Douglas Jardine

Originally posted by Alfie103 How bout when Brad Hodge caught Michael Vaughan and Kevin Pietersen?

1. Hodge was in the Australian Squad, Pratt was not in the English squad
2. Hodge is good enough to play test cricket, so his inclusion in the squad was there on the merits of his batting, not his fielding. Unlike Pratt
3. Hodge was not substituting due to his great field ability, rather to replace another fielder who was unable to field at the time, unlike Pratt
4. Hodge was fielding in the outfield, which anyone can do, not in the infield with the chance of run outs and sharp catches, unlike Pratt.

Originally posted by 70_degree_spin i agree completely, a black mark on english cricket is stupid. He was a clever captain who prevented the best team from winning, theres literally nothing wrong with that.

150 miles per hour !!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by MiNiWaRnEy Originally posted by Alfie103 How bout when Brad Hodge caught Michael Vaughan and Kevin Pietersen?   Hodge was in the Australian Squad, Pratt was not in the English squad Hodge is good enough to play test cricket, so his inclusion in the squad was there on the merits of his batting, not his fielding. Unlike Pratt Hodge was not substituting due to his great field ability, rather to replace another fielder who was unable to field at the time, unlike Pratt Hodge was fielding in the outfield, which anyone can do, not in the infield with the chance of run outs and sharp catches, unlike Pratt.

Quit whining about this once and for all. Pratt was fielding for Simon Jones who was on his way to hospital with an injury that kept him out of the rest of series. It has ALWAYS been the case to let the non playing squad member return to his County to play and for a player not playing in the Championship to come up to act as 12th man.

However since you fell so strongly that only players in the original squad should be fielding, I am sure you will be fully of the mind that Australia were cheating by using Ryan Broad as a substitute fielder in the first Test, catching Strauss in the process?

way to avoid the point

  take it easy guys.

Edited by Sledger - 12 December 2006 at 12:43pm

Originally posted by Sledger Originally posted by slogger72N/O I disagree strongly here, bradman was an incredible threat as his career average shows....     Lad , BOWLERS win test matches , not batsmen.....   Batsmen win matches as well, for example, Bradman scored 907 runs when he toured England at an average of 138, that won matches, I'm not saying that bowlers don't win matches but batsmen do as well. Originally posted by slogger72N/O also saying that bodyline was the cause of the injuries is rubbish, the most serious injuries were caused when Larwood was bowling to a conventional field    Conventional bowling doesn't maim batsman lad!!  Go to your local library and pick up some Australian books on bodyline and then you'll see who's talking rubbish. I wasn't saying that the bowling was conventional, I was saying the fields were conventional when the injuries were caused, also why was bodyline any worse than the West Indies pace attack of only a few years ago, they hit plenty of people. Also telling me to read up on bodyline is stupid because I have read a lot on the subject. Originally posted by slogger72N/O I don't see why bodyline is so much worse than just bowling a bumper to someone    Digest Bobbi's comments.  You obviously have little knowledge of that series - the attack on the Australians heads and bodies was relentless. From ball one of the 1st test Larwood and Voce (who was no slouch either!) targetted ALL the Aussie batsman. Every single one of them were hit numerous times - retired hurt was the norm and not the exception.    In cricket today bowlers are warned after 2 bouncers in an over - in the bodyline series it often was all six that were being fended off.     There can be no logical reason to support such tactics - it simply is not cricket.

Edited by slogger72N/O - 12 December 2006 at 5:13pm

Originally posted by MiNiWaRnEy   take it easy guys.   I don't care anymore, we are in 2006 - we'll see what happens this series. I personally believe sub fielders should go in the least imposing place, the outfield. That is where Simon Jones fields... oh well! That is life, Ponting got out, and maybe if Jones was fielding there he would not have got that run out - so the outcome could have been different; who knows and right now it does not matter.

Originally posted by Sledger Talking of pitches , just what has happened to the WACA surface. Always rated as THE fastest pitch in world cricket , now I read that it's slowish and a spinner's track!

Fair enough, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on bodyline.

I've just read an article on this subject that brought up something interesting that is always overlooked. When Larwood struck Woodfull (the alleged "well bowled Harold" incident) and also injured McCabe, in both instances he was bowling to a conventional field so they can't even be attributed to Bodyline.

I think it was too, because you can't judge it by the standards of today - today what the English did is normal and an accepted part of the game, but back then it was technically allowed but a point of sportsmanship not to bowl like that. I sense this has become a teensy tiny bit of an "English Vs Australian" polemic whereas issues of fair play should transcend the partisan. It was a long time ago and I see nothing wrong with hostile fast bowling nowadays, but at the time it was very very low

Mr. Jardine though a respected cricket professional, was well-known for his hatred on Australian players and crowd. He never knew how to manage and balance the respect of his team, all he knew to lead his team to victory, either directly or through treachery and conspiracy.

He converted cricket into a war where the upshot was to win. He destroyed the meaning of the game cricket. His chief focus was not to make his team reach a respectable position, which was quite evident from the conversations with Percy Warner. Instead his aim was to get hold of Bradman in a distorted way and grab the Ashes (not necessarily with respect).

Provoking is not the only way to overcome every situation and circumstances. And that's what British cricketers are famous for and has done for years in each and every sector. The outcome is their current status.

Mr. Jardine was brilliant for his tyranny, because for being a tyrant you need to be extremely intelligent politician. During 1933-34, protection articles like helmets, chest-guards etc.. were not introduced in cricket. In such circumstances, throwing a ball with a speed of 100mph on to the face of a bowler is quite unprofessional. It is quite equivalent to shooting a bullet on someone's chest and giving him a piece of wood to protect it.

Even the Australians could have adopted the same theory, but the captain Prof. Woodfull refused as they were playing cricket, not a war. Bradman gave full support to him. They respected the game, their cap and their heritage. That's what matters, not achieving the Ashes trophy through treachery.

I don't find anything wrong to such behavior of Jardine, though quite unprofessional. Because it is the nature of such sector of people. E.g: A dog barks while they see strangers, u can't stop the dog doing that, because it is its nature. Similarly, provoking is the nature of British cricketers and they like to induce the same within others too (exceptions persist ). If they know that achieving something is impossible in the regular method, they are ready to achieve the same with treachery and misuse of power.


Regards,
Deep

I would have done a Chris Gayle, open up body, put front foot to leg side and swing the ball right out of the park.  Oh yes, just like he did Lee at the Oval!

Bodyline was a dark period in the history of cricket and the laws rightfully changed to stop it.  Larwood was a fantastic fast bowler and many have written that in partnership with the fiery Voce they had the armoury to win the Ashes without resorting to bodyline bowling.  A 4-1 scoreline is unlikely to ever be repeated by a visiting English side (although I'm holding thumbs!) , but the series win was tainted by the dangerous tactics.
               The most disappointing thing from an English perspective was that Larwood was asked to apologise to the Australians and he refused (quite rightly , he was doing what he was told!) - he never played for England again .Afterwards he emigrated to Australia and lived the rest of his life there.


Edited by Sledger - 16 November 2010 at 7:04am