Seventy five years ago on Sunday (today) the first ball was bowled in the infamous Bodyline series between Australia and England. John Coomber looks back on cricket’s most tumultuous contest.
It was high noon when former Nottinghamshire miner Harold Larwood pushed off from his mark at the Randwick End of the Sydney Cricket Ground and began his long, smooth run towards the wicket.
Awaiting him was the Australian captain Bill Woodfull, tapping his bat calmly on the crease, baggy green cap jammed on his head and eyes narrowed against the midday glare.
Forty-seven thousand souls held their breath as Larwood reached his delivery stride, drew back his right arm like an archer’s bow and hurled the ball into the strip of brown earth before him.
The world seems to stop spinning for the first ball of any Ashes series. This one, however, was like none before or since. This was the first shot fired in the cricket war that came to be known as Bodyline.
Even 75 years later, the mere mention of the word arouses fierce passions that seem to tap into Australia’s very sense of nationhood.
Bodyline was not just an assault on its primary target Don Bradman – not to mention the spirit of a wonderful game – but for a nation still feeling its way in the world it seemed nothing less than betrayal by a trusted parent.
In December 1932 Australia was gripped by depression. Men went bush in the hope of finding work, wearing out hope and shoe leather in equal measure as they trudged from property to property.
Australians desperately needed something to hold on to in those dark times. Characteristically, they turned to their sporting heroes.
The giant chestnut horse Phar Lap had died mysteriously in the United States some months previously, arousing suspicions of a plot, and perhaps helping instil in Australians a feeling that powerful allies were playing them for mugs.
Now it seemed The Don himself was in peril.
The kid from country NSW had slaughtered England’s bowlers on a tour of the old country two years earlier, and from England’s point of view, he had to be stopped.
The Marylebone Cricket Club, under whose colours England toured in those days, hatched a plot that would prey on Bradman’s perceived vulnerability against fast, short-pitched balls aimed at his body.
They had the weaponry to do it – the world’s fastest bowler Harold Larwood and several accomplices led by left-armed Bill Voce – and in Douglas Jardine they had a captain who would prosecute the campaign with the ruthlessness of battlefield general.
The key to Bodyline (a term coined by Australian journalist Hugh Buggy) was not only to put the batsman in fear of life and limb, but to crowd him with a predatory ring of leg-side fieldsmen in the only area where he could hope to score.
Until his dying day, Jardine referred to it as “leg theory”, a euphemism that served to mislead the English authorities on exactly what was happening on the other side of the world in that pre-television era.
Jardine, a hook-nosed patrician who took the field in neckerchief and harlequin cap, appeared to loathe Australia on sight and the feeling was largely reciprocated. “Leave our bloody flies alone,” shouted one barracker when the England captain was seen to swat an insect from his face.
Despite the misgiving of some of his own team, Jardine never wavered, even when his tactics threatened to spark a riot.
He was here to do a job and, by Jove, he wasn’t about to be deterred by a bunch of lily-livers such as the Nawab of Pataudi, who refused to field in the leg trap, and Gubby Allen, who was asked to bowl Bodyline and replied: “Douglas, I have never done that, and it’s not the way I want to play cricket”.
Bradman, in fact, was missing from the first skirmish in Sydney as he recovered from acute exhaustion.
Australia lost by 10 wickets, despite a breathtaking knock of 187 not out by Stan McCabe that is still ranked among the finest innings ever played.
Bradman was back for the second Test in Melbourne, and after a first innings duck made a century to square the series.
He devised a method of stepping away so he could score through the off-side, which to Jardine’s mind smacked of cowardice.
These were the days before helmets and body padding, and Larwood was seriously fast; indeed England wicketkeeper Les Ames routinely stuffed raw steaks into his keeping gloves to dampen the shock.
The storm broke in the third Test in Adelaide, when one of Larwood’s thunderbolts struck Woodfull a sickening blow to the chest.
As the Australian skipper staggered to retain his feet, Jardine was heard to call out “Well bowled, Harold”.
After some delay Woodfull opted to continue his innings, but when he faced up to Larwood again, Jardine clapped his hands and provocatively called more fielders into his leg-side trap.
After that day’s play England team manager “Plum” Warner went to the Australian dressing room to see how the captain was faring.
Woodfull then uttered the response that has gone down in history: “I don’t want to see you Mr Warner. There are two teams out there. One is trying to play cricket and the other is not.”
The crowd almost rioted later in the match when Australian wicketkeeper Bert Oldfield, who already had a steel plate in his head from a shell blast in the World War One battle at Polygon Wood in 1917, had his skull fractured when he deflected a legitimate delivery from Larwood into his temple.
As passions reached melting point, mounted police gathered outside the ground ready to deal with the consequences.
Australian cricket authorities sent a stern cable to Lord’s complaining at the unsportsmanlike tactics.
The MCC cabled back a stiff response, rejecting the charge and offering to cancel the rest of the series.
The dispute reached the highest government levels, souring relations between the two nations.
The Australian board, concerned then as now with the financial side of the game, sent a more conciliatory response to the MCC and the series continued.
England won the third, fourth and fifth Tests to take the series 3-1, making it the most successful England side ever to come to Australia.
That summer changed the game forever, with new laws subsequently introduced to restrict leg-side fields and ban direct attacks on the batsman.
Bradman was reduced to an average in the 50s, around half his customary return, but went on to many more triumphs.
Jardine played Test cricket for another 12 months before drifting out of the game. He died of lung cancer in Switzerland at the age of 57.
Larwood took 33 wickets at less than 20 runs apiece, but never played for England again. On his return home he was asked to sign a letter of apology for the tactics, but refused on the grounds that he was merely obeying his captain.
Disillusioned, he emigrated to Australia and settled in Sydney, not far from where he bowled that first ball, and struck up a warm relationship with his old adversaries.
In 1993, at the age of 88, Larwood was awarded an MBE by cricket-loving British Prime Minister John Major.
Until his death in 1995, he kept a small presentation ashtray, engraved with the words: “To Harold for the Ashes – 1932-33. From a grateful Skipper.”
THE BODYLINE QUOTES
+ “Douglas, I have never done that, and it’s not the way I want to play cricket.” – England fast bowler Gubby Allen, refusing Jardine’s order to bowl at the body.
+ “Douglas Jardine is loathed and, between you and me, rightly, more than any German who fought in any war … some days I feel I should like to kill him.” – Allen, in a letter home during the tour.
+ “Well bowled, Harold” – Jardine after Harold Larwood had struck Australian captain Bill Woodfull a sickening blow near the heart in the Adelaide Test.
+ “I don’t want to see you Mr Warner. There are two teams out there. One is trying to play cricket and the other is not”. Woodfull to Pelham Warner, when the England manager came to the dressing room to see how he was.
+ “Bodyline bowling assumed such proportions as to menace best interests of game, making protection of body by batsmen the main consideration. Causing intensely bitter feeling between players as well as injury. In our opinion is unsportsmanlike. Unless stopped at once likely to upset friendly relations between Australia and England.” – Cable from Australian Cricket Board of Control to MCC during Adelaide Test.
+ “We, Marylebone Cricket Club, deplore your cable. We deprecate 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. If [the situation] is such as to jeopardise the good relations between English and Australian cricketers and you consider it desirable to cancel remainder of programme, we would consent with great reluctance.” – MCC’s response.
Source: Bodyline Autopsy, by David Frith (ABC Books, 2002)
Tim
Guest
Leg theory had been a fairly common tactic and Fast Leg theory had been used for a few season in County Cricket. I don't think that anyone was actually hit whilst the leg theory was in place during the bodyline series. Bill Woodfull was hit above the heart whilst bent over his bat not whilst standing up right which kind of suggests he was beaten for pace rather than a vicous short ball . Wicket-keeper Bert Oldfield's skull came from a top edge. The English team themselves faced bodyline bowling in 1933 from the West Indies Jardine himself made 127 - standing on tip toes and playing with a striaght bat.
mike
Guest
Sheek. Fast bowlers thin on the ground in the 30s. OK; fine. England: larwood, voce, allen, farnes, bowes, tate, gover, read, smith, clark. Australia: gilbert, mccormick, wall, nash, alexander. West Indies: constantine, francis, griffith, martindale, hylton, hhh johnson. New Zealand: cowie, dickinson, parsloe, pritchard. South Africa: bell, crisp, gordon. India: nissar, amar singh, ramji, rangachari. There you go. That should disabuse you of your error. No thanks necessary; it was my pleasure. BTW the article is crap. Full of errors. As an eg Eng won the series 4-1 not 3-1 and this made it no more successful than the 1911/12 English tourists.
blindjustice
Guest
matty p, I am a little confused by your final comments? I understand this is a discussion on the bodyline series but although Dublin Dave made some witty comments, do you not agree with some of the valid points and comparisons he has made? 1) England (under jardines leadership) were determined to win at any cost 2) They played a form of cricket that was in keeping to the law of the game, but not in the spirit 3) They had focussed on the weaknesses of a strong team 4) Their comments on the pitch (re Jardine) were found to be offensive and despicable 5) They got the desired result - but at what cost 6) The Australian captain refused to speak to the winning team - stating it just was not cricket I think this is the point that Dublin Dave was trying to make: 1) Australia (under Pontins leadership) were determined to win at any cost 2) They played a form of cricket that was in keeping to the law of the game, but not in the spirit 3) They had focussed on the weaknesses of a strong team 4) Their comments on the pitch (sledging) were found to be offensive and despicable 5) They got the desired result - but at what cost 6) Only difference is, The Australian captain refused to speak to the LOSING team - why? maybe he already knew it just was not cricket
matty p
Guest
Well that got silly quickly Dave and probably doesn't dignify a response, are you snowed in already in Dublin? Pointing out what has happened in cricket since Bodyline is logically irrelevant. There wasn't laws in the game prior to that point, and players didn't wear protection on their upper body, because that wasn't the way the game was played. England played within the letter of the law but not the spirit of the game; they chose to win, but have to accept the cost, being that they set in motionthe events which led to the game being played in the spirit it is today. I might add that I had the opportunity to meet Harold Larwood in Sydney a few years before he died. He was a fine fellow, and openly regretted that he had been put in that situation by his captain. Would Steve Waugh as captain have orderd him similarly? These days, probably. Back then, who knows. But Jardine did choose his road, and it was not the high one. So be it, but he did so as captain of England and with the backing of the MCC, so they must accept the consequences.
Dublin Dave
Guest
Ashes to Ashes Dust to Dust If Voce don't get ya Larwood must. "I prefer to hit the batsman than bowl him out. I like to see blood on the grass." Was that said in a posh Scottish accent or that of an Aussie larrikin? I believe that this series is now on the school HISTORY curriculum in some parts of Australia!!! What sort of exam questions would there be on it. Q 1 (compulsory) If a "hook nosed patrician" says "Well bowled Harold" after a batsman is hit by a bouncer, what sort of mullet-haired meat-head would wait until a stricken batsman had hobbled out of his crease before knocking over the wicket and appealing for a run out? Q 2 (multiple choice) You are captain of a side that has just lost a test match having been comprehensively out thought tactically and outplayed as a result. The victorious manager comes into your changing room after the match. Do you: a) Slap him on the back, say "Congratulations, old boy. The better team prevailed but cricket was the real winner. Do have a glass of champers and a nice cucumber sandwich!" b) Show him the bruise on your chest where you were hit with a bouncer and say. "That hurt you bastard, but what goes on the pitch stays on the pitch. Let's crack open a few tinnies and go find a few Sheilas, eh?" c) Refuse to talk to him, accuse his team of not playing proper cricket and sulk until the laws of the game are changed to effectively outlaw the tactics deployed. Let it go lads. It was 75 years ago and since then we've had Thommo and Lillee bowling bodyline and every Aussie wicket keeper with a tongue being WAY more obnoxious and provocative than Jardine ever was. Good job the poms didn't bowl underarm, eh? Might have caused some bad feeling. :)
sheek
Guest
Spiro, What you say is true. Don't get me wrong, Bradman probably played all types of bowlers better than anyone else. However, facing 100 overs of spin doesn't give you the same kind of accumulated stress as facing 100 overs of pace. I'm thinking the 1980s, when Marshall & Holding had finished with you, & you were still standing, you then had to face Garner & Croft! My point was, in the 1930s, fast men were overall thin on the ground - just part of the cycle of things. You're right about Stan McCabe. One innings of 187no out of 385 runs in the series at 42.78. Bradman hit 396 runs at 56.57, with a top score of 103no. Bradman missed the first test with injury, the match in which McCabe hit his 187no. Bradman's scores were - 0 & 103no, 8 & 66, 76 & 24, 48 & 71. McCabe was like Douggie Walters, sometimes magnificent, other times ordinary, often inconsistent, always loveable. It's true Nash didn't possess the speed of Larwood, no Australian at the time did, with one possible exeption. but that man was politically undesirable, the Queensland aboriginal Eddie Gilbert, who was very fast, & equally erratic & unreliable. It was generally felt Nash had the right abrasive temperament & sufficient pace & skill, to give some curry back to the Poms. But Nash was another who upset the establishment, & only played 2 tests all up (for 10 wickets), more's the pity. BTW, some trivia. After making 18 & 1 on debut in 1928/29, Bradman was dropped for the next test (& only time in his career). His replacement was Queenslander Otto Nothling, who did little wrong with 44 & 8. Nothling was an outstanding fullback for the Waratahs 1920-24, & had 19 matches retrospectively classified as tests in 1986. This makes him a dual international.
Spiro Zavos
Expert
Sheek I agree with most of your points, although I think you'll find that Bradman spanked most fast bowlers he faced. I remember the story of Ernie McCormack the Victorian quickie being hit for something like four consecutive boundaries and then being blocked by Bradman for the next two balls calling out: 'Don, give us a go won't you!' And I don't have the statistics at my finger-tips but my guess is that Bradman's 56 or so average in the Bobyline series was significantly better than Stand McCabe, say, who was a noted and admired player of fast bowling producing one of the memorable innings in test cricket against it in the Bodyline series. Australia did not resort to strict Bodyline because there was a shortage of quick bowlers capable of carrying out the theory in Australia. Laurie Nash, from my understanding (and I'm willing to be corrected on this) was more fast-medium than very fast like Larwood. Because the majority of the fielders were on the legside and in catching positions the fast bowler had to be very accurate, as well as very fast, to be effective with the Bodyline system. This field-setting was not new. Leg theory bowling has been common in cricket virtually from the beginning, and is probably going through a revival. I saw Hilfenhaus bowling leg theory, with four men around the bat on the legisde, against NSW recently at the SCG. He had a 2/7 field and a 3/6 field from time to time. Bodyline combined the traditional leg theory system of field placing with the new tactic of bowling at the batsman's body. Not every bowler could do this accurately. Larwood had a slightly round-arm bowling style, like Ray Lindwall, and this gave his bouncers a skidding rather than a bouncing effect. Most of the other fast bowlers tended to bounce the ball over the head of the batsman. The secret of Larwood was that he skidded the ball on to the batsman's chest. A batsman could not just fend off the ball as this would provide catches to the legside fieldsmen. Stan McCabe preferred to hook and pull the Bodyline bowling, with one great innings being the result. Bradman pulled away and cut the rearing ball to unguarded parts of the offside. Critics complained this showed lack of ticket as it meant that Bradman had to pull away to play his cuts. But Bradman correctly defended the tactic as the only responsible response to a bowling tactic that took away most of the shots batsmen could expect to play against the fast bowlers.
sheek
Guest
I have some thoughts on bodyline, & not all of them follow the supposed Australian dogma on the issue. 1. England played within the laws, if not the spirit, of the game, as the laws were written at the time. Is today's sledging within the spirit of the game? 2. Had Bradman been an Englishman, Aussies would have tried something similar, no doubt about it. So let's stop being moralistic over this. 3. Douglas Jardine was a truly great captain, & massively strong individual. As a kid, I followed the Aussie line, & loathed him. As I grew up, became more independent in my thinking, & read more of him, I came to admire his incredible strength of character. 4. Perhaps Bill Woodfull should have returned fire with fire. This might have forced England to back off. There was a paceman, Laurie Nash, also a famous AFL player, not as fast as Larwood, but with the pace & ginger to aggravate the Poms. Sometimes it's necessary to adopt an eye for an eye attitude. 5. The Aussies of the early 1930s were soft. They should have each taken several tablespoons of concrete each, & hardened up. Instead of all their whinging! 6. Bradman was actually lucky there was a paucity of great fast bowlers in the 1930s. he usually caned medium pacers & spinners. Genuine speed was rare to find. That said, he was still the best batsman to play the game. But perhaps conftonting some regular speed, his average might have been around 70 odd, instead of almost 100. 7. I have no problems with Gubby Allen being a conscientious objector. That was his right. However, he should have stayed home if he felt that way. Okay, this should have stirred a hornet's nest!