When Batsmen Threatened to Strike

Evening Star, Issue 23021, 28 July 1938, Page 4

When Batsmen Threatened to Strike

EXCLUSIVE. COPYRIGHT.

Effect of Bodyline in Australia

Bodyltne bowling, which caused such consternation when it was introduced to Australia by the M.C.C. team captained hy Jardinc in 19SS-3S, is dealt with by Don Bradman in this instalment of his autobiography, which is being published exclusively by this journal- ;

What avenues were open to batsmen to play that type of bowling? A batsman could play defensively to protect his body. In that case he was certain to be caught by one of the cordon of leg fieldsmen close in. If he decided to swing at the ball, and try to hit it into the deep field, ha would assuredly be caught also. One fate or the other was inevitable if these orthodox batting methods were employed. Seeking the Answer SEEKING a new technique, certain Australian batsmen—l was one of them—tried standing well deaf of the wicket on the leg side and, trying to slash or cut the ball to the sparely populated off-side. In a measure, these tactics were successful, but they were so risky and unsound that the bowler was able to combat them. He had merely to deliver the ball further out on the leg side and the batsman was no better ofi. As a matter of fact, he was worse off, because he was subjecting himself to more danger. The surest way to dodge flying deliveries is to allow the ball to pass on your leg side, not to back away. Besides, by moving out of your wicket to leg, you put yourself to extra disadvantage against a bowler.

XVII PURPOSELY I have refrained till now from making comment on the tactics which were employed in this series of tests. I cannot altogether pass the matter over, but I do want it very clearly to be understood that in giving my opinion of certain things they are those of one who fervently hopes that we have seen the last of methods which ’ caused so much dissension, and that I have no desire to resurrect an argument. The type of bowling which caused the Board of Control to cable a protest to M.C.C. was called “bodyline.” Who invented the name I do not know, nor do I care. It was merely a term coined to designate a certain type of bowling, which was, /different from anything used before, and it will probably remain for want of a better term. Who was instrumental in evolving what came to be known as " body-line ” bowling? Again, I do not know, but I do feel certain it was not something that just “ happened." It was certainly thought out and planned beforehand. ■Now, I feel sure that the originator (or originators) of the theory could not have foreseen, could have no conception of, all the trouble it would lead to. Once it was started, however, the position , rather, like that of a backer of horses, who, perhaps in spite of his better judgment, goes on backing and plunging.' Who Was . to Blame? THE next point; Who was responsible for the employment of such tactics? There can be only one answer: the captain. The captain is solely responsible for the control of affairs in the field. A bowler may—and frequently does —desire and suggest that fieldsmen shall take up certain positions, but he must have the approval and consent of the captain for his field placings. It is true that if a bowler does not bowl according to instructions he cannot be treated as a naughty child and made to obey, but a captain can always refuse to allow a man to bowl who will not do as he is told. A great deal of misconception was spread regarding the bowling to which exception was taken. The facts were these. Certain of the England fast bowlers had a cordon of fieldsmen, generally four or five, close in on the leg side. Thev would correspond roughly ■to two short-legs in front of square and three others—corresponding to slip fielders—also on the leg side behind square, while two more were on the boundary—one at square-leg, one midway between square and fine-leg. The off-side fieldsmen consisted sometimes of mid-off, cover, and point, and sometimes only of extra cover and point, with no fielders, behind the wicket. The bowling tactics were to deliver the ball on or outside the leg stump, and mainly so short of a length that it rose to such a height as to make it difficult for the batsman to keep the ball on the ground. The combination of field placing and the length the ball was pitched were the things to which exception was taken. There Was No Middle Course. IT must be obvious to anyone who has ever played cricket that when the majority of deliveries by certain of the fast bowlers were aimed so that they would reach a batsman between the height of the waist and the head, and when those deliveries were mainly on or outside the leg stump, the risk of serious physical injury became of paramount consideration. The short-pitched bumper has been bowled almost since the beginning of over-arm bowling, and will continue to be bowled, but there is a vast difference between an occasional bouncer to an ordinary field and organised attack with a field set purposely for it. Every game subjects those who take part in it to a varying degree of physical hurt or danger, but usually the risk is small, and when an accident does occur it is generally unexpected—and an accident. Against this new form of " bodyline " bowling the risks became so groat that players were threatening ret to play till it was eradicated from the game,

Having got you in such a position, he could then bowl a straight good-length ball at the stumps, and you had not time to get into place to play a correct shot. Whatever you tried to do was of very little avail. Bad as things were where test players and good wickets were concerned, they became far, far worse in lesser cricket. A country yokel with a flair for speed bowling could make conditions on concrete utterly impossible, and with the "new idea” spreading to junior games, ambulances had to be called to attend to injuries sustained through “ bodyline” in local cricket at Sydney and elsewhere. Some matches had to be given up in complete confusion on this account. “ Leg Theory ” is Different. THE ‘protagonists of the theory claimed it to be of the type used by Warwick Armstrong and Fred Root. As Armstrong was a slow bowler and Root a medium-pace bowler, batsmen facing them were in no danger of being injured. I have played against Root, and not once did I have to play a ball from him rising more than waist-high. No, Armstrong and Root bowled “leg theory,” which is quite a different thing from the bowling employed against us in that series of tests. The issue, so far as the Australian players were concerned, was never one between the respective sides—excepting in so far that the English side was using this sort of bowling, the Australian side was not. Those who are in charge of the welfare of cricket must preserve its traditional beauty by confining the rivalry to bat and ball. Happily the cables that passed between the two leading cricket bodies are now things of the past, as are the “rights” or the “wrongs” of certain incidents which took place when England and Australia met in that scries. Cricket is itself again. Next Instalment on Friday,