However, a little research revealed that in 1928, four years earlier, he bowled 834 overs for 2,003 runs, and a short mathematical calculation will reveal slightly greater accuracy in 1928 than in 1932.
But a far more important matter is this. If body-line is allowed in first-class cricket, it must be allowed in all forms of cricket. One bowler cannot have a monopoly of a theory. For this reason, I again quote Larwood from his book. “If it really was body-line, bowling would be really dangerous to the batsmen.”
When the personnel of the English Team to tour Australia in 1932–33 was announced, I foresaw the possibility of trouble because of the abnormal selection in England’s team of four fast bowlers.
Body-line was first used against me in a match on the Melbourne Cricket Ground between the M.C.C. and an Australian XI. I reported privately to certain cricket administrators that, in my opinion, there would be serious trouble unless the matter was dealt with quickly. Then after the First Test had been played in Sydney, Dr. E. P. Barbour reviewed the game and made a very strong appeal for the elimination of this new type of bowling. He made the following comment:—
“The deliberate banging of the ball down less than half-way so that it flies up round the batsman’s head is not cricket. If continued, and extended to all grades of cricket as they should be if they are fair, the end result of such tactics will be the disappearance from first-class cricket of every champion after he has put up with three or four years of assault and battery. Perhaps a more serious aspect still is the imminent danger to the good fellowship and friendly rivalry that has always been associated with cricket.”
Up to this time the cricket administrators had not been sufficiently impressed with the views of players to make any move.
I always visualised the misunderstanding which would arise if exception was taken to body-line bowling at a time when we were being defeated. It was for that reason I again privately, but very forcibly, expressed my views to certain authorities, after the Melbourne Test Match which we won.
Here was the psychological moment, if any action at all was to be taken, to let M.C.C. know Australia’s views.
I thought then, and I think now, that Australia’s great mistake was in not dispassionately making an effort to clear up misunderstandings when the Tests were one all. It was ultimately done in the heat of battle at a much less appropriate time.
It must be admitted that although the Australian players and most ex-players strongly condemned the new type of bowling at once, this unanimity did not occur so readily amongst cricket officials, many of whom accused our players of squealing. One State Cricket Association had a motion brought before it to the effect that “The Association disassociate itself with the action of the Board in sending the first cable to England.” The motion was defeated by only one vote.
The action of the Board of Control and the cables which passed at that time are now history.
The Australian Board appointed a Committee consisting of Messrs. Roger Hartigan, M. A. Noble, W. M. Woodfull and Vic. Richardson to report on what action was required to eliminate such bowling from cricket. The Committee framed a suggested new rule which was duly sent to the M.C.C. for approval, but up to that time the M.C.C. still had no evidence.
When the West Indian Team visited England in 1933, they had two excellent fast bowlers in Martindale and Constantine, who tried out Jardine’s theory in the Second Test Match at Manchester. One result was that Hammond “had his chin laid open by one of many short-pitched rising balls” (Wisden 1934). Hammond is reported to have said then and there that either this type of bowling must be abolished or he would retire from first-class cricket.
Jack Hobbs made a similar threat after his experience against Bowes in 1932. A humorous sidelight was the reversal of opinion by players when they themselves had to face it.
George Duckworth thought body-line against Australians quite in order. On returning to England in 1933 he gave lectures and said so. That was before Lancashire met Nottingham.
Then it became a different story. Photos were taken of Duckworth’s bruises and used as exhibits.
Lancashire broke off diplomatic relations with Notts. and refused to play against them in the County Championship.
Retribution if you like! Fifty years earlier Notts. had declined to play Lancashire because the latter team had amongst its players one whose action Notts. considered unfair.
The M.C.C. took steps to investigate the position, and at a joint meeting of the Advisory County Cricket Committee and the Board of Control of Test matches at home, held at Lord’s in November 1933, it was agreed that any form of bowling “which is obviously a direct attack by the bowler upon the batsman” would be an offence against the spirit of the game. It was decided to leave the matter to the captains. This principle was affirmed by the Imperial Cricket Conference in July 1934.
However, this did not suffice, for the same type of bowling still persisted. In November 1934 the M.C.C. issued a communication indicating that “as a result of their own observations and from reports received, the M.C.C. Committee consider that there is evidence that cases of the bowler making a direct attack upon the batsman have on occasions taken place during the last cricket season.”
In order to eliminate this type of bowling from the game, the M.C.C. Committee ruled: “That the type of bowling regarded as a direct attack by the bowler upon the batsman, and therefore unfair, consists in persistent and systematic bowling of fast short-pitched balls at the batsman standing clear of his wicket.”
I have gone to some length to detail what occurred because I want to establish the all-important point that Australia did not stop body-line bowling. Certainly the original protest came from Australia (if we exclude Sir Pelham Warner’s first comment) simply because Australian batsmen were the first ones exposed to its dangers. But immediately the M.C.C. Committee were satisfied that such a type of bowling existed, they acted promptly and firmly to define it and to outline the procedure to be adopted by the umpires to stop it.
Larwood himself was very critical of Australia’s attempts to legislate against this type of cricket, and he wrote: “Cricket ought to be eternally grateful that its laws are made by the M.C.C.” I hope he is still of the same opinion.
Could Body-line be Mastered?
I doubt if this question can be authoritatively answered.
It was used consistently for only one season against the same players, and nobody mastered it. A batsman who played defensively would certainly get caught by one of the short-leg fieldsmen. To try to hook the ball would result sooner or later in a catch on the boundary. Neither defence nor attack could overcome it for long, unless the batsman was particularly lucky.
Playing the good length balls and dodging the others may sound all right in theory, but it would not work in practice. The batsman doing this must of necessity be hit.
In fact no Australian batsman of any note failed to get hit, some on many occasions. Players naturally began to take the view that there were other sports offering many of the attractions of cricket without the risk of serious injury.
After his retirement from Test cricket, Hammond wrote about body-line, and I greatly admired his forthright condemnation thereof. Remember that Hammond was a member of the English Team which used it, and later became Captain of England. This is what he said:—
“I
