline was used in tests 2, 3, 4 and 5. Only test 1
remains in doubt.
I am genuinely interested to hear whether you have seen any
other indications that bodyline was not used in test 1. If
so, I would be delighted if you could take the time to post
them.
Bob Dubery
<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>FFS Bob. When did you last try having a "debate" with the Higgs
>entity? I don't recall your ever having been involved in one of these
>pointless exchanges where you say one thing and Ken-Paul says you said
>something else and continues to argue against the case you haven't
>made. Three or four of those and it is impossible for any rational
>being to be less than contemptuous.
Well as was the case with Larry I think the blame is either misplaced
or falls at least partly upon the shoulders of those who protest. And
as was the case with Larry you'd think that if [fill in the name's]
presence was so abhorrent then everybody would just ignore the pest
rather than provoking more shenanigans. So I do wonder what's really
going on and who is really to blame for the friction.
Mike Holmans
Dubery) tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 08:34:56 +0100, Mike Holmans
Have you ever known Hamish withdraw from an argument just because it
has long ceased to have any point? The most important thing with
threads which consist of one person arguing with Higgs is that *you*
and *I* and everyone else who isn't directly involved should ignore
them, because the only people who are going to get any satisfaction
are the participants, who can carry on saying "I never said that" and
"But you said something else which I think is the same" and "No it's
not, you malodorous pile of sheep droppings" to their heart's content.
Cheers,
Mike
Bob Dubery
wrote:
>"Winston Churchill" <th...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<co_Fa.373$5e4....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...
>> Well I guess we have neglected, so far, to clarify what it
>> is that we mean when we say "bodyline". Speaking for myself,
>> "bodyline" is fast, short-pitched bowling, directed at or
>> around the leg-stump and accompanied by a leg-theory field.
>>
>
>Yes.
>Are you saying that Frith (or Allen) didn't understand what Bodyline
>was?
You know, it does occur to me that producing a new book about Bodyline
is a bit like producing a new book about Jack The Ripper - you're
going to have to come up with a fair amount of new facts or alternate
versions of events to lure the punter into parting with their tom.
I'm wondering if this isn't part of the problem. There's no point in
Frith rehashing the generally accepted version of events, so he's
going to have dug around to find something novel.
I'm surprised to hear that bodyline wasn't bowled in T1. My
understanding has always been that SPELLS of bodyline were bowled in
every match of the rubber, and indeed in some of the warmup games.
Now it could be that Allen begged to differ, but to read this now is
at least surprising after so many years. It could be right, I don't
want to dismiss it out of hand, but then why have so many of us
believed something else for so many years?
The fact that some version of some set of events has persisted for
some time doesn't necessarily make it gospel, but it's healthy to cock
a cynical eyebrow at suddenly revealed new versions of events as well.
Bob Dubery
<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Have you ever known Hamish withdraw from an argument just because it
>has long ceased to have any point? The most important thing with
>threads which consist of one person arguing with Higgs is that *you*
>and *I* and everyone else who isn't directly involved should ignore
>them, because the only people who are going to get any satisfaction
>are the participants, who can carry on saying "I never said that" and
>"But you said something else which I think is the same" and "No it's
>not, you malodorous pile of sheep droppings" to their heart's content.
I must say that in the recent past I had to deal with a large amount
of that kind of "reasoning" - most of it from people other than Ken.
Anybody who didn't follow every word of that particular flame fest is
excused :-)
Mike Holmans
Dubery) tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On 12 Jun 2003 16:29:58 -0700, kenh...@hotmail.com (kenhiggs8)
>wrote:
>
>>"Winston Churchill" <th...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<co_Fa.373$5e4....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...
>
>>> Well I guess we have neglected, so far, to clarify what it
>>> is that we mean when we say "bodyline". Speaking for myself,
>>> "bodyline" is fast, short-pitched bowling, directed at or
>>> around the leg-stump and accompanied by a leg-theory field.
>You know, it does occur to me that producing a new book about Bodyline
>is a bit like producing a new book about Jack The Ripper - you're
>going to have to come up with a fair amount of new facts or alternate
>versions of events to lure the punter into parting with their tom.
There's certainly a fair amount of that in recent Bodyline literature.
>
>I'm wondering if this isn't part of the problem. There's no point in
>Frith rehashing the generally accepted version of events, so he's
>going to have dug around to find something novel.
>
>I'm surprised to hear that bodyline wasn't bowled in T1. My
>understanding has always been that SPELLS of bodyline were bowled in
>every match of the rubber, and indeed in some of the warmup games.
>
>Now it could be that Allen begged to differ, but to read this now is
>at least surprising after so many years. It could be right, I don't
>want to dismiss it out of hand, but then why have so many of us
>believed something else for so many years?
I think this may revolve around a fairly tiny point. Voce. Voce
*usually* bowled a fair amount of short stuff with plenty of men on
the leg side to deal with the pull and hook, but not usually with an
array of leg slips and leg gullies because he wasn't accurate enough
to justify them. As is regularly pointed out, Larwood was the key to
Bodyline because of his extreme accuracy, which meant that those
close-in catchers on the leg side were very much in play.
I therefore suspect that "Bodyline was bowled in T1" is simply saying
that Voce bowled some short stuff pitching leg and middle or worse,
rather than that Larwood and Voce bowled short stuff on leg stump to a
packed field.
Cheers,
Mike
Winston Churchill
> I think this may revolve around a fairly tiny point. Voce.
Voce
> *usually* bowled a fair amount of short stuff with plenty
of men on
> the leg side to deal with the pull and hook, but not
usually with an
> array of leg slips and leg gullies because he wasn't
accurate enough
> to justify them. As is regularly pointed out, Larwood was
the key to
> Bodyline because of his extreme accuracy, which meant that
those
> close-in catchers on the leg side were very much in play.
>
> I therefore suspect that "Bodyline was bowled in T1" is
simply saying
> that Voce bowled some short stuff pitching leg and middle
or worse,
> rather than that Larwood and Voce bowled short stuff on
leg stump to a
> packed field.
I find it unlikely in the extreme. Larwood himself says that
he bowled bodyline in the first test. In discussing McCabe's
187*, he says "I don't think I thought of dropping
leg-theory because of McCabe's stand."
I am looking at a picture now, apparently of McCabe facing
Larwood in the first test during that innings of 187*, and
the field that can be seen includes a deep fine-leg, leg
slip, leg gully, short backward square <David Boon jokes
here> and a short forward square. The picture is taken from
a point that would be at around deep cover, maybe deep extra
cover, so I can't see where the other four fielders are, but
it looks suspiciously like a bodyline field to me.
The other important point that suggests that bodyline was
indeed bowled in the first test is that this was the test in
which the phrase originated! I doubt very much that
Australian journalists showed enough foresight to coin a
term for a style of bowling that wasn't being used yet.
kenhiggs8
Thanks, Bob.
I'd not deny that I do get into longish arguments.
As does Hamish.
Even Mike's been doing it of late.
But Hamish seems to be the one who likes to dish out the names.
Almost every post, he starts with a slur like 'kennyboy' or whatever.
Mike isn't that different.
Hamish certainly did, IMO, demand proof of everything I said, yet
sought to fob me off with no semblance of proof.
I'm not saying I'm 100% right, but I quoted what I read, I didn't
doctor it, anyone is welcome to check.
> Anybody who didn't follow every word of that particular flame fest is
> excused :-)
Agreed
Bob Dubery
<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Have you ever known Hamish withdraw from an argument just because it
>has long ceased to have any point?
Assuming that's not a mis-typed question, the answer is yes, I have
known Hamish to withdraw from an argument just because it has long
ceased to have any point.
Mad Hamish
wrote:
Go back and read Kenny's past posts and see if you still think the
blame is misplaced.
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:56:47 +0100, Mike Holmans
reread Kennyboy's posts and see if you can see the difference Bob...
>
>Anybody who didn't follow every word of that particular flame fest is
>excused :-)
--
Mad Hamish
Kenny's earned his belittling.
I've had him in the killfile for several months and haven't referred
to him at all.
(I have seen the odd comment of his while checking things on deja)
Raghu Jetley
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:17:56 GMT, mega...@hotmail.com (Bob Dubery)
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:38:57 +1000, Mad Hamish
>> <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Where did they say that Bodyline was only used in 2 or 3 tests
>>> Kennyboy?
>>
>> FFS Hamish. You don't agree with what Ken says, that's one thing. But
>> you might find things get a little less acrimonious if you didnt'
>> constantly belittle him.
>>
>> Unless, of course, it's the acrimony that you want.
>
> FFS Bob. When did you last try having a "debate" with the Higgs
> entity? I don't recall your ever having been involved in one of these
> pointless exchanges where you say one thing and Ken-Paul says you said
> something else and continues to argue against the case you haven't
> made.
Can you point us to some of these threads ? I don't recall
seeing too many of those.
kenhiggs8
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:30:26 GMT, mega...@hotmail.com (Bob Dubery)
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:56:47 +0100, Mike Holmans
> ><mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Have you ever known Hamish withdraw from an argument just because it
> >>has long ceased to have any point? The most important thing with
> >>threads which consist of one person arguing with Higgs is that *you*
> >>and *I* and everyone else who isn't directly involved should ignore
> >>them, because the only people who are going to get any satisfaction
> >>are the participants, who can carry on saying "I never said that" and
> >>"But you said something else which I think is the same" and "No it's
> >>not, you malodorous pile of sheep droppings" to their heart's content.
> >
> >I must say that in the recent past I had to deal with a large amount
> >of that kind of "reasoning" - most of it from people other than Ken.
>
> reread Kennyboy's posts and see if you can see the difference Bob...
Isn't that just Bob's point?
He's noticed you calling names at the starting point, not me
He's just gone through the tortuous Larry-altered post-hypocrite-liar
business that found you and your QCCC cronies to be as culpable, if
not more so, than any of those you were accusing.
I offered to debate Bodyline with you on equal terms.
You simply called me names.
You're unable to mention the name Bradman without considerable
emotion.
Seiko Watch
Bob Dubery
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:30:26 GMT, mega...@hotmail.com (Bob Dubery)
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:56:47 +0100, Mike Holmans
> ><mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Have you ever known Hamish withdraw from an argument just because it
> >>has long ceased to have any point? The most important thing with
> >>threads which consist of one person arguing with Higgs is that *you*
> >>and *I* and everyone else who isn't directly involved should ignore
> >>them, because the only people who are going to get any satisfaction
> >>are the participants, who can carry on saying "I never said that" and
> >>"But you said something else which I think is the same" and "No it's
> >>not, you malodorous pile of sheep droppings" to their heart's content.
> >
> >I must say that in the recent past I had to deal with a large amount
> >of that kind of "reasoning" - most of it from people other than Ken.
>
> reread Kennyboy's posts and see if you can see the difference Bob...
sure path to madness. I believe I'm replying to one of them now.
But what sets you apart, Hamish, is your arrogance, the way you seem to
think you are entitled to belittle and sneer at people.
There's a small, and as far as I can see shrinking, bunch of RSCers who like
to go on and on about the vastly overexaggerated misdemeanours of one poster
or another. It seems to me that these prima donnas actually start most of
the trouble themselves. Wether that's because they actually enjoy the
arguing and flaming or wether they have rather unrealistic estimation of
themselves and their importance I don't know. And I don't much care. I just
wish they'd either hold themselves to the standards they expect from others
or, as a distinctly second prize, shut up completely.
Bob Dubery
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 08:51:34 GMT, mega...@hotmail.com (Bob Dubery)
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 08:34:56 +0100, Mike Holmans
> ><mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>FFS Bob. When did you last try having a "debate" with the Higgs
> >>entity? I don't recall your ever having been involved in one of these
> >>pointless exchanges where you say one thing and Ken-Paul says you said
> >>something else and continues to argue against the case you haven't
> >>made. Three or four of those and it is impossible for any rational
> >>being to be less than contemptuous.
> >
> >Well as was the case with Larry I think the blame is either misplaced
> >or falls at least partly upon the shoulders of those who protest. And
> >as was the case with Larry you'd think that if [fill in the name's]
> >presence was so abhorrent then everybody would just ignore the pest
> >rather than provoking more shenanigans. So I do wonder what's really
> >going on and who is really to blame for the friction.
>
> Go back and read Kenny's past posts and see if you still think the
> blame is misplaced.
OH... I should only read Ken's posts? Has it actually occured to you that
maybe the blame doesn't fall soley upon Ken?
That, I realise, is a rhetorical question.
Bob Dubery
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:17:56 GMT, mega...@hotmail.com (Bob Dubery)
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:38:57 +1000, Mad Hamish
> ><h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 06:19:19 +0200, "Aditya Basrur"
> >><aditya.ne...@web2news.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>kenhiggs8 wrote:
> >>>> Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote in message
> >>>> news:<t3rdev4keqt022djo...@4ax.co
> >>>>
> >>>>> What references were they Kennyboy?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Oh for Pete's sake.
> >>>> Why do I have to put up with your twaddle, Hamish?
> >>>> You know very well.
> >>>> I quoted, in the thread 'Did Bradman ever have a form
> >>>> slump?', amongst
> >>>> others, Fingleton, Warner, O'Reilly & Hammond.
> >>
> >>Where did they say that Bodyline was only used in 2 or 3 tests
> >>Kennyboy?
> >
> >FFS Hamish. You don't agree with what Ken says, that's one thing. But
> >you might find things get a little less acrimonious if you didnt'
> >constantly belittle him.
> >
> >Unless, of course, it's the acrimony that you want.
>
> Kenny's earned his belittling.
You really are an astonishingly arrogant little piece of work.
Ian Galbraith
<mega...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Mad Hamish" <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote in message
[snip]
>> Kenny's earned his belittling.
>You really are an astonishingly arrogant little piece of work.
Maybe, but he's right, you may not be as sensitive to it because Higgs
doesn't target SA, but he constantly criticizes Australia and
Australians without cause, he constantly lies and misrepresents what
other people say. He's a troll pure and simple, he's even engaged in
morphing being Paul Caren in a previous incarnation who lied and
misrepresented as well but was more abusive into the bargain. Some of
us even think he was Tim Cotsford going back a few years.
alvey
snip
>
>
> You really are an astonishingly arrogant little piece of work.
>
>
Still standing on the moral quicksand I see Dubery.
Alvey
Bob Dubery
"Ian Galbraith" <igalb...@ozonline.com.au> wrote in message
news:f6jlevcs26h970m1a...@4ax.com...
My own version would be that many Australian posters seem extraordinarily
sensitive to criticism of Australia that doesn't come from Australians.
Which is their problem and not anybody else's.
As for the belief that Ken is Paul, that has only a little more substance to
it than that Colin and Phil were one and the same. It seems that Ken and
Paul were posting from the same network. But guess what? Most networks exist
because there are multiple computer users in the same campus or
organisation.
It's by no means proven, but it suits some people to see things that way so
that they can deal with an anti-australian conspiracy when they're not
reading David Icke.
Mad Hamish
I repeat Bob, go back and read Kennyboy's history of lying,
misinterpreting, taking out of context, insulting people etc and see
what you think of him.
>That, I realise, is a rhetorical question.
alvey
> "Ian Galbraith" <igalb...@ozonline.com.au> wrote in message
> news:f6jlevcs26h970m1a...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 07:43:18 +0200, "Bob Dubery"
>><mega...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Mad Hamish" <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote in message
>>>news:a3tjevc3urbmdtmia...@4ax.com...
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>>Kenny's earned his belittling.
>>
>>>You really are an astonishingly arrogant little piece of work.
>>
>>Maybe, but he's right, you may not be as sensitive to it because Higgs
>>doesn't target SA, but he constantly criticizes Australia and
>>Australians without cause, he constantly lies and misrepresents what
>>other people say. He's a troll pure and simple, he's even engaged in
>>morphing being Paul Caren in a previous incarnation who lied and
>>misrepresented as well but was more abusive into the bargain. Some of
>>us even think he was Tim Cotsford going back a few years.
>
>
> My own version would be that many Australian posters seem extraordinarily
> sensitive to criticism of Australia that doesn't come from Australians.
> Which is their problem and not anybody else's.
Of course your opinion is something which I value tremendously Bobby.
Especially when it's based on something of which you have little to no
knowledge of. You see Bobby old sockhead, one of the few things that
really does annoy Australians in general is when people emigrate here
and then spend all their time complaining about the place and it's
people. This was particularly so in Ken-Idiot's case as he toodled in
from Kiwiland to work for a government institution no less and seems to
hold some deep-seated hatred of his country of adoption. I'd be keen for
you to nominate a country who's citizens are ambivelent to this
disgraceful behaviour.
>
> As for the belief that Ken is Paul, that has only a little more substance to
> it than that Colin and Phil were one and the same.
Strangely, I'm not impressed by your ability to opine without knowledge.
snip more presbyterian posturing.
Mad Hamish
No, I just have standards.
Kennyboy is a strong argument for forced sterilisation
Mike Holmans
I'm just looking forward to when Ken-Paul confesses to Bob that he has
seen the error of his ways and is no longer going to misrepresent
people and lie about what people have said, that he has been posting
like a total idiot for the last couple of years, and that he's going
to turn over a new leaf and not talk rubbish all the time. I'm
especially looking forward to the debate between Bob and Ken-Paul
about the extent to which Ken-Paul brings any of the criticism on
himself, though I will only see Bob's side of it.
Cheers,
Mike
Mad Hamish
<mega...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Mad Hamish" <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote in message
>news:rhrjev0t51vsr10f4...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:30:26 GMT, mega...@hotmail.com (Bob Dubery)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:56:47 +0100, Mike Holmans
>> ><mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Have you ever known Hamish withdraw from an argument just because it
>> >>has long ceased to have any point? The most important thing with
>> >>threads which consist of one person arguing with Higgs is that *you*
>> >>and *I* and everyone else who isn't directly involved should ignore
>> >>them, because the only people who are going to get any satisfaction
>> >>are the participants, who can carry on saying "I never said that" and
>> >>"But you said something else which I think is the same" and "No it's
>> >>not, you malodorous pile of sheep droppings" to their heart's content.
>> >
>> >I must say that in the recent past I had to deal with a large amount
>> >of that kind of "reasoning" - most of it from people other than Ken.
>>
>> reread Kennyboy's posts and see if you can see the difference Bob...
>There are a number of people on RSC with whom trying to debate things is a
>sure path to madness. I believe I'm replying to one of them now.
>
>But what sets you apart, Hamish, is your arrogance, the way you seem to
>think you are entitled to belittle and sneer at people.
as opposed to your recent posting history...
Bob Dubery
> <mega...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Mad Hamish" <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote in message
> >news:a3tjevc3urbmdtmia...@4ax.com...
> [snip]
>
> >> Kenny's earned his belittling.
>
> >You really are an astonishingly arrogant little piece of work.
>
> Maybe, but he's right, you may not be as sensitive to it because Higgs
> doesn't target SA, but he constantly criticizes Australia and
> Australians without cause, he constantly lies and misrepresents what
> other people say.
If it's lying and misrepresenting that get your goat, then there are RSCers
far more deserving of your scorn than Ken Higgs.
I suspect the real problem is that he dares to take a tilt against
Australia.
I've noticed that the two things likely to really put one under the RSC
spotlight are for the ferengi to speak unflatteringly of Australia and
Australians, or for anybody to speaking flatteringly of Ajit Agarkar.