Talk:Bodyline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Bodyline is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 7, 2005.
This article is considered to fall outside the scope of the Version 0.5 test release, which is of limited size. It is now being held ready for a later version.
Bodyline is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
cricket ball
Cricket Portal
Click here for information about how the WikiProject assesses notability
Bodyline is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Flag
Portal
 Bodyline is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been selected for the featured article queue of the Australia Portal.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Misc

It's just so cool when stuff like this shows up. It should probably be titled Leg theory in cricket, though, so that I know it's about cricket, and can avoid it, rather than being curious, reading it, and then saying silly stuff in talk.

OK, I am too lazy to look this up and cite references, but even I know that "leg theory" != "bodyline". Leg theory had been around for ages before the bodyline series, and was a relatively harmless thing, which never became controversial. Bodyline was leg theory on uppers. Leg theory was a dubiously effective way to get batsmen out, bodyline was a frighteningly effective way to knock them out. Both used leg side fields and focussed on delivering the ball accordingly, but that aside, they were utterly different. A leg theory field was well spread, a bodyline field in close. Leg theory bowling could be at any pace and any length, where bodyline was all about short-pitched fast bowling intended to injure the batsman, or else force him to defend himself in such a way that he got out. Tannin

Bodyline was more than leg theory. it was a deliberate attempt to injure australian players, becuase the english were embarrassed at being so bad at a game they invented. it was cheating. 60.229.13.82 20:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, IIRC. Though the original name for bodyline was "fast leg theory". It was definitely an inspiration. Wanna clean this page up? --Robert Merkel

OK. I was planning to do another heavy theoretical sociology thing tonight, but it's too hot to do hard stuff. There seem to be two possibilities: (a) go through and completely rewrite it from the start, or (b) cross out "leg theory" and write in "bodyline" several times, leaving a reasonable (if stubbish) article on bodyline (which can be moved over to that title - it's vastly more famous than "leg theory"). Option (b) is much better, I think.

Leg theory could then become a seperate article which is actually about leg theory, but it's probably better to just describe leg theory as a paragraph in the bodyline article, I doubt that there is enough meat in the subject to merit an entire entry all to itself.

Now, a procedural question: what's the best way to do this? I can just cut & paste, but it would be better to delete bodyline first (it's just a redirect with no history or talk) and then rename this one to bodyline, wouldn't it? Tannin

Still need (a) to include a background para on leg theory, and (b) an explanation of the way that the English use of the the term "fast leg theory" to describe what was, in fact, bodyline led to much misunderstanding - notably the way that the authorities at home in England (in those pre-television days) thought that the Australians were, for some incomprehensible reason, complaining about a perfectly ordinary tactic that had been around for years and issued statements accordingly, which were then interpreted by the Australians as blandly supporting manifestly unfair and dangerous play. Hence the huge controversy. But probably not tonight. If anyone else wants to jump in and do this, be my guest. Tannin 13:44 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] picture

whats with the hapy faces in the picture? is it vandalism?Bawolff 00:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Smiley face picture disapeared. Bawolff 00:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

A good article. But shouldn't some mention be made of the fact that bodyline was used as a tactic in series other than the Eng/Aus one? I think (?) it was used in a tour to India (where similar problems arose) and Wiki itself says that the WI used it against Eng in '33. Leg theory.

Also, what evidence is there that Larwood was 'vilified' in the UK? I daresay he was, but an example of the vilification would be nice (such as the example of the defacing the statue to illustrate Australian ill-feeling) Monk Bretton 00:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes; excellent article - but on the origins ... I remember a BBC docu-drama (late 80s?) about Jardine and the the bodyline series. Included a scene where Jardine defended himself to the Australian press by pointing out that he had been at the receiving end of such bowling in English County cricket well before the tour and he hadn't whined. But I can't offer a real source. --Cje 20:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Larwood was "vilified" in the UK. The English loved the success of the tour and defended themselves against Australian whinging, although there was unease in the 1933 season as Bodyline was seen in England. Jardine himself was a good player of Bodyline, who made his only Test century when facing it (I think I added this to the article itself). And it is true to say that leg theory had been around before the Bodyline Tests - the difference was that it was bowled much faster and with much greater effect in the Bodyline Tests than it ever had been before. Nor was Jardine universally hated (although many did take a dislike to him). He was determined to act as a Gentleman (according to his own understanding of the term), and his behaviour reflects this: for example, he stood aside as captain rather than let the MCC depose him (or risk selecting him to captain against Australia again). He had a stand named after him at the Oval, where he captained Surrey - the stand was demolished last year to make way for the new OCS stand, so he now only has a block of seats named after him (many other Surrey greats have similarly been honoured), jguk 21:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Woodfull's famous quote

The sources I've read seem to disagree on the exact words of the quote. Some have it the way it is in the article, but in the documentary I watched Woodfull's son quotes his father as saying: "There are two teams out there, and only one is playing cricket. The other is making no attempt to do so". I'm not sure if there have been any previous discussion on this subject, but should this be mentioned in the article? Raven4x4x 04:43, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

As with any other quotation that was not taped at the time, various versions of it abound (and almost certainly the most polished versions are just that - polished). The exact words are unknown, but the gist most certainly isn't. Since this is true of all quotations before the broadcast era (and particularly those not pre-scripted), it's not worth mentioning this fact here, jguk 21:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I would disagree. IMHO, we have to make clear it's an unrecorded quote and it's not clear exactly what he said. We don't have have to explain this in detail, just make it clear it's not an exact quote. Perhaps just say Woodfull is reputed to have said or something like that Nil Einne 18:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about picture

According to the caption in the picture at the top, it's Fingleton who is ducking the bouncer. Does anyone have any source for that? I ask because the same picture is in Charles Williams' "Bradman", and there it's claimed to be Woodfull ducking a delivery by Larwood in the Fourth Test.

The batsman is captioned as Fingleton in this photo in Bodyline Autopsy. I can get a page reference when I get home... -dmmaus 06:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Oops! You know what, it is indeed Woodfull according to the caption on page 277. That's my fault, I'm afraid. I'll fix it. -dmmaus 08:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My changes

I've made several changes, largely with info from the Douglas Jardine article. While none of this is source and I don't really know much about the controvery myself it doesn't really conflict with any info here so I'm assuming it's true. While I know we tend to dislike repeating too much info, IMHO what I added and changed was too important to leave out from this article. Specifically, it appears the Oldfield incident wasn't the direct result of bodyline as it wasn't being used at the time AND it appears even Oldfield admitted it was his fault. (Indeed if you look at the Oldfield picture it doesn't look like they were using bodyline because the catchers/slips are not in the right positions). I've tried to make this clear and fixed the captions as well which appeared to suggest it was the because of the delivery. Potentially Oldfield, intimidated and/or injured by bodyline wasn't batting in his usual style and so it may have indirectly caused the incident however this is a different issue (you can mention it if you want but IMHO it isn't necessary). Also, I think we need to mention that Jardine maintains it was not the intention to injure (this of course doesn't mean it wasn't dangerous) and that he evidently sent sympathies to Oldfield via various channels (according to the Jardine article). I did change the sympathies bit because Oldfield's injury wasn't directly caused by bodyline (as discussed earlier) but the way it was structured suggested it was. Nil Einne 18:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lardwood issue

I think the Lardwood issue above needs clarification especially given this is FA. Was he really vilified in England after the tournament? Jardine doesn't appear to have been. The Larwood article doesn't say he moved to Australia because he was vilified or that he was vilified either. Nil Einne 18:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top importance

I added this to top-importance. As stated in my comment, given the wide reaching ramifications and that it was rated the most significant event in cricket's history in 2004, it would seem a far assessment to me but this is my first importance assessment and my cricketing knowledge is fairly limited so if anyone feels it should be only high you're welcome to change it (I assume it would be at least high) Nil Einne 18:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations needed??

Oh for crying out loud... there is a plague of people going through Wikipedia adding "citation needed" tags to every bloody sentence that doesn't have a cite. There are references listed at the bottom of the article - that's where all this stuff comes from! Do we really need to go through and replace all those flaming idiotic "citation needed" tags with an explicit cite to the same book, 50 times in the one article?? I started doing that, but realised it would look stupid and petty, and be vandalising Wikipedia to get my point across. So I decided to ask here for someone with a cooler head to resolve this in a more sensible manner. For the record, every one of those "citations needed"s is in Frith's Bodyline Autopsy. -dmmaus 22:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the Hugh Buggy info mentioned in Autopsy ? Fingleton in "Cricket Crisis" attributes it to Jack Worrall. I guess Cricket Crisis should be somewhat outdated by now, but for something as confusing as this, we should mention a better source than 334notout.com. Tintin (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, I've only just discovered the Featured Article delisting and the reasons for it. I'll add citations for everything I can when I get home from work tonight. And yes, Hugh Buggy is in Autopsy. -dmmaus 22:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through and added a lot of references. Unfortunately I can't find specific cites for these two statements:

In retrospect, this event is seen by many as the first step in breaking down the class distinction in English cricket. Douglas Jardine always defended his tactics and in the book he wrote about the tour, In Quest of the Ashes, described allegations that the England bowlers directed their attack with the intention of causing physical harm as stupid and patently untruthful.

I wrote these into the article originally, and I wouldn't have done it without a reference, so I'm sure they are in Bodyline Autopsy somewhere. However that book has a poor index and after an hour of flipping pages I need a break. If someone else can find them, please add them, and then we should be able to get this relisted as a Featured Article. -dmmaus 08:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The second sentence has a reference in it, namely In Quest of the Ashes. I have a copy of that, so I can look up some page references for it. If we have to lose the first sentence, which is an opinion that I am not sure is widely held, then so be it. jguk 13:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Cool, I was hoping someone had Jardine's book. And yeah, if we need to lose the other sentence, it's not a huge loss. I think the important thing is to get this relisted as Featured. -dmmaus 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
FWIW< I would agree with losing the first sentence, as at the least it's a very debatable point. You could argue that in his ruthlessness Jardine was more like a professional captain than a typical amateur. JH 09:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fielders behind square leg

I added this link as the reference for it, and then noticed that the article says that the law was changed after "about 25 years", ie. c.1960. Acscricket.com has the 1952 and 1970 revisions (2nd and 4th editions) at http://acscricket.com/Articles/2/2352.html but no 3rd edition. Does anyone know whether the law was changed in the 3rd edition itself ? Tintin (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In the County Championship an Experimental Rule was introduced in 1957 that limited leg-side fielders to five, with at most two behind the popping crease. By 1963, and possibly earlier, this seems to have extended to all matches, in the form of Experuimental Note 3 to Law 44. The timing makes me think that it may have had more to do with the difficulties Laker's leg-trap posed for Australia in 1956 than to Bodyline. JH 18:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
John, can you please change the current reference with that of the earliest Wisden that mentions it. Tintin (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] locations

We need to add the locations of the English tour 1932–33. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article

We seem to have all the necessary citations in now. When/how can this be reinstated as a FA? --Dweller 12:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did propose reinstating the FARC, but that seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Renominate at FAC? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominating Bodyline for FA status once more

I have renominated Bodyline. I had to fiddle with the links somewhat because of its former FA status. I hope I've not screwed anything up. --Dweller 09:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larwood and Voce in Australia

Should we not add that Larwood later emigrated to Australia, and that Larwood and Voce were both given a warm reception when they came onto the field during the centenary Test in 1977?

Another interesting titbit is that when Bradman was top dog at the ACB he once showed a film to a group of people to give an illustration of a fast bowler who chucks. It was only on reversing the film that the audience realised he was playing a clip of Larwood! (History of Australian Cricket is a reference for this one:) )jguk 19:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original nom restored

I restored the original nom in the templates at the top of the talk page - the diffs/history may confuse future editors, but with the move and redirect eliminating the former nom, I'm not sure how else to fix it: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bodyline/archive1 - at least the templates above now link to all of the pieces. Sandy (Talk) 20:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dissenting bowler

I'm sure I read in The Cricketer some years ago that one of Jardine's bowlers refused to bowl "Bodyline". Anyone know who that was? It would be a useful addition to the article. --Dweller 20:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The bowler was Gubby Allen. See Crinfo and also Gubby Allen. As an amateur, he was in a better position to refuse to bowl Bodyline than the professionals were, as he wouldn't be risking his livelihood if defying his captain impacted adversely on his cricket career. (Though Larwood, for one, seems greatly to have admired Jardine and to have had no reservations about Bodyline.) JH 20:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Might be worth adding to the article, though we should only do so when we have a citation for it, given we're up for FA renomination right now. -dmmaus 22:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Won't the Cricinfo link that I gave do? Surely Cricinfo is regarded as a reliable source? If not, I can probably find a book that mentions it. JH 09:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree that Cricinfo is a reliable source. Is this a "Trivia" type piece, to sit at the bottom, or is that deemed unworthy styling for a FA? --Dweller 10:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I've found a reference in Bodyline Autopsy and added it in the main flow of the article. It works there better than as an afterthought "trivia" item. -dmmaus 11:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Nice. Good collaborative work - that's what WP is all about. Thanks. Good too (to avoid POV) to show a contemporary dissenting English voice. --Dweller 11:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I've edited out the word "lone" before "voice of dissent", as the Nawab of Pataudi was also a dissenter, though since he was not a bowler his dissent was less significant. I had vaguely recalled this, and his Wiki article confirms it. JH 18:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A bit more on dissenting players. I had a look in EW Swanton's Sort of a Cricket Person, and found this: Though this was not known at home until they returned, the majority of the side, while maintaioning a united front in public, also deplored Bodyline in private. In addition to Warner and Allen, Bob Wyatt, the vice-captain, also opposed it. So did Walter Hammond and Les Ames, for instance, among the professionals, and the remaining amateurs, Freddie Brown and the Nawab of Pataudi... I could add the gist of this to the article, with the reference, if this was thought a good idea. JH 09:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say add that. It's a very interesting point and I think it adds something of substance to the article. -dmmaus 22:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I put in something, including Swanton's mention of Bob Wyatt as one of the dissenting players. However I see that earlier in the section we say: The English players first tried their tactic in a first-class tour match against an Australian XI in Melbourne on 18-22 November, a game in which Jardine rested and gave the captaincy duties to his deputy Bob Wyatt. It seems improbable that Wyatt would have employed Bodyline if he was opposed to it, which suggests that either (a) Swanton was wrong or (b) Bodyline was not in fact used in that game or (c) Wyatt was not the captain. Can anyone throw any light on this? JH 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Bodyline Autopsy definitely says Wyatt was captain and Bodyline was used. A quote from Wyatt:
In that match we did for part of the time operate the leg theory; although not in so concentrated a form as it was used later. We noticed Bradman was decidedly uncomfortable when he played this type of bowling from Larwood... Afterwards I told Jardine what had happened. - Some of it was Cricket, Frank Browne (Murray, 1965).
Two other options: (d) Wyatt opposed Bodyline, but was subservient to Jardine who ordered him to use it in the match in which Wyatt captained, (e) Wyatt changed his opinion from support to opposition as the tour progressed. I don't have time to trawl the book to find out more right now. -dmmaus 08:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the possibility of (e) had subsequently occurred to me, and is perhaps the most likely explanation. JH 09:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to commend JH and dmmaus for some really excellent detail-focussed work on this important angle. --Dweller 10:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I've enjoyed it. JH 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New paragraph on the early history

What do people think about the paragraph that has just been added by someone. It doesn't quote its source, and it seems wrong to me. Constantine and Martindale (who made some use of Boidyline on the WI tour of England in 1933) came after Gregory and Macdonald, not before them. Also Gregory and Macdonald made more use of the bouncer than earlier fast bowlers had done, but I've never before seen it suggested that they bowled leg theory. (Their captain, Armstrong, I believe bowled it on occasion to slow down the scoring, but he wasn't a fast bowler.) JH 10:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems dodgy to me. I'm going to remove it to here pending references to back it up.
It is interesting to note that leg-theory bowling originated in the West Indies shortly before the Great War. It was taken to Australia by fast bowlers Constantine and Martindale with a West Indies touring team. It was then brought to England by the Australians in the persons of the fast-bowling pair Gregory and MacDonald.
It's not good adding unsubstantiated material to a featured article! -dmmaus 22:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

This is a really great article, thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Well done everyone!! ROxBo 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DVD Cover Image

I have a question about the fairuse rationale for the DVD cover image used in this article. The image's pages clearly says that to qualify as fair use, it must be used "to illustrate the DVD in question." That is certainly not the case here. I know we've been getting blasted for fair use violations on the Cricket World Cup article the last few days, but I think this is a clear problem. Any thoughts?--Eva bd 14:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance rating

I see that the importance rating has just been reduced from Top to Mid. That seems too low to me. I can't see how it could possibly be any lower than High. But given that Bodyline was almost certainly the most notorious of all cricket controversies, and that the British and Australian governments got sucked in, with fears being expressed that Australia might even secede from the Empire, then I think it should revert to Top. JH (talk page) 19:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree this should be Top importance for WP:Cricket. As noted further above, Bodyline was voted as the most significant event in cricket history by a panel of cricket experts in 2004. The most significant event in the entire history of a sport surely has to rate as Top importance. -dmmaus 21:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, after reviewing the WP:Cricket Importance assessment criteria, it seems that Bodyline can be rated no higher than "mid" importance under those criteria. So, as illogical as this seems, it is correct under the current assessment rules. -dmmaus 23:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Departure date

For what it's worth, the 75th anniversary of the start of the tour is coming up. I notice that the article states that the English team "left for Australia in October 1932", whereas the Daily Telegraph's story today puts the date at September 17 ("It was on September 17, 1932 that the Orient line steamship, the SS Orontes, left Tilbury bound for Australia, with the English side on board". [1] I expect that the Telegraph is dead wrong, although it is possible that both statements are correct, but the reference provided for Wikipedia's fact requires a registration. Also, it would be great if the matches in the tour could be dated. -Ashley Pomeroy 12:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

CricketArchive has the first match on the tour beginning on 21st October. Given the length of time that the sea voyage to Australia would have taken, I suspect that the Telegraph is correct. JH (talk page) 18:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I've found a reference to the departure date in a book by John Arlott, which agrees with the Telegraph. JH (talk page) 10:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008 citation needed

Someone really needs to help out and cite that line. No featured article should have such a tag for an extended period of time. My limited knowledge of the sport indicates that the statement is true, but we need someone with access to real rules to verify properly. -- trlkly 07:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now addressed this. Hopefully people will be happy with what I've done. The important distinction made in Law 42 is between an occasional use of a short-pitched ball, which is legal, and persistent use, which is not. JH (talk page) 08:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)