|09 May 2007 02:47:43|
|Re: Bodyline: Was that legal?|
On May 9, 12:40 pm, kenhig...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On May 9, 3:44 pm, Calvin <cal...@phlegm.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 09 May 2007 09:58:04 +1000, <kenhig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > You obviously haven't read much on the history of Bodyline.
> > Well if you have read anything you didn't assimilate it too well.
> I read books on the subject, rather than watch miniseries on tv
> > > Bodyline evolved from a number of different tactics employed by
> > > cricketers over a period of time.
> > > Armstrong certainly employed a stacked leg-side field, and whilst he
> > > wasn't fast, he was more medium paced, so less(er) chance of physical
> > > injury. As it always is. The faster the bowler, the more chance of
> > > injury, irregardless (sic) of the style bowled.
> > You miss the point, Kenneth. Bodyline was pure intimidation. The batsman
> > had to worry about safety first, and batting second.
> Sorry, but you miss the point.
> As I've mentioned several times recently, the tv series was simply an
> overly dramatic portrayal of a good story.
> Why do you people insist on taking it as gospel?
> Bodyline/leg theory arose in the decade preceeding the series, partly
> due to the perception that cricket was being made too easy for the
> It was also thought that Bradman was suspect to extreme pace.
> If you mean extreme pace is intimidating and against the spirit, then
> you'd legislate to outlaw fast bowling.
> Bodyline was a combination of extreme pace, great accuracy and a field
> designed to frustrate a batsman into either being unable to score or
> to hit out in the direction of the packed leg side.
> It was actually very difficult to pull off.
> Take away Larwood and it almost certainly wouldn't have worked.
Don't forget Bill Voce. Larwood alone couldn't have implemented
the "fast leg theory", as Bodyline was refered to by the English
cricketers and the team management.
The Australian press actually came up with the far more
evocative and inflammatory term, "Bodyline". The term
"Bodyline" was very likely coined by Sydney journalist
Hugh Buggy who worked for The Sun in 1932, and who
happened to be a colleague of Jack Fingleton. Buggy
sent a telegram to his newspaper from the Test after
a day's play. As a substitute for "in the line of the body" he
used the term "bodyline", to keep the cost down, and the
new term quickly became established.
> > > Yes, it limited scoring opportunities, tempting the batsman to either
> > > leave it or hit out to the leg side (to the packed field). Bodyline
> > > was little different.
> > Priceless.
> Au contraire, that was one of the arguments put forward by several
> commontators (sic) at the time, including, I believe, one Warwick
> That you believe a tv series rather than those present at the time
> says rather a lot about you.
Indeed. The TV series was a dramatic account of the events
of the 1932-33 English tour of Australia. The series took some
liberties with historical accuracy for the sake of drama,
including a depiction of angry Australian fans burning an
English flag at the Adelaide Test, an event which was never
documented. If one chooses to believe everything depicted
in that TV series, it would lead to a distorted perception
of events that occured in those times. BTW, Higgsy,
can you suggest some good books on the Bodyline series?
More on Bodyline from the following URL's.