Does Playing Cricket Make You Immune From Being A Serial Killer?

[MrTwibbs]

Hi John

I thought the Aussies were always going on about the English being soft, but when a guy goes over there and plays to win, they're still not happy.

I dont wish to upset any Aussies but you only have to catch a glipse of Home and Away or Neighbours to see how whinning they are. They can't solve simple problems. When another team mildly sledges them they get upset, whereas they swear and abuse the opposition a lot.

A long time ago when AB was in charge i admired them but not anymore. Sorry this is OT.

[tnb]

I dont wish to upset any Aussies but you only have to catch a glipse of Home and Away or Neighbours to see how whinning they are. They can't solve simple problems. When another team mildly sledges them they get upset, whereas they swear and abuse the opposition a lot.

A long time ago when AB was in charge i admired them but not anymore. Sorry this is OT.

The Aussie contingent can correct me if this is false, but it was reported over here that during the 2005 Ashes there was a poll done in the Australian press asking for opinions on why they were losing the series. Top answers reportedly included the use of subsitute fielders and dodgy LBW decisions. I think 'they're better than us' was reported to have come in about position 4. Whinging? Never.

I personally don't believe playing cricket makes you immune from being a serial killer, but I wouldn't fancy Monty Panesar to hit the target with any of 39 stabs. Monty Druitt I am less sure of.

[belinda]

Another comment by Bill Woodfall " There is no way I will be influenced to adopt such tactics which bring such discredit to the game. I know Tim could do it but I am not going to participate in actions that can only hurt the game "

It was taken so seriously that the Rules of the game were changed after this to prevent such tactics being used again.

I am Australian and am very proud that the Australian team did not stoop to the gutter tactics of Jardine

Soap Operas are not reflective of the real natures of a country otherwise the English would be judged by the likes of Coronation Street and Eastenders

There is nothing like a Whinging Pom

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

As an ex-pace bowler and cricketer, gladly hugging the batting at No.9 or 10, I have both bowled quick and dangerous deliveries, and faced a few. Anyone who has bowled, seen or felt first hand the effect of a quicker ball smacking into the upper body or head will soon realise the danger of the delivery.
Harald Larwood, and Bill Voce, (two of my bowling heroes) from the "Bodyline" series, were two of the nicest men one could meet. The same has been said of Douglas Jardine too.
The great Learie Constantine was pretty sharp with angled deliveries meant for the ribs. He was knighted.
Fred Trueman and Brian Statham were pretty vicous, as were Charlie Griffiths and Wes Hall in the 1960's. All lovely people off the field, it is thought.
However, all of these took the game very seriously, as did, as has been mentioned, Lillee and Thomson in the 1970's. Lillee, at his best, although slower than Thomson, could unleash very lethal deliveries that were deliberately, but controlled, aimed at the upper body and head. Thomson was more of a "slinger" and had less control (compared with Lillee), and was therefore unpredictable. These deliveries, controlled or not, at the speeds they were delivered, were all potentially life threatening.

Peter Lever, the Lancashire Fast bowler found the same out against an unfortunate New Zealand player a few years after Lillee and Co. were at their height. He actually nearly killed the man facing him, and was sickened at the sight of Ewan Chatfield, The NZ player, recieving life-saving treatment. The West Indies team of the 1980's had probably the deadliest attack of fast bowling ever. Michael Holding wasn't called "whispering death" for nothing. Malcolm Marshall, Colin Croft and Joel Garner weren't slow either.

The point I am trying to make here is that whatever the era, whatever the series, there have always been arguments against dangerous bowling.
If one is to criticise Jardine's "tactics" against the Aussies in the early thirties, then one can accuse many a captain of the very same thing in Test cricket in every decade since.

As for the question of whether Druitt, a bowler, playing at the level he played at, was fast enough, lethal enough or of the disposition to deliberately aim for and wound an oppnent, I suspect not. From my experiences, the great majority of very fast bowlers, are very charming, social people off the pitch. WE do not even know how quick Druitt was. A club opening bowler. On those club pitches, in the 1880's, good bowling favoured the team, be he fast or spinner. Quality batsman at that level at the time were at a premium at clun level.

As for how many overs an opening bowler can bowl at club level, it really is a question of stamina whislt keeping line and length and accuracy. Tom Richardson the England opening bowler of the 1890's onwards, was reknowned for bowling long spells without a break. At club level, I have seen and have myself bowled, upward of 16 to 20 overs without a break. Some even more.

As Monty said, tyhe quicker ball aimed at the upper body (after the bounce) is about intimidation. A "frightener" to open up the guard, allowing for the next ball, a yorker for example, to sneak through a more open stance and guard. I once hit a batsman in the groin with a very quick delivery that rose from a length. His box shattered and although he played on, was an easy target with my next, slower ball. I was still shaking with fear 20 minutes later that I may have seriously injured him. The fast bowlers I have met, are all like that.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Tim (Wall) could do it? No he couldnt, he was no way near Lols pace. He would have gone for 100s.

Woodfull was a true sporting Gent, but to hide behind his sportsmanship and hail it as true Australian is false. As the Australian vice captain Vic Richardson pushed for all out retaliation. In fact 'Bull' Alexander did try his own form of bowling at the batsman.

As for the tactic being banned, thats untrue. Its still allowed however the field placings have been restricted and you are limited to one short bouncer per over.

It would have died a death in England as the wickets are too slow.

The bottom line is it frightened the Aussies and their Golden boy Bradman, who use to laugh at the opposition bats when they got hit. They moaned n groaned and pushed for a law change.

Odd, cos if the adopted McCabes approach the idea wouldnt have lasted 2 summers.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,

Bang on. Totally agree.

best wishes

Phil

[belinda]

Monty you seem to have a remarkable insight into the feelings and capabilties of the Australian cricket team during the Bodyline series.

Is this knowledge from personal experience of actually being there and assessing them or are you one of those English types who can't stand losing to the "Colonials" ?

[Adam Went]

Frightened Bradman? Still averaged something like 55 for the series, I believe, which is far more than the career average for any English batsman I can think of for a long, long time....or ever, really.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Steven Russell]

Frightened Bradman? Still averaged something like 55 for the series, I believe, which is far more than the career average for any English batsman I can think of for a long, long time....or ever, really.

Cheers,
Adam.

Dear Adam,
Herbert Sutcliffe.

Very few cricket fans (Poms like me included) would not agree that Bradman was a phenomenal talent and likely the best batsman of all time. But Jardine found a chink in the great man's armour in that he was - let's be charitable and say "uneasy" - against the fast, rising ball i.e. bouncers. Jardine did what any good captain should do and devised a strategy to exploit this weakness.

Bodyline did not spring fully formed from Jardine's evil, scheming mind; it evolved over a period of time partly because of the Aussie batsmen's habit of walking in front of their stumps and making a strengthened leg side field desirable. The Don's unique tactic against bodyline was to skip miles outside of leg stump and steer the ball through the vacant off side. Lesser players i.e. everyone else could not afford to do this since they would very quickly be bowled; only Bradman's quickness of foot and eye stopped this from happenning. These antics laid him open to accusations of cowardice from certain quarters, perhaps even including some of his team-mates. Personally, I don't blame Bradman for getting the wind up a bit but in the 1930s "pluck" was king and Australia's hero could never admit to fear. The fact is that England would almost certainly have settled for DGB averaging in the mid-fifties after his feats in England during the previous Ashes series when he averaged something like 139. Bodyline was a success in reducing Bradman to mere mortal status.

Far from being an entirely new tactic, Bodyline was really just a development of "leg theory" which had been around for donkey's years and was considered a rather negative tactic - used to keep the runs down rather than take wickets. The only difference was the express pace of the bowling. Granted it was pretty rough but it is not the fielding side's job to give the opposition an easy time.

The Australian board blundered by only complaining after the third test (won by England) rather than the second (won by Australia after the much awaited return of the Pride of Bowral following a mysterious illness). This, and the somewhat petulant nature of their cable to MCC, made their position smack of sour grapes.

Two final points: firstly the two most serious injuries - those to Woodfull and Oldfield - were sustained while a conventional i.e. non-bodyline field was in place; and secondly Jardine scored a century against bodyline as purveyed by the West Indies in 1933.

It is laughable that you Aussies condemn Jardine, Larwood, and Voce while continuing to crow about Lillee and Thomson. Either intimidatory bowling is a legitimate tactic or it is not. You simply cannot have it both ways.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Monty]

Belinda,

My knowledge is drawn from the personal accounts of those who experienced the tour, on both sides.

Adam,

Ha, ha, Yes 55. He musta been so proud of that....as his side went 4-1 down and lost the Ashes. Just as the current side did.

Steven,

Absolutely. And this is what grates. Australia tends to forget her shady past, Thommo, Lillie, the racist outburst of Leahmann and the most cynical tactic ever used to save a game, underarm bowling.

Just to add, hooking and pulling wasnt really Bradmans best shots. Cutting was, so he was trying to play to his strengths. Nothing to do with field placings. Believe me, if he was as good as they say, he'd threaded through the needle eye. Nah, he just didnt fancy it.

I heard it was Lancashire keep Duckworth who noted Bradmans reluctance to hook in the Oval test 1930. That, plus an ageing team meant the plan was a logical one. As you say, it wasnt to take wickets but more to keep the runs down. Then with Sutcliffe, Hammond, Nawab, Ames, even Larwood.

The Aussies handled it all wrong, on and off the field.

Larwood is clear, 'Ive nothing to apologise for'.

Damn right he is too.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Monty, rightly says that Harold Larwood stated that he had nothing to apologise for. Here are some snippets from the series of cables between the two organizations.

18th Jan 1933 From the Australian Board of Control to MCC.

"Body-line bowling has assumed such proportions as to menace the best interests of the game, making protection of the body by the batsmen the main consideration. This is causing intensely bitter feeling between the players as well as injury. In our opinion it is unsportsmanlike. Unless it is stopped at once it is likely to upset the friendly relations existing between Australia and England."

23rd Jan 1933 rom MCC to the ABC in reply.

" We, MCC, deplore your cable. We depreciate your opinion that there has been unsportsmanlike play. We have fullest confidence in captain, team and managers and are convinced that they would do nothing to infringe either the Laws of Cricket or the spirit of the game. We have no evidence that our confidence has been misplaced. Much as we regret accidents to Woodfull and Oldfield, we understand that in neither case the bowler was to blame. If the ABC wish to propose a new Law or Rule, it shall recieve our careful consideration in due course. We hope the situation is now now as serious as your cable would seem to indicate, but if it is such as to jepardize the good relations between English and Australian cricketers and you consider it desirable to cancel remainder of programme we would consent, but with great reluctance."

Jan 30th 1933 ACB to MCC

"We... appreciate your difficulty in dealing with the matter raised in our cable without having seen the actual play. We unanimously 5egard body-line bowling, as adopted in some of the games in the present tour, as being opposed to the spirit of cricket, and unnecessarily dangerous to the players. We ..have appointed a committee to report on the action necessary to elinate such bowling from Australian cricketas from the beginning of the 1933-34 season. We will forward a copy of the Committee's recommendations for your consideration, and it is hoped co-operationas to its application in all cricket. We do not consider it necessary to cancel remainder of programme."

Feb 2nd 1933 MCC to ABC

We ..note with pleasure that you do not find it necessary to cancel the remainder of the programme... May we accept this as a clear indication that the good sportsmanship of our team is not in question?

Feb 8th 1933 ABC to MCC

"We do not regard the sportsmanship of your team being in question...
We join heartily with you in hoping that the remaining Tests will be played with the traditional good feeling."


So it is noted that the ACB sent the first cablegram with petualance, and this petualance relented and subsided quickly. That petulant telegram was sent after the Third Test match, and was without doubt a reaction to the crowd's reaction to (in particular) Jardine and the England Fast bowler's success against the great Australian team which had by the time of the Third Test not fulfilled the expected slaughter of the England team. The Australian players themselves were under tremendous pressure from their our cricket loving crowds. It was expected that Bradman and Co would walk all over this England touring side. It didn't happen, due to Larwood and Voce finding an enormous weakness in the Australian batting techniques.
It can therefore be questioned whether the Australians themselves, seeing the rubber was in danger of being lost, were questionably not taking deafeat in the proper spirit that was always expected.

Jardine, in his book said that the bowling against Australia demurred was not of this description, and Larwood himself said that he had never intentionally bowled at a man.

But leg-theory bowling was nothing new. This must be remembered. Jaques of Hampshire was a considerable exponent of it throughout his career, as was Root of Worcestershire. Even Spofforth was known to use this leg-theory bowling too. However these were not of the pace of Larwood and Voce.

In 1933 the MCC passed the resolution that "...any form of bowling which is obviously a direct attack by the bowler upon the batsman would be an offence against the spirit of the game."

"That the type of bowling regarded as a direct attack by the bowlere upon the batsmen and therefore unfair consists in persistant and systematic bowling of fast short-pitched balls at the batsman standing clear of his wicket."

One wonders in light of this, where the Australian complainers were when Jeff Thomson and Dennis Lillee in harness continued with barrage after barrage of short-pitched and dangerous bowling?

Finally, certain sections of the Press in 1933 have a lot to do with this whole incident. They reported the crowd reaction to this "new" type of bowling, the batsmen being hit etc by exaggerating every small incident. It was fanned into a "dispute", and before long being called an "International incident".

Although I respect all cricket enthusiasts, the history of this incident has been over-blown from the very people that were over enthusiastic in 1933. The crowd, the Press and certain players. If in 2010 Australians are still complaining about the morals of the incident from 1933, then I say look at the morals projected from Jeff Thomson, Dennis Lille and not least, a certain Australian captain called Ian Chapple.

Neil Bell is entirely correct in his assessment of the situation in my opinion.

best wishes

Phil

[Robert]

You see, this might look to some like a Pommie-Aussie bust-up, but it's just a family squabble. If we can take the Aussies throwing Rolf Harris at us, we can take anything they hurl at us on the cricket pitch.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Robert,

Ahh, but we must redress the balance... Kylie. mmm....


best wishes

Phil

[Robert]

This is my favourite Aussie :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsnpeed6rNc&feature=related

[belinda]

A bit of perspective on things

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzgv0vPKB_U