Talk:Bodyline

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)

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

locations

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The page of Freddie Calthorpe states:

"He captained England in his only four Test matches: on the first ever Test tour of the West Indies in 1929–30, which was drawn 1–1. This tour was played simultaneously to another England Test tour to New Zealand, where England were captained by Harold Gilligan. During the tour, in a speech he gave in Barbados, he condemned the bowling tactic, later known as bodyline, which had been used by the West Indian fast bowler Learie Constantine."

Citations are given as:

4. "Freddie Calthorpe". Cricinfo. Retrieved 19 July 2021.

6. Pelham Warner, "Obituary", The Cricketer, Spring Annual 1936, p. 50.

7. Freddie Calthorpe passes away at the age of 43". cricketcountry.com. Retrieved 23 November 2014.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Calthorpe

Hope that helps! 90.254.102.245 (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

"the first rumblings of World War II beginning"

Isn't that a bit of a stretch? Hitler hadn't even become German Chancellor (30 Jan 33) by the time of Bodyline (Nov 32). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldnt say its a stretch, id say its a plainly rediculous (and very wrong) thing to write. Appears to be sourced to David Frith's book, which would imply Frith was searching for something more dramatic than potential trade drama to frame the issue with. Because it is sourced I am hesitant to delete it out of hand (just read the article and very nearly did before coming here to see if it was on talk...) but unless someone replies here sometime in the next couple of weeks, that rubbish is history. Jaimaster (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if true, it doesn't seem awfully relevant, so I'd remove it. JH (talk page) 10:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Bodyline

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bodyline's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "testlist":

• From Stan McCabe: "Statsguru - SJ McCabe - Tests - Innings by innings list". Cricinfo. Retrieved 2007-01-12.
• From Ian Chappell: "Statsguru - IM Chappell - Test matches - All-round analysis". Cricinfo. Retrieved 2008-04-15.
• From Bill Woodfull: "Statsguru - WM Woodfull - Test matches - All-round analysis". Cricinfo. Retrieved 2008-06-16.
• From Jack Fingleton: "Statsguru - JHW Fingleton - Test matches - All-round analysis". Cricinfo. Retrieved 2008-04-15.
• From Bill Brown (cricketer): "Statsguru - WA Brown - Tests - Innings by innings list". Cricinfo. Retrieved 2007-11-30.

Reference named "pollard":

• From Jack Fingleton: Pollard, Jack (1969). Cricket the Australian Way.
• From Stan McCabe: Pollard, Jack (1969). Cricket the Australian Way. pp. 182–190.
• From Bill Woodfull: Pollard, Jack (1969). Cricket the Australian Way. p. 182.

Reference named "az":

• From Bill Brown (cricketer): Cashman, p. 67.
• From Stan McCabe: Cashman, Franks, Maxwell, Sainsbury, Stoddart, Weaver, Webster (1997). The A-Z of Australian cricketers. pp. 197–198.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• From Jack Fingleton: Cashman, pp. 92–93.
• From Bill Woodfull: Cashman, Franks, Maxwell, Sainsbury, Stoddart, Weaver, Webster (1997). The A-Z of Australian cricketers. pp. 322–323.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Injuries

A statement is made in the introduction that

‘Although several batsmen were hit during the series, as would be expected, no one was hit while a leg theory field was set’ I have two queries

1. I have often heard this said, but is it true? I accept that the two pieces of film of injuries happening – to Woodfull and Oldfied were not the result of bodyline, but are there really no other instances of a blow being taken by a batsman, perhaps not on film? It seems hard to believe, especially as the article itself quotes a specific further instance:

"Bradman countered Bodyline by moving toward the leg side, away from the line of the ball, and cutting it into the vacant off side field. Whilst this was dubious in terms of batting technique,it seemed the best way to cope with the barrage, and Bradman averaged 56.57 in the series (an excellent average for most, but well short of his career average of 99.94), while being struck above the waist by the ball only once"

2. Notwithstanding this point, I believe it to be an undisputed fact that no major injuries were caused by bodyline. Why then is this fact not reflected in the article? E.g.

so despite the fractured skull you really want to leave this as no serious injury? the tone of this article at least to me sounds like an English apologist for "Leg Theory" rather than the accepted Bodyline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iowastate (talk • contribs) 19:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are there two photos of Oldfield’s non-bodyline injury?

The article says ‘The English team continued to bowl Bodyline in the remaining two Tests, but slower pitches meant the Australians, although frequently bruised, sustained no further serious injuries. ‘ Bodyline caused no injuries so the expression ‘further injuries’ is inappropriate. Also, who were the individuals who were brused? Again , this contradicts the intoduction.

The article also says "[Woodfull] flatly refused to employ retaliatory tactics and did not publicly complain even though he and his men were repeatedly hit"

Overall, I fear the tone of the article is at risk of perpetuating a myth that Australians were being battered to death by brutal colonial masters. An alternative narrative is that the Australian public were whipped up into a frenzy of moral disapproval over an innovative tactical ploy which the Australian team found difficult to counter.

--John Price (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the truth lies somewhere between those two extremes. What seems to have done more than anything to cause Australian condemnation was that Jardine switched to a Bodyline field immediately after Woodfull was hit. With only a few newsreel snippets and press reports to go on (and there were only two English reporters plus the PA covering the tour IIRC), the English cricket-loving public at first was inclined to dismiss the Australian complaints, but opinion tended to change after West Indies used it against England the following summer and people got a better idea of what it involved. IIRC the editor of Wisden at the time was particularly condemnatory. JH (talk page) 09:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of cowardice?

"Some English players felt that Bradman was a coward who was afraid to stand his ground against intimidatory bowling, citing instances in 1930 when he shuffled about, contrary to orthodox batting technique." Not too sure about this. Which English players? Where did they say this? Possibly Jardine and Larwood, but anyone else? Also, I'm not aware of any examples of his shuffling about in 1930 except where he backed away at the Oval on a rain affected pitch where Larwood, Tate and Hammond made the ball kick. His unorthodox technique was limited to the Bodyline series and the beginning of the 1934 series. David Frith gives a few other instances of Bradman struggling against extreme pace (e.g. Sandy Bell, Eddie Gilbert; Jack Fingleton not too complimentary) but not sure that any players commented on this. There may also have been comments after Bodyline, but not by too many players: again, mainly Larwood and Jardine. No other English players said anything too inflammatory in public and most seem to have been silently opposed. If there are no objections, I will alter the article to take out the above quote. I've already added the instances of Bradman finding pace tricky in describing the development of the Bodyline plan.--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the Haigh and Frith p 70 says that Bradman hopped, at least at The Oval, and cites a private letter that Gubby sent home to his dad in 32/33 when he called Bradman a "little coward". the article does not say that they explicitly called him a coward YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 07:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Did Constantine use Bodyline in 1929-30?

An interesting article here suggesting that Learie Constantine might have been the first truly fast bowler to use Bodyline in Tests, back in 1929-30. JH (talk page) 18:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sentence Tampering?

"Australia lost heavily by ten wickets in the First Test at Sydney, when the bowling spearhead of Bodyline, Harold Larwood, took ten wickets" This sentence does not read well- it looks as though something has been edited out without re-casting the rest. I am going to look at the source and then rewite it.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I've re-read it and think that the sentence does make sense after all. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. JH (talk page) 10:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Additions from Trove

I have reverted the additions from earlier today which use http://trove.nla.gov.au/ to add some newspaper reports and letters. While these are good sources and the information is true, I think that the sourcing currently in the article is better than that from a contemporary newspaper (for example, Frith frequently cites newspaper articles by cricketers from the time) and the information added is already in the article elsewhere. Similarly, I think the addition of "which was criticised when introduced to English county cricket in 1932" to the first sentence puts far too much weight on its use in county cricket. This should be only a minor aspect of the article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What happened about the proposed film in 2006?

Does anyone know why it was not made? Is there any chance it will be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.7.203.25 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bodyline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613015314/http://lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-41-the-fielder,67,AR.html to http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-41-the-fielder,67,AR.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060621063913/http://www.334notout.com:80/bodyline/history1.htm to http://www.334notout.com/bodyline/history1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060918032315/http://www.atmitchell.com/journeys/social/cricket/bodyline/bodyline.cfm to http://www.atmitchell.com/journeys/social/cricket/bodyline/bodyline.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bodyline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-41-the-fielder%2C67%2CAR.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130105121449/http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play%2C68%2CAR.html to http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play%2C68%2CAR.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

"Bodyline" or "bodyline"

Please visit Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#.22Bodyline.22_or_.22bodyline.22 --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

TFA reruns

Dweller has suggested we throw this article into the pile of potential TFA reruns (currently being developed at User:Dank/Sandbox/2). Any objections? Any cleanup needed? I see there are 3 dead or dubious links - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

This does need a little clean up. It's basically good, but just needs to be tidied in places, such as the long strings of references. Also if there are any cricket people watching, does it make sense for us to actually have at the beginning something that says what bodyline was? A definition appears in the lead, but not then until the "In Australia" section. I'm also a little dubious about the Jardine section. YellowMonkey added this many years ago, but the more I think about it, the less I'm convinced that this belongs in the Bodyline article. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Sarastro1. Talk page watchers: Dweller is taking a break from Wikipedia. I want to honor his request, and I agree that the first day of The Ashes is a good time to run this. Unless I hear otherwise, I'll assume it will be in good enough shape to run it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Dank it should be, and I hope to get that clean-up done in the next week. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bodyline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003154646/http://www.umpires.tv/courses/courses_umpiring_descriptions.html to http://www.umpires.tv/courses/courses_umpiring_descriptions.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Flag burning in the mini series

I'm not going to make this change in the article because it's not sourced, but I believe the flag burning did not take place at the Sydney Cricket Ground. It took place at the Adelaide Oval in the immediate aftermath of the felling on Bert Oldfield during the third test. Sydney's two tests were the first and the fifth. 2001:8003:5901:B400:75D7:E522:DA67:A4FD (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2004–2009

This article was checked as part of the Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2004–2009. The article is well maintained, fully referenced, appears to have been copyedited for a rerun of TFA and there are no outstanding talk page issues. Logged as satisfactory. Desertarun (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)