- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
In the 1932-33 Ashes series the English cricket team, led by Douglas Jardine, devised a bold method to combat the rampaging Don Bradman, then in his pomp. It was called ‘fast leg theory’.
The theory had two components: a snare of fielders placed on the leg side and a barrage of balls delivered consistently, at speed, towards the body.
The English hoped that batsmen, trying to defend themselves from the rearing ball directed at head and chest, would deflect it to the close fieldsmen. The thin-lipped Jardine not only played the role of Voldemort, he looked rather like him too.
But his theory worked and the English took that series, improbably, by a margin of 4-1. Bodyline nevertheless caused such a stink that Anglo-Australian relations were strained to breaking point. It was later declared illegal.
More cricket:
» The Liebke Ratings: New Zealand vs Australia second Test
» It was the Summer of Pete, but you wouldn’t know it
» Australia’s awesome pace depth shines through
» Jackson Bird: Handing out ducks like an attack leader
» Scorecard: New Zealand vs Australia second Test
Yesterday, in the few sessions of play available to it before Australia wrapped up the Trans-Tasman series 2-0, the Kiwis tried much the same thing. The ball was given to left arm seamer Neil Wagner, who is South African by birth, and he was instructed to bowl fast, at the body, to a leg-side field stacked with seven fielders strung out like a string of beads to the right-handed batsmen’s left: the on-side.
Believe it or not, that is mid-wicket: #NZvAUS pic.twitter.com/u7DDudb40t
— Greg Baum (@GregBaum) February 23, 2016
It was not the first time in the game Brendon McCullum’s side had deployed this tactic; it was particularly effective in the Australians’ first innings, accounting for a swag of middle and lower order wickets. It is not – and this is an important distinction – the delivery of an occasional bouncer that makes a strategy resemble bodyline. It becomes akin to bodyline when the bowler consistently and deliberately targets the body in concert with a leg-side field.
Australian captains have often, for example, instructed bowlers to unsettle a batsmen with short pitched bowling. No bowler of the contemporary era was more scary than left-arm quick Miitchell Johnson. But it is not normally used as a strategy, for long periods, in concert with a dominant leg side field.
This is how the cricket.com.au website team yesterday narrated a typical Wagner over.
First ball: Neil Wagner to Steven Smith. Short, down leg side on the back foot, left to wicketkeeper for no runs, fielded by Watling.
Second ball: FOUR! Neil Wagner to Steven Smith. Short, down leg side on the back foot pulling, well timed past fine leg for 4 runs. Smith sets himself very early for the short ball and that’s exactly what arrives. He gets in a great position to pull the ball fine of the fielder at long leg for four.
Third ball: Neil Wagner to Steven Smith. Back of a length, down leg side backing away dropped, to silly point for 1 run, shy attempt by Nicholls. Smith drops it into the offside and calls for the single straight away. It seems he may have forgotten there was a short leg in place because there was never a single on. Nicholls throws out the back of the hand but cannot get the direct hit. Burns would’ve been short of his ground.
Fourth ball: Neil Wagner to Joe Burns. Length ball, down leg side no foot movement, left to wicketkeeper for no runs, fielded by Watling.
Fifth ball: Neil Wagner to Joe Burns. Short, down leg side ducked, left to wicketkeeper for no runs, fielded by Watling.
Sixth ball: Neil Wagner to Joe Burns. Back of a length, down leg side on the back foot glancing, missed to wicketkeeper for no runs, fielded by Watling.
Was this close enough to illegal fast leg theory to warrant the attention of the umpires? A second, less technical and more cultural, question is this. Why would a Kiwi side that prides itself on playing the game in a generous and fair spirit even countenance a strategy that resembles so closely the loathed and cynical – to say nothing of perilous – bodyline?
I think the answer to the first question is a qualified yes. I say qualified because the New Zealand tactics merely echoed bodyline; there were significant differences.
Firstly, Wagner is said to bowl at speeds just under 140 kilometres an hour, whereas Harold Larwood, Jardine’s go-to guy, bowled at 150 kilometres an hour or more. Secondly, uncovered wickets were a trickier prospect in the 1930s; the Christchurch track was pretty unresponsive. Thirdly, the bodyline fields seem to have been set behind the batsmen; McCullum deployed a more widely spread field and had great success with miscued or simply ill directed pull shots.
But these are differences of shading; not of essence. I think the umpires should have had a word, if for no other reason than to point out that the New Zealand tactics were outside the spirit of the game, or at least fringing them.
The answer to the more cultural question follows from this. The Black Caps, from their captain down, usually disport themselves with more dignity than the Australians. They genuinely do play the game in a better spirit. But they are not as pure as they would like the sporting public to believe, and yesterday they descended – admittedly in extremis with a test match slipping from their grasp – to a level of cynicism that would, I think, have been beneath the much maligned Australians.
The Kiwi ‘Pure’ image allowed McCullum, in his final Test, to plan and execute a most unsportsmanlike strategy without, it seems, any rebuke from the umpires. That’s an interesting lesson in sporting psychology, and one the 26-year-old Steve Smith will doubtless learn, though it is a cynical lesson, too.
Build your own fantasy cricket team and put it to the test with Draftstars daily fantasy competitions. Pick your match, pick your team and watch the points roll in to take out cash prizes on each match. What are you really gambling with? Set a deposit limit.