Douglas Jardine

Originally posted by Sledger 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.

Originally posted by Sledger We'll never know H , that's what makes the banter in the pub so enjoyable!  I'm jealous that you got to chat to Larwood , did you battle with his accent ?

jardine may have been sinister but all he wanted was to win, we drive that out of people these days but to win you need to be ruthless. he was the mourhino of football inn his age

Edited by -JP- - 26 November 2010 at 10:31am

I really disapprove of this time-tainted hammering of Jardine.  He did nothing in contravention of the rules as they stood - it's akin to Fergusson complaining that lesser visiting teams 'park their bus' in front of goal.  The game exists to have its boundaries (no pun) stretched and tested - that's all Jardine did.

I think Christopher Douglas got it right when he wrote: "(Jardine) stands for the legendary British qualities of cool-headed determination, implacable resolve, patrician disdain for crowds and critics alike – if you're English that is. To Australians the name is synonymous with the legendary British qualities of snobbishness, cynicism and downright Pommie arrogance."

I wonder what else he was able to do.  Leg theory was an obvious response to the domination the bat enjoyed at that time.  Had he gone to Australia and not looked to a strong leg-side attack England would have had little chance.  It was an obvious weakness in the Australian team.  England, conversely, played well against a leg-side attack, probably the real reason why Australia didn't adopt it rather than the much hyped reason of 'fair play'.  Jardine in particular was brilliantly effective against the bouncing leg-side ball, as his only test century demonstrated against the WI bodyline bowling during the 1933 tour.

The MCC did not immediately ban bodlyine or leg-theory, indeed it has never been banned.  Often, when rubbishing Jardine, Australian writers refer to this - but it is a falacy.  It wasn't until the early 60s that a law change banning the placement of more than two fielders in the quadrant of the field behind square leg rendered leg-theory almost redundant in terms of a strategy for taking wickets.  The fast bowling tactics of the West Indies in the late 70s and throughout the 80s were, arguably, far more aggressive than Jardine's tactics and led to greater rule changes to protect batsmen.

Sir Alex Ferguson (apols Sir Alex for the double s first time round) is the manager of Manchester United.  Much famed for, despite his success, hammering any opposing team who adopts a strategy likely to supress attacking football.

Speaking of this whole bodyline stuff, I was watching the Pak A vs WI A on thursday and some guys were saying it's nonsense the bouncer rule, "why the umpire them don't tell the batsman after them done hit 2 six that that is enough" haha

Well, from what I know, no matter how good a player of short, fast bowling you are, if for instance 3 men are set deep from fine leg to square leg and you have leg gully and ah short leg, I reckon before someone reaches 50 he'll be out, especially if the bowling is of the calibre of someone with real pace and accuracy.  I know Larwood had plenty pace, not sure of his accuracy but if employing a field like that, I think any fast bowler with reasonable pace stands a chance.

Originally posted by spin wizard Well, from what I know, no matter how good a player of short, fast bowling you are, if for instance 3 men are set deep from fine leg to square leg and you have leg gully and ah short leg, I reckon before someone reaches 50 he'll be out, especially if the bowling is of the calibre of someone with real pace and accuracy.  I know Larwood had plenty pace, not sure of his accuracy but if employing a field like that, I think any fast bowler with reasonable pace stands a chance.

So, Gubby Allen never called Jardine a moron.  He did, however, call him the ‘perfect swine’ (in a letter to his parents never intended for public consumption, of course).  Had he just used the term ‘swine’ one could see the comparison you make, however I contest that in using ‘perfect’ there was a degree of admiration – I’d also argue that the same admiration is often present in Allen’s writing, however vitriolic.  You also need to consider that the captaincy of England was fiercely contested and that Allen, as you identify, saw himself as the obvious successor.  Politics my friend, politics.  Being an Australian, it is highly probably that the Aussies did, indeed, like him.

Jardine frequently said that he had no problem per se with Australians, he did, however, have a problem with the continued abuse levelled against him from Australians who saw the need to vent their anger on him as a surrogate for colonialism.  Not unlike biting the hand that feeds you, or that is how it would have appeared to him.  I’ll use your same defence, the one you develop for the importance of Woodfull’s religion, Jardine would have, quite naturally, regarded Australian’s as the product of transportation which, remember, ended only 60 years earlier.  As a good Christian himself, he would have viewed Australians with considerable vulgarity.  Not right, of course, but a product of the times.  For this reason, and this reason alone, I think it is best to leave politics and religion out of the debate.

I have no recall of Bowes bowling in the way you suggest, though in his letters to his parents Allen freely admits giving away runs and his wicket in protest against Jardine’s tactics.  Jardine was clearly not a loner, having a wide circle of friends, so your opinion in this regard is moot.

Believe it or not – you weren’t actually meant to play leg-theory well.  That was the point of it.  It was a strategy designed and adopted to thwart the prolific dominance of batsmen, in much the same way that the authorities today tinker with the rules in the shorter versions of the game to achieve the same effect.  “It’s not fair, you’re not letting me score at will!” is hardly the cause, is it?  Wide deliveries were outlawed at the turn of the 19^th century, any ball a foot outside of leg stump could and should have been called wide – but you are exaggerating, aren’t you?

The Bodyline tour was simply the first time that aggressive fast bowling tactics were used to counter equally aggressive batting.  It was as much because the elite (largely ‘gentlemen’ let’s not forget) batsmen of the day had their noses put out of joint that it caused so much outcry.  It was also the period of transition from ‘gentlemen’ to ‘players’ and not bowling on a line on or just outside off was considered a heinous crime.  Since the 30s, in particular the Australian attack of the late 70s/early 80s and the West Indian attack of the 80s, there has been far more aggressive use of fast bowling leading to the most significant rule changes and the introduction of protective equipment for batsmen.

I am not defending Jardine as a person, and I do not think reading accounts of his contemporaries help you understand the man, each will be biased.  I am, however, defending his right to adopt a strategy he felt gave him and his team the best chance of winning.  In doing so he tested the boundaries of what the establishment would accept.  Do you really believe he should have approached the tour recognising that he was seriously disadvantaged in terms of stroke play and not considered innovative bowling approaches designed to lessen the advantage?  History will judge him right or wrong (or both, as is normally the case with historians) but at the time he did not have the benefit of hindsight, leaders rarely do.  He made the best judgement call he could under the circumstances and I think he showed great character and sense of purpose to see it through.

You say yourself that it wasn’t the bowling, but the field placings that made leg-theory the success it clearly was.  That is why Allen roundly blamed the Australians for getting hit, whilst not agreeing with the strategy.  They had no need to go after the ball, but that was not their approach.  New circumstances call for new solutions and the Australians were sadly lacking in their own invention.  This, I am afraid, falls squarely at the feet of Woodfull who, presented with a new challenge, failed to respond other than to call it unfair.  Imagine how the press would have ridiculed Brearley, Gatting or Gower had they made similar claims about Lillee and Thomson or Marshall and Walsh?

We will not agree, but thank you for the debate.

 

 

Originally posted by W.G. Wide deliveries were outlawed at the turn of the 19th century, any ball a foot outside of leg stump could and should have been called wide – but you are exaggerating, aren’t you?

Last thought on this- no I am not exaggerating at all. Watch the footage. Larwood is bowling directly at where the batsmans head would have been in the stance. Most batsman then took a leg stump guard so at their normal stance both feet were clear of leg stump and the balls delivered by Larwood were literally a foot or more clear of leg stump. Voce delivered his left armers from around the wicket (over the wicket from a RH point of view) and angled every ball into the ribs and throat of the batsman. And if the batsman moved the ball was once again a foot clear of leg stump when it passed over the stumps. The stumps were patently NOT the target..

Originally posted by spin wizard I have no problem with bowlers barraging batsmen with short pitch balls but it would be almost impossible for a batsman to find a way out if you were allowed to pack the leg side field so i'm happy with the 2 men behind square rule.  It now means that batsmen can take on the bowlers.  It would be very hard to take on someone with 3 men behind square and trying to defend with 2 more close up.

Originally posted by spin wizard Well mate, my point is, if so many fielders are close up and there are guys back on the hook, it makes it almost impossible to get runs off the short pitch bowling, which arguably renders the batting very much boring and very hard.

Originally posted by Sledger I went to a seance last night after a couple of dops. Had a nice little chat to Dougie , he sends his love and says he'd do it all over again !

I have just finished Duncan Hamilton's excellent biography of Harold Larwood, which is a rather sad tale really, but the bowler's loyalty to and admiration of Jardine are obvious.

Having read various books on the subject, one interesting aspect is that Jardine always comes across rather well as a person, and people found that if they had the chance to get to know him they end up liking him a lot, his one time highly outspoken critic Tiger O'Reilly being a very good example.

By contrast, Bradman always comes across as a petty self centred man, and I love the tale of how the stunned silence following his duck in his final Test innings was broken only by the sound of his former team mates O'Reilly and Fingleton roaring with delighted laughter in the press box.


Edited by Clobber - 19 February 2011 at 5:19pm

Originally posted by jasabout It always amuses me to hear Aussies whinging about the Englishman Jardine and all his English qualities.  He was born in India of two Scottish parents and always considered himself Scottish.