h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Bodyline - How Cricket Split an Empire - A36622712
Author: laconian - U1477064

A real labour of love, this one, and perhaps just a little self-indulgent. It it gets *too* self-indulgent, do say so . I plan on adding plenty more links, because I want this to be comprehensive and detailed for people who want to know more.

This is excellent. Very balanced on an emotive subject.

Couple of minor queries:
- is it right to describe Jardine as an Englishman? He was technically a Scot, though I'm not sure what he considered himself.
- I know it's long, but what about a paragraph on the journalists. Fingleton as the one who played, Cardus as surely the finest writer on cricket of the times? (Aside: the Guardian republished NC's obituary of Jardine only 2 weeks ago, on its 50th anniversary)

Thanks for a thoroughly enjoyable read.

Yes, it is excellent. Your enthusiasm for this really comes out in your writing. I loved it.

I think you've covered it well enough for a non-cricket fan to understand, but I'd like someone to confirm this.

Nitpicks:

You misspell 'Australian' at some point.

How about 'he stands side-on, with one leg further forward than the other'?

is 'baseless' better here?

Was this immediately after the tour or years later?

Icy

Great stuff! Just a few minor quibbles from me

- 99.94 is Bradman's Test average, not his career average. According to Cricinfo, his career average is 95.14.

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/australia/content/player/4188.html

- I thought the containing leg-side attack that Nasser Hussain used was mainly with slow bowlers (Ashley Giles, etc.) and mainly just targeted against Sachin Tendulkar, but I could be wrong about this - did the faster bowlers do it too?

- One other thing which would probably make Bodyline less effective nowadays is better bats - I've seen plenty of Pietersen mis-hits to the leg-side go for six, for example!

I'm not sure I should really be commenting on this entry. It presents as a report on a contentious series from one sides point of view and that's fine as this is after all 'the other sides' site.

It is certainly a subject at some schools in Australia and for certain generations it is not so much a defining moment but is more a moment of confirmation. Confirmation of that dastardly breed 'The Englishman', the colonial master, the sporting type who will stop at nothing including play that's considered unsportsmanlike.

Of course that has all changed now and the student of such tactics and in particular, attitude, has become the master.

This event is something I well remember as a child being brought up in conversation when ever unsportsmanlike behaviour was on show, whether it was cricket or not. Inevitably the cry would be: " It's not Bodyline here you know, give the bloke/kid/woman/girl a fair go!"

Taken in the context of 1930's depression Australia with an enormous population of returned serviceman from WW1 who already carried a fair bit of "Aggro" towards the British, it's not to be wondered at that when Australia's then and as now only true national sport and it's greatest proponent was seen to be, being attacked by what they considered completely unsportsmanlike behaviour and in direct contradiction of the ethos of the game, then it's not to be wondered at the response from the puplic of the day and that famous telegram.

"Perhaps he could have used Bodyline himself? It would not have been impossible, although Woodfull did not have the same high-quality fast bowlers as Jardine had at his proposal. Woodfull himself later said he refused to be dragged down to the level of using Bodyline himself, and also that it would do no good to international relations to retaliate in kind. Though admirable, this lack of imaginative captaincy almost certainly had a part to play in Australia's defeat."

I find this quote almost laughable in the extreme. Woodfull the amateur cricketer would never have countenanced using something as appalling (as he saw it on the day)as Leg Theory. I guess it is in the end purely subjective.

I'd better stop here as I think we would never see eye to eye over this. Bodyline is in the Australian psyche, it represents all the we may not like about the English, no matter how short sighted that might seem to be. I think it only stirs up blokes like me who follow cricket and much of the younger generation have no such prejudice.

It was an assault by the thouroughly professional English professional on cricket as it was then played in Australia and as such it played a big part in weaning Australia off the 'Mother Country' along with some of the contentious episodes in WW11.
As a country we never looked upon England in the same way.

It's a good entry from a particular viewpoint.

Thanks for the comments guys . As Icy said, if anyone thinks it needs changing to be more accessible for a non-cricket fan, say so and I'll see what I can do.

First off, it struck me as I put this in PR that the title was a tad melodramatic and OTT. Although it has foundations in fact, it exaggerates a tad. What do you think?

Pinniped:
Jardine was born in Mumbai, but was of Scottish ancentry. He could actually have captained the Indian side as well. But I think he's generally accepted as English.

I've given a brief section to the literature. It's not much, but as you said it's quite long already and I am aware that, excepting the dedicated fans, the casual reader has limited patience when it comes to cricket .


Icy:
Thanks for the suggested changes - I'd noted that 'causeless' sounded strange but had a complete block and couldn't for the life of me come up with the alternative!

The MCC passed its resolution soon after seeing the West Indian bowlers doing the same thing. I've made a small change to make this clear.


Andy:
I've specified the Test career averages now.

Hussain's tactic was, on further investigation, for the quick bowlers to bowl outside off stump and for Giles to target leg stump. So it wasn't really like Bodyline, but the point is that a comparison with Jardine was used in a positive light, showing how times have changed.

Change in quality of bats also noted.

Thanks again everyone.

Fascinating posting, Keith.

I had no idea it was felt quite so deeply as that. Would you consider writing an Entry on it from an Australian perspective?

Sorry Keith, I missed your post the first time round. I tried to make this balanced, but I suppose it's only natural that I should write this from an English perspective.

I would just like to take you up on the 'English professional'. Remember than many of the team were amateur players.

I agree with Icy, it would be interesting to have a second viewpoint here. Or if you don't want to write an entry, I could have a go at incorporating some of your thoughts into this entry, either as direct quotes or in the body text with you being given credit.

>> I'd better stop here as I think we would never see eye to eye over this.<<

Oh, by no means. I am too young to have a real opinion either way here. I'm just working from the sources I have.

>>"Perhaps he could have used Bodyline himself? It would not have been impossible, although Woodfull did not have the same high-quality fast bowlers as Jardine had at his proposal. Woodfull himself later said he refused to be dragged down to the level of using Bodyline himself, and also that it would do no good to international relations to retaliate in kind. Though admirable, this lack of imaginative captaincy almost certainly had a part to play in Australia's defeat."

I find this quote almost laughable in the extreme. Woodfull the amateur cricketer would never have countenanced using something as appalling (as he saw it on the day)as Leg Theory. I guess it is in the end purely subjective.<<

I've changed 'proposal' to what I meant - 'disposal' - in the quote you used. I'm not quite sure what you find laughable here. We are in agreement that Woodfull would never have considered using Bodyline himself. This is indeed admirable, but if Woodfull had been more proactive in responding to Bodyline the series might not have turned out the way it did. This is the root of my 'imaginative captaincy' bit.

Well, I still think it's a well-balanced account. I just don't see the point about Woodfull. There's no inference here that he might have replied in kind.

It's a pity that Larwood was lost to cricket. His accuracy and pace are not in doubt. He got wickets in the series to a conventional field, as did others, eg Allen who never bowled Bodyline anyway. England were probably the better bowling side, and might still have won the Ashes without resorting to contentious tactics.

I don't agree that this account is the 'English' view. There are points that could be made in England's favour that aren't included. I'm not saying they should be made in the Entry, but here are a couple to think about:
- the Australians were not exactly the happiest of teams even before Adelaide, and it's arguable that they found teamwork in adversity when otherwise they might have come apart. At the centre of things was the unpopularity of Bradman - a man every bit as aloof, imperious and divisive as Jardine.
- the first captain to resort to leg theory in an Ashes series was Australian, Joe Darling leading the 1905 tourists, and the perpetrator was a future captain in Warwick Armstrong. Though not bowled at pace, it certainly disgusted the paying public by destroying the spectacle. Armstrong's own gamesmanship as his career progressed (not walking, defying umpires, timewasting etc) was hardly the stuff of gentleman's cricket.

Australian claims of moral high ground over Bodyline are questionable not only in terms of the attitude of the modern side. The Australians challenged the spirit of cricket themselves, before 1933 as well as since.

One of the problems with a topic like this is that people like myself are never going to agree with the comments like those of Pinniped. I could just as easily mention W.G. Grace and his actions on the field and if I dug around I could bring up others: It doesn't really serve a purpose in the end apart from fuelling a potential slanging match IMO.

As an aside, Larwood was treated poorly by the English cricket establishment and that's where an entry might be useful. He lived the majority of his life in Sydney Australia and lived to a very ripe old age and was one of nature's gentlemen by all reports.

@ Icy. It is an interesting story the growth of Australia as it slowly cut it's ties to England and looked more to it's own shores than England's. When our wartime Prime Minister John Curtin refused Churchill's requests to keep the Australian forces in the northern hemisphere it was a watershed in Australian politics and it impacted on the Australian consciousness. This happening as it did after the fall of Singapore where thousands of Australians were condemned to die in the horrors of Japanese prison camps as a result of the British capitulation and if memory serves this was the biggest defeat in English military history (I think).
There was a palpable sense of abandonment and such was the speed of the Japanese advance that a line was drawn across Australia and everything north of it was to be left to the Japanese and everything south of it was to be defended to the bitter end.
These and other events dating back to the beginning of Federation in Aus'(including as I said Bodyline) all helped to slowly shed the Colonial yoke, a feeling that we need to stand on our own as in troubled times we can't rely on England to help us (That role was taken and is still held by the USA).

Crikey you could write multiple entries on this, such is it's breadth but I'm digressing from the entry here in question. I need to have another good slow read of it I think

I'm not looking for a slanging match.

I just strongly disagree with your assertion that this Entry gives an English view. I think it's thoughtfully balanced.

The points I made were just some reminders of what an England-favouring version of the Entry would actually look like.

I think the entry leans slightly towards the English viewpoint in that I've written it mainly from that perspective. Apart from me naturally doing that as a Briton, I did it because the entry is about Bodyline, and the English team used it. So during the account of the series I mainly talk about Australian *responses* to Bodyline. I hope that makes sense .

Yes it does and that's how it should be of course. If I'd written it, it would be from my POV considering where I hail from.
This topic has been done for dinner by many, many writers/commentators over the years and it will never be resolved.
But that certainly doesn't mean that it can't be debated anew and this is as good a entry as any of which to have a good think about the outcomes of Jardine and the ECB's tactics.

For a country as pro-British as Australia was back then to actually threaten a reconsideration of diplomatic relations is an enormous leap.
Would Britain have done the same if the roles were reversed?
I'd doubt it, Cricket is not Britain's national game, if anything is it's Football and Cricket is not in the same league.

Here as I've said, it is, and back then it was more.
This was the Depression and people flocked to the Cricket Grounds around the country to get away from the abject misery of the times and to then see the English, resort to tactics that were considered unsportsmanlike and against the popular heroes of the day...Well it left a bitter taste that lingers still(it really does in Cricket circles) and it does fuel the passion of an Australian Ashes team as well as the public.

I say again, yes it does make sense your POV on this topic and I still haven't given it another read as RL is interfering with things at the moment, but I'll try to read it again and give you any practical response I can as opposed to the purely emotional one your getting from me now...cheers

I've just had a comment on the entry here (F10280682?thread=5629750) saying it's quite long and could perhaps do with being split up. What do you guys think? I'm a little reluctant to do so because I think that entries written as one should probably be kept unified so they 'flow' better.

Thanks for your thoughts, Keith. I will see what I can do about putting some stuff in about how the incident's effects are felt so strongly in Australian culture.

I don't think mamuomar is being serious - he's yet to post a serious comment in PR.

I don't think you should shorten it at all. It's a topic that needs this sort of detail. Short of doing entries on the individual Tests how could it be done and still retain the necessary detail?
I'd say stick with it as is.

Yes agreed. Don't shorten it and don't split it up.

Comes in armed with *on guard* that's fencing.

I think this Entry has great potential to be in the Edited Guide. However, I'd like to suggest these points first.

When using brackets I'd always use one to close too. There's only one half around that LBW sentence of yours.

Watch out for repetition 'oldest' and 'international'.

<>
Perhaps would read better as: Bowlers often bowl the ball on a line towards the off stump.

The Entry seems to jump around a bit. For example, at one stage it jumps from a wellknown cricketer to cricket and back to the same person.

Did you mean to place Nottinghamshire where you did?

<> is 17 September, 1932, This is the same with <> which is 2 December, 1932. I also noticed this <> perhaps would read better as 'started on 30 December' do you have a year?

<>
I think you mean 'at' not 'as'.

I'm not up on my cricket terminology, but should the t in 'test' be capitalised?

I wonder whether you could put more enthusiasm into telling the game as if it were happening now like another Entry has done.

There's till a little way to go but I know you'll get there.