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.
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.
Geoff from Bruce Stadium
Guest
I couldn't believe how many short balls in a row Wagner bowled over after over. And the umpires said nothing. And the Kiwi commentators thought everything was fine. Isn't there a rule about intimidatory bowling and a law about how many you can bowl an over? After getting out to the pull shot in the first innings Burns decided to put the shot away in the second so you can imagine how slow his scoring rate was. All he could do was duck and evade and try and score off the bowler at the other end. Smith decided to go after Wagner and made him look pretty pedestrian in the end. Having to resort to these desperate tactics was a sign of how pathetic their much vaunted attack of Southee and Boult performed.
Howzat
Guest
But that kind of "logic" bowling underarm wasn't poor sportsmanship either just an attempt to restrict the opposition from scoring when other tactics had failed.
Howzat
Guest
"..... “the spirit of cricket” means nothing more than playing within the laws of the game." So bodyline was played with the spirit of cricket, as was bowling underarm. At the time both tactics were within the laws of the game. Hang on a sec, at the time both tactics also caused an outcry. So history shows us that playing within the laws of the game doesn't cut it. Recently we had some mild controversy over Stokes being given out obstructing the field - again within the laws of the game. One of the chief "spirit of cricket" critics in that instance was none other than Saint Brendan the pure.
ClarkeG
Guest
There was outrage throughout the cricketing world and beyond in regards to the underarm incident. There is hardly outrage in regard to these tactics other than from this article. It's a poor comparison. The two issues are on very different levels.
rebel
Guest
Irreproachable? Actually the opposite, cops more than any other even when not involved.
rebel
Guest
you are
rebel
Guest
Finally?
Euphonius Polemic
Guest
6-106 off 32 in the first dig. 1-60 off 18 in the second - bowling with a broken bone in his bowling hand. I suspect our boys better get better at playing the short ball.
Euphonius Polemic
Guest
Money says this one - "Yep, but it’s what we have come to expect. When you’re at the top, everyone is looking for reasons to bring you down to make themselves feel better. Thats why NZ have to continue with their “good guy” hyperbole since we keep beating them." - wasn't tongue in cheek.
Euphonius Polemic
Guest
Yes, they really should have. This "there's two sides out there and only one of them's playing cricket" nonsense has simply allowed us to have the longest gripe in the history of sport.
Euphonius Polemic
Guest
I've played under a captain who regularly had an 8-1 offside field and bowled wide of off - Now that's negative and boring not to mention tiring for the poor bloke on the legside...
Euphonius Polemic
Guest
I don't accept the poor sportmanship claim. It was an attempt to get the opposition out when all other tactics had failed. Wagner bowled the entire second innings with a broken bowling hand - if he was an aussie we'd be calling for a bronze statue to be struck in his honour, instead we're (some of us) having a bleat.
Euphonius Polemic
Guest
And, I'd suggest, given the success of the tactic other teams will employ it when needed so the boys had better learn how to deal with it. P.S. Given the amount of commenters bemoaning the advantages the batsman has todayI'm surprised that anyone has a problem with it - let alone alluding to "bodyline", which btw, is considered by many people to be the world's longest continuous whinge by a country mile.
Zero Gain
Guest
Yeah, like the underarm, which was legal, was perfectly OK, according to the Kiwis, wasn't it?
Riccardo
Guest
I don't get this faux-sensitivity. I think the bigger take on this is what Ronan has alluded to. Australia was superb, especially with the ball and played the Black Caps out of the game, even when they showed some grit. And it was a reflection of that frustration that saw McCullum having to resort to this approach; as Ronan says Southee lacked penetration and Boult has not regained his pre-injury form. I thought Henry bowled well at times but the Black Caps just couldn't extract the same bounce, let alone consistent areas that the Australians delivered. Nor could they achieve the reverse that Australia deftly employed. And when any of the bowlers got it right there were still four balls and a lack of support at the other end. Similarly, that lack of focus also permeated the batsmen, especially the top order, who placed too much pressure on the middle and lower order, playing rashly even when they were sometimes set. They would do well to watch Khawaja and Voges who were brilliant in this series. I think the tosses lost on roads that only had life in the first couple of sessions were unhelpful and Umpiring vagaries have plagued both series but if you want to foot it with the big boys these need to be reduced to anomalies and overcome by hunger and application
ClarkeG
Guest
Ditto ;-)
Riccardo
Guest
Beet nasty Rasty. Here's a thought. Maybe, perhaps, and I'm just putting it out there: sweeping opinionated denigration of an entire country regarding a debate over moment/s in a cricket match could actually be construed as the very definition of hyperbole. Enjoy your team's victory though mate; you guys smashed us and have earned the #1 ranking. Good luck in India...
Jerry
Guest
And it looks like the Aussies have it sewn up for another day.....
Bakkies
Guest
'If you read anything by Bardman or O’reilly or Fingleton- guys who actually took part in bodyline- they regarded all the hype about the danger of the famous West Indian pace attacks as just that – hype when compared to Bodyline. ' I doubt they would have seen the barrage that Brian Close copped. Close must have been in his 40s as well, no helmet as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-f5pfBgpNE
Bakkies
Guest
Clarke had a leg slip which saw Lyon catch one there. Bresnan, Broad and Anderson copped a lot of short stuff. There was a clear trap set for Bresnan with balls aimed at his arm pits. Some of the full pitch dismissals were set up by a barrage of bumpers. Particularly Bairstow's at the MCG.