80 years ago, Bodyline ended and English cricket enjoyed a triumph

28 February 2013

Today, February 28th 2013, is the 80th anniversary of the conclusion to one of the finest – and certainly the most controversial – test series ever played. Eighty years ago today, Wally Hammond and Bob Wyatt put on 125 for the third wicket as England strolled to an eight wicket win at Sydney. This capped a remarkable winter for the tourists and sealed a crushing 4-1 series victory. It remains one of English cricket’s greatest foreign triumphs.

Rarely before and rarely since has pure theory been so completely matched to the needs of applied cricket. No wonder Douglas Robert Jardine is still remembered as arguably the finest captain to ever lead an English side into cricketing battle and Harold Larwood still celebrated as perhaps the finest fast-bowler who ever took the fight to the Australians.

This, of course, was the Bodyline series. No other confrontation has provoked such controversy or inspired such a literature. DR Jardine may no longer be the most hated man in Australia but even 80 years later few Australians are minded to afford him the benefit of the doubt.

Not that the great man would have it any other way. The old Scots Covenanting motto “Christ and no quarter” could be said to apply to Jardine’s approach too. And since Jardine, like so many great Englishmen, wasn’t English at all I like to think his soul was infused with a measure of his Scotch ancestors’ presbyterian certitude and rigour.

The term “Bodyline” demonstrates the power of what political consultants these days call “framing”. Bodyline sounds so much more threatening, so much more venal, so much more not-in-the-spirit-of-cricket than “fast leg-theory”. Be that as it may, fast leg-theory was what it was and leg-theory was hardly a recent innovation. By some measures it had existed for a quarter of a century before Jardine ever unleashed Larwood upon an unsuspecting and easily-offended Australian public.

The difference was accuracy. Inaccurate Bodyline bowling might frighten a batsman but, provided he kept his wits (and his eye on the ball), it need not imperil his wicket far less, as sometimes suggested (chiefly by Australians) his life. Larwood, almost uniquely amongst  its practitioners, had that accuracy. Though 16 of his 33 wickets in the series were bowled, his ability to make the ball rise from back of a length on the unresponsive Australian pitches of the era was remarkable.

Amidst the controversy of supposedly targeting the batsman’s body in preference to his stumps it is sometimes forgotten that despite all this Australia, who had the advantage of batting first in four of the five tests, were able to post respectable, though not daunting, scores in their first innings. First-innings scores of 360, 228, 222, 340 and 435 were countered by English totals of 524, 169, 341, 356 and 454. In the first of these, of course, Bradman was absent and Australia won the second test thanks to a century from the Don and 10 wickets from O’Reilly. In four of the five tests England enjoyed a half-time advantage but only twice was this a large supremacy. (It was the second innings what won it: Australia never passed 200 in their sophomore innings.)

All of which serves to remind us that one of the reasons this proved an epic series was that Australia fielded a terrific side themselves.

It is also sometimes forgotten how good Woodfull’s Australian side was. A lack of fast-bowling was its only weakness. Nevertheless Australia’s doughty skipper could, at various times, call on the talents of McCabe, Ponsford, Richardson, Kippax, O’Reilly and Grimmet. And then there was Bradman. Ordinarily his presence ensured that, effectively, Australia pitted 12 players against the opposition’s 11. Jardine’s challenge – and his achievement – was to even the odds. Reduce Bradman to mere mortal status and the game would revert to the traditional 11 vs 11.

And he did it. By god he did it. Many people attempted to solve the Bradman Problem; Jardine was the only man to do so. Even then it was, like Waterloo, a damn close run thing. Of the many brain-boggling statistics demonstrating Bradman’s pre-eminence one of the most startling is that while he made 29 test centuries he was only 13 times dismissed between 50 and 100. That is, having reached 50 Bradman was, over the course of his career, more than twice as likely to make a century as not.  No-one has ever matched this.

Claim your gift

Recall the scale of the challenge Jardine faced. In 1930 Bradman had flayed England for 974 runs at an average of 139. He made seven test innings that summer and reached at least a century in four of them. The following Australian summer he skelped the South Africans for 806 runs at an average of 201. His five innings that summer produced four centuries. As Percy Fender, Jardine’s captain at Surrey, had said in 1930 “something new will have to be introduced to curb Bradman”.

And Jardine had to find that something new for a series to be played on dull Australian pitches and in conditions unlikely to prove conducive to swing bowling. The prevailing conditions – including a still-batsman-friendly LBW law – dictated English tactics almost as much as did the need to counter Bradman. The ball would be softening after no more than 15 overs; allowing the Australian batsmen the freedom of the off-side would have been an invitation to make hay. Bodyline was a means of rebalancing the game, chipping away at the in-built advantage batsmen enjoyed at the time and (especially) in those Australian conditions.

Even so and even all these 80 years later there remains something gasp-inducingly cold about Jardine’s captaincy and tactics. Steve Waugh, another tough cookie, said his side’s goal was to reduce the opposition to a state of “psychological disintegration”. Australian commentators purred at this, conveniently forgetting how they loathed Jardine for applying precisely the same principle to his cricket. But Waugh was a piker in comparison with DRJ.

At Melbourne Arthur Mailey, that unusually romantic Australian troubador-of-spin, observed the essence of the hunt. In his newspaper column he wrote that “Just with a nod of his head Jardine signalled his men, and they came across to the leg side like a swarm of hungry sharks.”

A simmering pot came to the boil in the third test at Adelaide which England won by 338 runs. If this was, as Wisden recorded, perhaps (at the time) the “most unpleasant [test] ever played” the chief responsibility for that unhappy situation lay with the Australians. The series was at that point tied at one win apiece; the victorious side in the City of Churches would be well-placed to secure the Ashes.

The chief controversy arose when Australian batsmen were felled by English bouncers. But it is often forgotten that when Larwood struck Woodfull a heavy blow above the heart he was, at the time, employing an orthodox field. The same was true when Bert Oldfield ducked into a Larwood express and was hit in the head. The veteran Oldfield absolved Larwood of responsibility, admitting it was his own fault.

Woodfull, however, demonstrated that wherever you find a beaten Australian you’ll find a whinger. At the conclusion of the third day – the height of the on-field controversy – he dismissed Plum Warner’s dutiful visit to the Aussie dressing-room during which the English manager intended to inquire about the extent of Australian injuries with a phrase that remains famous to this day: “I don’t want to see you, Mr Warner. There are two teams out there; one is trying to play cricket and the other is not. The matter is in your hands, Mr Warner, and I have nothing further to say to you. Good afternoon.”

They didn’t like it up them. But this was the moment the Ashes were won. As Woodfull writhed in agony, clutching his chest, the silence was broken by the English skipper. “Well bowled, Harold” Jardine said in a voice loud enough for all to hear and with a nod and a clap of his hands he signalled his fielders to move to their leg-theory positions for the very next ball. It was, amidst the baying and barracking, a masterstroke of cold-blooded captaincy and still, deservedly, perhaps the most famous change-of-field in the history of the great game.

Cricketing success is often relative. Bradman endured his least successful season that summer. In eight innings he made but a single century and three times he was dismissed between 50 and 100. He averaged 56 for the series. Still more than Hammond (who averaged 55) but, in the circumstances, reducing Bradman to Hammond’s level of performance constituted a great victory for England.

The Don adapted his method. Just as England attacked him so he attacked England. He scored at a clip of 74 runs per 100 balls that Australian summer. Both sides gambled. England sought to make life difficult for Bradman; the Don bet that he could score enough runs quickly enough to make up for the fact that, Larwood being Larwood and the English tactics being what they were, sooner or later a ball would arrive that had even Bradman’s number on it. He was half-right and he half-succeeded. That, in its way, is one of the greatest measurements of his unparalleled genius.

Extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures. But Bodyline was not quite the total war it is sometimes imagined. In the first place, even Larwood did not always bowl to a leg-trap. Secondly, neither Bill Voce nor, in the one test he played, Bill Bowes, proved able to match Larwood’s accuracy (neither were express-merhants either, of course). Thirdly, Gubby Allen, already a prig even then, refused to bowl Bodyline.  And fourthly, of course, Hedley Verity did not take his 11 wickets with Bodyline either. In other words, Bodyline was a tactic used relatively sparingly. Perhaps no more than (at most) 25% of the overs England delivered that series were bowled to Bodyline fields.

Of course it all looks different in hindsight. Despite the later-outlawed leg-trap there is little reason to suppose that Bodyline targetted the batsmen in 1932-33 any more than Lillee and Thomson did in the early 1970s or than the great quartets of West Indian fast bowlers did later than decade and in the 1980s. For that matter, Australians had no complaint (and nor, really, did Englishmen) when Ted McDonald and Jack Gregory terrorised English batsmen on Australia’s 1921 tour of England.

Perhaps we would not wish every captain to approach the game with Jardinian ruthlessness. Cricket might lose something if that were the case. But that Jardine was a great captain whose task was, at least initially, seemingly hopeless cannot be sensibly disputed. Taming Bradman demanded extraordinary measures. Jardine and Larwood found and perfected those measures. Just as, if you will forgive the comparison, defeating Hitler demanded something out-of-the-ordinary, so did defeating Bradman. (One of Bodyline’s forgotten consequences: Bradman was converted to the cause of lobbying for a reform of the LBW law the better to bring back a measure of balance between bat and ball. This is part of Jardine and Larwood’s legacy too.)

The establishment – and despite Winchester, Oxford and Surrey Jardine was not really a member of the establishment – never forgave Larwood and Jardine for their success. Shamefully, Lords acceded to Australian suggestions that neither Jardine nor, especially, Larwood should face the antipodean tourists on their 1934 tour of England. The “crisis” in Anglo-Australian relations was almost entirely of the Australians’ making.  Jardine was removed from the captaincy before the Australians arrived in 1934; Larwood never played for England after Bodyline.

And in 1934 Donald Bradman scored 759 runs at an average of 94.75. England lost the Ashes they had won so dearly in 1932-33.

As English cricket disowned the two men most chiefly responsible for one of English cricket’s greatest triumphs it is good to be reminded that Douglas Jardine never deserted his greatest ally. The story of the present DRJ gave HL is well-known. It was an ashtray engraved with the inscription:  “To Harold for the Ashes — 1932-33 — From a grateful Skipper.” Less well-known is the telegram Jardine sent Larwood upon the latter’s emigration to, of all countries, Australia. Larwood bade a sad and lonely farewell to England, deserted by the cricketing establishment and consigned to a basket labelled best-forgotten by most. There was no send-off. With one exception. As the great fast-bowler boarded the boat to Australia at Liverpool he received a telegram. “Bon voyage,” it read. “Take care of yourself. Good luck always. Skipper”.

Larwood and Jardine were great men. They deserve to be remembered more fondly than they are. These were the men that slayed Bradman.

And yet they will not be celebrated, not even now. Such is the price of success. There remains something chilling, something otherworldly about Bodyline and the manner in which it is recalled. Even those of us who admire DRJ can admit cricket might be a poorer game if everyone played it as he did. I have had cause to quote some lines from Walter Scott’s Old Mortality before but they seem just as apposite to Douglas Jardine as they ever were to a Covenanting presbyterian fanatic:

Think you not it is a sore trial for flesh and blood to be called upon to execute the righteous judgments of Heaven while we are yet in the body, and retain that blinded sense and sympathy for carnal suffering which makes our own flesh thrill when we strike a gash upon the body of another? And think you, that when some prime tyrant has been removed from his place, that the instruments of his punishment can at all times look back on their share in his downfall with firm and unshaken nerves? Must they not sometimes question even the truth of that inspiration which they have felt and acted under? Must they not sometimes doubt the origin of that strong impulse with which their prayers for heavenly direction under difficulties have been inwardly answered and confirmed, and confuse, in their disturbed apprehensions, the responses of Truth himself with some strong delusion of the enemy?”

Indeed. But, despite this, Jardine contained multitudes. He considered village cricket the purest, noblest form of the game. His task was to fight in a different arena. Jardine and Larwood were fortified by the knowledge – sure in their own minds – that they were doing, if you will, the lord’s work. And damn the naysayers. Bradman, if you like and will allow me to shift literary comparison, was Jardine’s White Whale. But at least he caught his. The game would be poorer had neither Douglas Jardine nor Harold Larwood ever existed. We should remember that even if we also think or suspect it may be no bad thing not everyone is quite as superbly bloody-minded as two of English cricket’s greatest-ever heroes.

Timothy’s words could usefully be their epitaphs: I have fought the good fight, I have run my race, I have kept the faith. 

Give the perfect gift this Christmas. Buy a subscription for a friend for just £75 and you’ll receive a free gift too. Buy now.

Show comments
  • tevra

    slayed Bradman you said? yet he still had an average over 50

    if someone had tried to intentionally injure W.G. Grace like they did to Bradman would you still be taking the defence?

  • tevra

    Body line was not sporting behavior which was not in the tradition of either the MCC or the sport of Cricket and certainly not the tradition of sportsmanship and as soon as the MCC found out what Jardine had ordered his team to do they disavowed it and didn’t let him or Larwood near Test or County cricket again for damn good reason, it was against everything they stood and still stand for.

    you are just trying to be contrary and support the win at all costs attitude that cost Jardine and Larwood their careers with the All England XI.

    Larwood could have refused but had less blame because he was following his leaders order, however that is an excuse that is over used.

    I love cricket and stand by the tradition of sportsmanship that keeps the Noble Game standing head and shoulders above other sports, especially – ugh baseball.

  • wayne

    Jardine was sacked after bowling bodyline at Windies upon his return to England (which displeased the locals) then following it up against against the newbies India (who also sent off cablegrams about the inappropriateness). Larwood was sacked by Lords for not apologising to Lords about taking the blame for Jardine’s tactics in Australia. Jardine was loved by Lords until his death in 1957. Larwood was disowned by everybody from 1933.

    Bodyline was also used by Jardine in state games and Australian XI games. Hence, the “25%” had been seen all summer so the crowds had had enough and wanted cricket to be played in the right spirit. Before Woodfull was hit in Adelaide, he had seen off bodyline theory and even Jardine had to revert to conventional cricket to dislodge the opener. In fact, most times Woodfull had got through “fast leg theory” period. However, he was upset that the tactic was used on less competent batters (ie bowlers) than him.

    Add to this time, diplomatically rumblings of the time between the 2 countries. Australia had selected its own Governor General from Australia (Sir Issac Issacs) which wasn’t well received in London and Chief of Bank Of England had just ripped off Australia institutions by making them buy England’s bonds in the Great Depression. So Bodyline tour was meant a goodwill tour from England to heal the rifts of the countries not widening them.

    One other point is that Bill Bowes didn’t bowl bodyline either with Allen. However, his only wicket for the series was a short half tracker which Bradman dragged onto his stumps, 1st ball in Melbourne.

    • tevra

      Bodyline tour was meant to be a goodwill tour which is why they were surprised when they discovered the tactics employed. when it was too late to do anything they had to make the best of it and they did adjust the rules so this would not be allowed to happen again. I have noticed the term “fast leg theory” only being used by apologists

      • Faircricket

        “Bodyline” is an invented term by the Australian press, leg theory had existed for many years before Jardine used really fast bowlers to convert it into fast leg theory, a term coined before bodyline was inented. No appology was needed for fast leg theory. Bradman was a problem with his big hundreds, it was employed mainly to curb his run scoring, but if it worked for him, it was thought that others in the team would be susceptable to it!
        The big problem is that when one team as a glut of good fast bowlers and the other is lacking in this department, the team without the really fast bowlers always struggle and cannot counter the tactics. In this series Australia often opened the bowling with a spin bowler at least at one end, something not often mentioned.

    • Faircricket

      I suggest you check your history, fast leg theory was never used at the start of an innings, when the ball was still swinging, Woodfall was hit before fast leg theory was used in the 3rd test. Woodfall anyway had a habit of ducking to balls of only waist height. 25 percent is probably an high figure for “bodyline” as only Larwood and Voce adopted it, the only test where 4 fast bowlers played was the second test. The bowling had to be shared as Larwood and Voce could only be used in short bursts.
      Would it have been considered so unfair if Australia had have won the series!!

    • Faircricket

      Jardine was not sacked, he resigned, he knew that the powers that be would give him orders on what tactics he could use. Being is own man he would not agree to this and resigned. Larwood was asked to apologise for the “bodyline” tour if he wished to play for England again, being an honorable man he refused. He was still loved and admired by many in cricket, including the great Sir Jack Hobbs, and continued to play county cricket for Notts, for a number of years, where he was always loved. How anyone can expect the Ashes to be played as a goodwill tour is strange, it should always and is usually very competitive, the England authorities wanted to win back the ashes desperately after the 1930, hence the appointment of a strong captain.

  • sympathy fruit baskets

    Sympathy Gift Baskets come with a variety of food options. A basket full of fruit is a great gift for just about anyone. They are normally a mixture of apples, pears, and oranges. Some fruit baskets will also include cookies, gourmet snacks, coffee, chocolates, cheese, and crackers.

  • Timothy Singh

    Excellent article Alex. Magnificently contrarian and well argued! One minor correction: I believe those are Paul’s words contained in a letter to Timothy.

  • John Robert Nation

    Alex expresses surprise that Larwood migrated to Australia. He shouldn’t be surprised. Australia respects a man who does his job without complaint, a cultural value inherited from the mother country and taught to new migrants from the four corners of the globe. This is just one of the many things that attracts migrants to Australian shores.

  • Austin Barry

    Alex, great article.

    Someone really should write an article on how the helmet changed cricket. These early players were literally dicing with death. Which of our modern players would be up to facing, say, Hall , Griffiths, Holding, Tommo and Lillee?

  • McCrystal

    A superb piece wonderfully well-written. How delightful to remember them as heroes instead of cads.
    It is interesting that Australians regard Brits as whingers. I guess this must be because for a great many years the only Brits to arrive in Australia had been forcibly removed from their homes, packed in the holds of filthy, rat-infested ships, then enslaved in prison camps, beaten, forced to work in terrific heat and poorly fed. They probably did whinge a bit under those conditions – and passed the habit on to their descendants.

  • The Red Bladder

    Thank you Mr Massie for a most interesting and thought-provoking piece. Even 80 years on the topic is still controversial, as some of the comments below show, what is needed is serious consideration and that is what you have given us, again thanks.

  • Mark Cooper

    Very good indeed Alex.

    I have always been an admirer of both men, particularly Jardine. However, I did not know about his post-Ashes gift and send-off for Larwood. A decent man as well as ruthless.

  • John H

    Fascinating post. That figure of 25% came as a big surprise. Larwood must have been a glorious sight in his pomp. Ian Peebles, another Scot who played for England, and who probably faced Larwood when playing for Middlesex, later, as a distinguished cricket writer, captured the great bowler’s action:

    ‘He ran about 18 yards, accelerating with controlled rhythmical strides, on the last of which his shoulders opened with a long swing of his fully extended arms. His right hand described a great arc starting from near the calf of his leg, and, at full pressure, his knuckles would touch the pitch on his follow-through. Coordination was perfect, so that the whole concerted effort was applied to the moment of delivery.’

  • vkr_bibin

    British seriously surprises everyone. If the end justifies teh method, then Hitler was the greatest leader the world has see. You may not agree with the method(killing, lynching, torture), but he did make the Germans the most powerful and most fearsome country in the world.

    The article reminds me of what Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis said watching the Ashes 2005 in England – “When we [Pakistanis] did it, they called it ball-tampering. When their bowlers did it, they labeled it reverse swing”

    Body line still to the day, remains one of the most shameful event in cricket and it will remain the same too.

    • The Red Bladder

      Likening the tactics of Jardine through his chosen bowler Larwood and, of course Voce, to Hitler eh! Well there’s a new one on me and I’ve read a lot on this topic and spoken to those who saw the bowling for themselves. It was not against the laws of the game nor against the spirit. The trouble arose because Harold Larwood was so very good at what he did, arguably the greatest fast bowler in the history of the game. I did one see an action by the captain of a team that was a disgrace – ordering his bowler to make the final delivery of the match underarm and thus ensure the required winning six could not be hit! Strangely the Australian cricket authorities made no complaints about that one!

      • vkr_bibin

        That’s precisely the point. The under arm bowling was a disgrace. But still was within the laws of the game of that time. Bodyline may have been allowed at those time because no one anticipated that there would be people who will go directly at the batsmen like the way these guys did. That’s why they had to implement checks to prevent it from happening. And that too it happened at times when the basic protective gears were only available. I could imagine the furore which would have created if the West Indies big four of the 70s and 80s were allowed to do the same to your boys.

        • The Red Bladder

          As I said in my original comment all the batsman were carrying huge great lumps of wood. They are to hit the ball with, as the scores related by Mr Massie show, many of the Australians managed to do very successfully. Bowling down the leg side is a perfectly normal form of delivery if the batsman allows himself to be forced to ‘dab’ it away for an easy catch by a waiting fielder then on his own head be it. I would suggest you take a look at a few of the quotes by Australians who batted against Larwood and Voce, Jack Fingleton would make an ideal start to your researches. As for the West Indians fast bowlers – yes they most certainly should have been allowed to deliver down the leg side with a tight field to England, who are not, as you rather strangely assume, are ‘my boys’.

          • tevra

            American batsmen carry those lumps of wood when they play baseball and they don’t allow their bowlers to throw at the batsmens heads. We are supposed to be more civilized and not have had to add a rule telling the bowlers not to intentionally try to injure the batsmen like a Yank baseballer.

            • The Red Bladder

              I think Americans are civilized whereas we are civilised since you seem so keen on British standards. I have never known or heard of a bowler who deliberately set-out to injure a batsman. Cricket always has been and, I hope, always will be a game for big boys.

              • tevra

                while the leg theory bowlers my not have deliberately meant to injure they certainly had the batsmen intentionally in line of fire and did not play the game according to British standards of sportsmanship and was hardly “cricket”

                yes it was legal, just, I don’t consider that the theory of winning by any means possible is worthy of an English XI

                • The Red Bladder

                  As things stand at the moment I feel that the England XI would make a pact with the devil to beat anyone, even the Egyptian 2nd XI would do. On sportsman ship and the spirit of the day never forget that Larwood and Voce were the hired-hand professionals who were instructed on tactics by the amateur and gentleman Jardine.

                • tevra

                  Jardine was respected by many but liked by very few even those how respected his knowledge of the game and I would hesitate to call him a gentleman. Sportsmanship is where England fell short in this instance and that is my only gripe.

                  Since we will never agree there is no reason to continue a discussion that has no chance of progressing and I don’t want to risk devolving towards the chance of argument.

                  I understand and respect your point of view I hope you also understand mine I suggest we respectfully disagree and suspend the discussion.

    • andagain

      he did make the Germans the most powerful and most fearsome country in the world.

      You do remember that Hitler lost the Second World War?

  • James Plevick

    Would have enjoyed watching Larwood bowling to Ian Chappell. That would have been a contest worth watching.

    • The Red Bladder

      Certainly would – provided that the groundsman hadn’t prepared a ‘pudding’!

    • Faircricket

      No contest, Larwood would have won by a country mile!!!

      • James

        I’m not so sure of that actually. Chappelli would have been keen to take him on and would have won a few battles. He was a great player.

  • GAM

    Cracking essay. A much needed warming of the cricketing-cockles in a freezing February!

  • The Red Bladder

    Larwood accurate? Seemingly he could hit a half crown piece in the nets, at a pitch length, just about every time! Also let us remember that all the Australian batsman had a ruddy great big bit of wood in their hands to hit the ball with and thus avoid it hitting them!

  • tribalterror


  • kidmugsy

    My father once suggested that I should cultivate some respect for Jardine and some contempt for Scott of the Antarctic.

Can't find your Web ID? Click here