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

[Johnr]

Hey Monty!

Hey Monty,

Seeing this thread has almost run its course, I thought I'd have a last go at your Bodyline remarks.

Were you aware that in April 1934, the cricketing world woke up to a newspaper headline "Cricket Is Murder".?

The former Worcestershire County cricket captain, H.K.Foster, declared that arraying fieldsmen around a player as in Bodyline, and then bowling ferociously at him was not in the spirit of the game.
In fact, it was murder! ?

Despite both sides down through the years indulging in similar ruthless win-at-any-cost behaviour, I too, think it was against the spirit of the true game.
And those officials and players who supported the practice had amoeba-like morality.

Murder is not cricket!

JOHN RUFFELS.

[Monty]

John,

Bowling at the batsman has been around since the dawn of the game.

Gregory and MacDonald bowled at the English batsmen a decade before Larwood, yet not one Australian objected to that, nor any Englishman for that matter. I could list a handful before those pair.

I guess our views regarding the spirit of the game differs. I take a more working class view of play hard on the pitch and share a pint off it.

Cricket challenges the mind as well as testing the courage. If you can withstand my mental and physical onslaught without complaint then you earn my respect.

Foster should have taken up tiddlywinks, seems to have been his cup of tea.

Monty

[Johnr]

Oh Yeeee-ez...

And what's wrong with Tiddley-Winks may I ask/

Now you are treading on dangerous ground!

JOHN RUFFELS.

[belinda]

I love Tidilly Winks

[MrTwibbs]

John,

Bowling at the batsman has been around since the dawn of the game.

Gregory and MacDonald bowled at the English batsmen a decade before Larwood, yet not one Australian objected to that, nor any Englishman for that matter. I could list a handful before those pair.

I guess our views regarding the spirit of the game differs. I take a more working class view of play hard on the pitch and share a pint off it.

Cricket challenges the mind as well as testing the courage. If you can withstand my mental and physical onslaught without complaint then you earn my respect.

Foster should have taken up tiddlywinks, seems to have been his cup of tea.

Monty

Its unfair to compare todays bowlers with that of yesterdays with regard to pace and protection.
In the 30's bodyline was considered very heritical because it was a deliberate ploy aimed at the body of the batsmen but also it forced them to either mover away from the ball or attempt a pull/hook to leg, which of course is risky with there being 6 or 7 men on the legs side. (I dont know exact number am going by my memory)
If they took blows to their body it would have been rather painful as they did not have the protection we have today. No helmets, visors, arm guards etc.
The only protection they had was their box and pads.

Granted Larwood was probably the only bowler who was quick enough back then to be downright dangerous. He would bowl consistently at 85-90mph which is in the Donald, Walsh, Akram pace bracket. Now imagine facing that with no protection other than your box and pads, a packed legside field and a short leg to try to catch your back foot defensive shots that could go astray.
And consider there are no really great hookers/pullers in todays game. Can you think of a true master of this art? i can think of Greg Blewitt, Inzamam. both retired. Even todays batsmen would find it difficult but they'd probably not be as afraid as them in the 30s due to better body and head protection

[Robert]

Best to wear goggles for tiddlywinks. Some players aim for the eyes, you know.

[Johnr]

Thanks Mr Twibbs,
Very informative.

Robert,

I'm such a fearless Tiddly Winks player, I didn't even wear a Spellcheck!

JOHN RUFFELS.

[Roma]

Some players aim for the eyes, you know.

I know what you mean : when I play football and baseball, I generally aim at the head... but I don't do it on purpose, I swear !!

[Sickert]

No it doesn't

No, but the argument I heard was that he was playing cricket at the time of the murders. If this is correct then he can't be the murderer.

[Chris]

No, but the argument I heard was that he was playing cricket at the time of the murders. If this is correct then he can't be the murderer.

But did they really have floodlit cricket in 1888?

[The Grave Maurice]

That's very funny, Chris.

Sickert: The argument against Druitt being JtR because of his cricket commitments is nicely laid out by D.J. Leighton in this:

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/druitt-contender.html

or this:

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/ripper-suspect-the-secret-lives-of-montague-druitt.html

Both, obviously, the same book under different titles, but either will, I think, answer your questions.

[Chris]

The Grave Maurice

The point I was making is that whatever case can be made against Druitt being the murderer on the basis of his cricketing activities, it certainly doesn't amount to an alibi or anything remotely near to one.

"Druitt was playing cricket at the time" is one of those old chestnuts that gets wheeled out periodically. Obviously he wasn't.

[The Grave Maurice]

Chris,

That is exactly what I assumed you were saying. What I found funny was your suggestion that Druitt couldn't have been responsible for murders that occurred between 12:50-ish and 4:00-ish because he was playing cricket under the lights. It was the light thing that tickled me.

On the other hand, there's not a chance in hell that he was JtR.

[Chris]

What I found funny was your suggestion that Druitt couldn't have been responsible for murders that occurred between 12:50-ish and 4:00-ish because he was playing cricket under the lights.

?

I was saying almost exactly the opposite - that he didn't have an alibi because he obviously wasn't playing cricket between those hours.

[The Grave Maurice]

Believe me, I got your point. Apparently I'm not expressing myself clearly enough on this, so I'll stop now.