80 years since Bodyline

[unrepentant]

80 years ago this month Harold Larwood was giving it to the Convicts. They've been whinging ever since.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshi...

Larwood was possibly the most unfairly villified figure in the history of English sport. We could do with more of his ilk.

[chimster]

unrepentant said:

80 years ago this month Harold Larwood was giving it to the Convicts. They've been whinging ever since.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshi...

Larwood was possibly the most unfairly villified figure in the history of English sport. We could do with more of his ilk.

Wasn't his fault either. Just bowling to instructions. He was good enough to bowl 'properly' and get wickets I would suggest. Aussies are st losers nothing new there then..

[Hammer67]

Never bowled a wide ~ amazing if correct. Different era of course but still an impressive stat. Bodyline was a legitimate tactic and worked, should still be legal today IMO.

[chimster]

The continual bowling at the body on that line with pace and fields set is not a particularly exciting prospect. The point about Larwood and Voce was that they were quick. They were excellent bowlers in their own right and could have got their wickets 'legitimately'. I think I am right in saying that it was our concern over Bradman ie he was just too prolific with the bat that led us down this route. The bouncer as a shock ball is much better to watch in my view. However you can't blame Jardine (although many purists did) for trying a new approach to counter Bradman and it worked!

[suthol]

unrepentant said:

80 years ago this month Harold Larwood was giving it to the Convicts. They've been whinging ever since.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshi...

Larwood was possibly the most unfairly villified figure in the history of English sport. We could do with more of his ilk.

Vilified by your lot, but he had the sense to move to a more civilised country, was made welcome and lived out his years.

[uk66fastback]

Surely it's still legal ... short balls aimed at a batsman slightly on leg side - only thing is - only two fielders allowed behind square on the leg side - you could still bowl THAT line but you'd have no-one there to catch the fend-offs ...

Don't think these balls were over head height so no chance of being called for excessive bouncers ... as the West Indies bowled in the 70s and 80s with their four quicks.

None of this going off all the time as these days - Larry Gomes or Clive Lloys might have got an over if Andy Roberts had ripped his boots etc but other than that - no daft subs so some lanky bowler could get a *rub down* and a clean shirt!