Douglas Jardine - An Unfairly Vilified Man

LONG POST ALERT. This may take some time to read and those who find such essays tedious are advised that it would probably be best if they didn't start.

With the Ashes series about to start, I thought that a discussion on the most controversial tour of them all might be interesting. I personally have always thought that Douglas Jardine was more victim than villain and in the great scheme of things, was more worthy of respect than rancour. But that's just my opinion.

Most of the things ever written about the 1932/33 tour have been from the Australian point of view. I thought it was about time somebody put the case for D R Jardine.

One of the principle gripes Australians have about Douglas Jardine, is that he (according to them) was an English snob. Although he captained England, Jardine was, in fact, born in Bombay, India to Scottish parents. His father was a barrister and his mother was a housewife. He was in no sense of the word, 'aristocratic', although Australians have consistently portrayed him as such.

He was sent to school in England, but spent his childhood holidays in Scotland and was greatly influenced in his upbringing, particularly in his attitude towards sport, by his Scottish uncle, who looked after him during school holidays, while his parents remained in India.

He attended Winchester College and Oxford University, graduating in History, and then later, Law, but mostly earned his living in banking and journalism. School life at Winchester was arduous and austere; discipline was harsh. Sport and exercise were vital parts of the school day. In Jardine's time, preparing the pupils for war was also important. According to Jardine's biographer, Christopher Douglas, the pupils were "taught to be honest, impervious to physical pain, uncomplaining and civilised�.

Business interests meant he did not play as much cricket as he would have liked, but he still represented Surrey as a Gentleman player. He developed an essentially defensive style of batting which was unusual for an amateur but despite this he played with significant success in his first test tour to Australia in 1928 / 29. Wisden, in 1928, described Jardine at this time as being obviously of a much higher standard than his contemporaries, particularly in defence and on-side batting. However, at this stage in his batting, he was sometimes criticised for being too cautious and not using all the strokes of which he was capable. His good technique gave the impression that he could have easily scored more quickly than he did.

Jardine made his Test debut against the West Indies tourists in 1928 and was selected to tour Australia the following winter as part of a very strong England batting side, playing in all five Test matches and scoring 341 runs at an average of 42.62. In all first-class matches, he scored 1,168 runs (average 64.88). Wisden judged that he had been a success and had impressed everyone with the strength of his defensive shots and his play on the back foot. It said that he played some delightful innings. Percy Fender, covering the tour as a journalist, believed that Jardine never had the chance to play a normal innings in the Test, having to provide the stability to the batting, and often seeming to come out to bat in a crisis.

Jardine began the tour with three consecutive hundreds but was jeered by the crowd in his second hundred for batting too slowly. He was again barracked, during his third, but played some excellent shots.

The Australian crowds took an increasing dislike to him, partially for his success with the bat, but mainly for his superior attitude and bearing, and for some peculiar reason, Australians seemd to take particular offence at his choice of headwear. He wore a Harlequin cap, which is a distinction awarded to students who achieve a double blue, playing for either Oxford or Cambridge universities. It was not unusual for English cricketers who had them, to wear them in representative matches. MCC captain Percy Chapman did so with no repercussions and why Australian crowds should have berated Jardine for doing so has never been explained.

The most likely explanation is that Jardine was seen by Australians as a "Son of the Raj" because of his birth and early years in India. They believed that his wearing the cap was a sign of snobbishness, although Percy Fender, his captain at Surrey, said he wore it out of superstition. Quite simply, he believed it was lucky. The hostile Australians attempted to use the cap as a sign of class distinction, and also in an attempt to rile a player whom they feared as an opponent. One particularly ascerbic comment, when Jardine came out to bat was "Where's your bloody butler to carry your bat for you?"

It's clear that the hostility directed towards him by the Australian crowds, purely because of his perceived background, was the prime cause of his antipathy towards them. Jardine's cap became a focus for criticism and mockery from the crowds throughout the tour.

Jardine developed an intense dislike for Australian crowds. During his third century at the start of the tour, during a period of abuse from the spectators, he observed to a sympathetic Hunter Hendry that "All Australians are uneducated, and an unruly mob". After the innings, when Patsy Hendren said that the Australian crowds did not like Jardine, he replied "It's f***ing mutual".

On one occasion, when fielding close to the boundary, whilst being severely abused and mocked, he turned towards the crowd and spat in their direction.

In the first Test, Jardine scored 35 and 65 not out. He played cautiously but sensibly and this too riled the Australian crowds, as he blunted the Australian bowling attack with his resolve. England won a massive victory by 675 runs. Jardine played a similar role in the second Test, to retrieve a poor start for England who won by eight wickets. In the third test, with England in difficulty again, Jardine was promoted up the order in poor batting conditions. His defensive technique enabled him to survive and England won by three wickets. Percy Fender said that Jardine was the only batsman in the side who could have coped with the difficult conditions.

By now, the Australian cricketing public loathed Jardine. In the fourth test in Tasmania, he was given out LBW despite clearly hitting the ball. England still won the match though, by 12 runs. Australia won the final test, where Jardine was used as an opener due to an injury to Herbert Sutcliffe. After his final innings, he departed while the match was still being played to visit family in India. The trip had been pre-planned, but the Australians still regarded it as a snub.

Later, Jardine wrote about the Australian crowds, complaining about their behaviour, but still praising them for their general knowledge of the game. He did, at least, attempt to be conciliatory towards them. It was a gesture which was not reciprocated.

When the Australians visited England in 1930, Jardine didn't play due to business commitments. It was during this series that Don Bradman came to the fore and the Australians regained the Ashes, winning the series 2 - 1.

In 1931, Jardine was made captain of the England team. He impressed the chairman of selectors, Pelham "Plum" Warner, who stated that he was very effective in selection meetings through his knowledge of cricket history and went into great detail to choose the correct players; it seems that Warner was the driving force behing Jardine's appointment.

Jardine was selected to captain the MCC. team to Australia in the winter of 1932 / 33 The selectors thought that a determined leader was needed to defeat the Australians and a more disciplined approach than that of Percy Chapman on the previous tour would be required.

Jardine began to plan tactics from this point, discussing ideas with various people. He was aware that Bradman, Australia's star batsman and the main worry of the selectors, had occasionally shown vulnerability to pace bowling. During the final Test of the 1930 Ashes at The Oval, the wicket became difficult for a time following rain. Bradman was seen to be uncomfortable with fast deliveries that bounced higher than usual. Percy Fender discussed this with Jardine in 1932. When Jardine later saw film footage of the Oval incident and noticed Bradman's discomfort, he shouted, "I've got it! He's yellow..!!" Further details that developed his plans came from letters Fender received from Australia in 1932 describing how Bradman had shown some discomfort during the 1931/32 Australian season against pace bowling.

A meeting was arranged with fast bowlers Harold Larwood and Bill Voce in London. Jardine explained his belief that Bradman was weak against bowling directed at leg stump and that if this line of attack could be maintained, it would restrict Bradman's scoring to one side of the field, giving the bowlers greater control of his scoring.

Larwood believed that Jardine wished to attack Bradman psychologically as well as in a cricketing sense. Larwood and Voce practised the plan over the remainder of the 1932 season in England with no adverse public reaction. Jardine also visited Frank Foster, who had toured Australia in 1911/12. Foster had bowled leg-theory on that tour with his fielders placed close in on the leg-side, as had George Hirst in 1903/04. This kind of bowling wasn't new, it had been used before. Jardine simply perfected it.

On the sea voyage to Australia, Jardine discussed tactics with Harold Larwood and the other bowlers. Gubby Allen later claimed that Jardine told them to hate the Australians in order to defeat them, while instructing them to refer to Bradman as "the little b*****d.", though that accusation didn't come to light until after the tour, when relations between Allen and Jardine were at a very low point.

Once the team arrived in Australia, Jardine was abused on the very dockside, as soon as he got off the boat. When he asked a porter to take his bags, the porter recognised him and said "Carry your own bloody bags".

The Australian press printed negative stories about England and personally abused Jardine. The crowds barracked as they had done on his previous tour, which made him angry. Jardine still wore his Harlequin cap, possibly, by that time, as a gesture of defiance.

It was in a pre-test tour match against an Australian XI, in which Jardine rested himself, the bowlers first used the leg theory tactics that came to be known as "bodyline" under the captaincy of Bob Wyatt.

In the first test, Bradman didn't play and leg theory bowling was hardly used at all and England eventually won the match comfortably. In the second Test the match seemed to be going well for Australia when Bill Bowes bowled the returning Bradman first ball in the first innings with a yorker, when Bradman was clearly expecting a short pitched delivery.

Bradman had been given a ten minute standing ovation as he walked to the wicket, a clear indication that the Australians believed England were going to get a good hammering now that their hero had returned.

Jardine was seen to be so delighted at Bradman's dismissal, that he clasped his hands above his head and performed a dance of delight. This was an extremely unusual reaction in the 1930s, particularly from Jardine who rarely showed any emotion while playing cricket. Bearing in mind though, the cocksure attitude of the Australians as Bradman had walked to the crease, and the completely unreasonable abuse and vilification Jardine had received from the Australian press and public, it's hardly surprising that he should show delight at getting Bradman out for a duck.

In the second innings, however Bradman scored an unbeaten century which helped Australia to win the match and level the series. This made it seem to critics that leg theory tactics were not quite the threat that had been perceived and the fuss died down.

It was the third test that provided the controversy. England won that match but the controversy nearly ended the tour. The trouble began when Bill Woodfull was struck on the chest by a Larwood delivery, drawing the comment from Jardine of "Well bowled, Harold", aimed mainly at Bradman who was also batting at the time.

The crowd became noisily angry. There was further anger later in the innings when Bertie Oldfield was hit on the head by a delivery of good length. Oldfield always said it was his own fault for playing a bad shot, and top edging the ball onto his head, but that cut no ice with the Australian press who blew the incident up and blamed Jardine.

During the game, the Australian fans had to be held back from invading the field by riot police on horseback, and the Union Flag was burned. Despite England's win, Wisden believed that it was probably the most unpleasant match ever played. However, it commended Jardine's courage, claimed that praise of his leadership was unanimous, and said that "above all he captained his team in this particular match like a genius" In the immediate aftermath, The MCC. sent a telegram congratulating him on winning the match.

Following the third Test, The Australian Cricket Board accused the English team of unsportsmanlike tactics, stating that "Bodyline bowling has assumed such proportions as to menace the best interests of the game, making protection of the body the main consideration."

The MCC responded angrily to the accusations of unsporting conduct and threatened to call off the tour. The series was becoming a major diplomatic incident by this stage, and many people saw the incidents as damaging to an international relationship that needed to remain strong.

Public reaction in both England and Australia was outrage directed at the other nation. The standoff was settled only when the Australian Prime Minister, Joseph Lyons met members of the Australian Cricket Board and outlined to them the severe economic hardships that could be caused in Australia if the British public boycotted Australian trade. Given this understanding, the Board withdrew the allegation of unsportsmanlike behaviour two days before the fourth Test, thus saving the tour. However, correspondence continued for almost a year.

Jardine was shaken by the events and by the hostile reactions that his team were receiving. Jardine offered to stop using leg theory if the team did not support him, but after a private meeting (not attended by Jardine or either of the team managers) the players released a statement fully supporting Jardine and his tactics.

Once the fourth Test got underway, England won the match to take the series, Eddie Paynter scored 83 having released himself from hospital where he was suffering from a high fever. England also won the final Test in which, although the Australians have always claimed the moral high ground for not resorting to leg theory tactics in return, Harry 'Bull' Alexander bowled hostile bouncers at Jardine, who was struck several times, to the delight of the crowd. Jardine refused to flinch.

Plum Warner, although he later stated that he disapproved of leg theory bowling praised Jardine's captaincy on the tour and believed that he was cruelly treated by the Australian press and crowds. He further believed that Jardine was convinced that the tactics were legitimate.

Jardine contributed his opinion of the tour in a book, In Quest for the Ashes. He defended his tactics and heavily criticised the Australian press and public, to the extent of suggesting that fixtures between England and Australia should be halted until this problem was resolved.

Jardine received a hero's welcome on his return to England, making several very well received public appearances. He was appointed as England captain for the series against the West Indies in 1933 and was cheered by the crowd and given a standing ovation when he came out to bat against the West Indians in the first and second Test matches.

During the game, the West Indians, frustrated at the lack of pace in the pitch, decided to experiment with leg theory bowling causing an England batting collapse, at one point falling to 134 for four. With Les Ames in difficulty against the short-pitched bowling, Jardine said, "You get yourself down this end, Les. I'll take care of this lot". He went back to the bouncers, standing on tiptoe, and stopped them with a dead bat, sometimes playing the ball one handed for more control.

Wisden described how he never flinched despite facing the greatest amount of short pitched bowling. It also believed that he played it "probably better than any other man in the world was capable of doing."

He batted for nearly five hours, scoring 127. England then retaliated by bowling the same right back at the West Indians second innings, but the slow pitch meant that the match was drawn. However, this performance played a large part in turning English opinion against this style of bowling. Wisden said that "most of those watching it for the first time must have come to the conclusion that, while strictly within the law, it was not nice." What they meant was that it did not make for entertaining cricket, although this remark was taken out of context in Australia, as the controversy over the "bodyline" tour dragged on.... and on.... and on......

During the 1933 season, Jardine was appointed as captain for the MCC. tour of India that winter which England won 2- 0. He won praise from Wisden for his captaincy and his batting. He approached the matches with a very competitive spirit, seeking to gain every advantage with his tactics and research.

At the same time, he was far more willing to take up speaking engagements than on the leg theory tour, showed an appreciation and regard for Indian crowds which he had never extended to Australia, and played the diplomatic role that was usually expected of a captain of the MCC at that time. He often spoke of his affection for India, describing it as the land of his birth and seemed to be relaxed and happy on this tour.

Meanwhile, the Australians wouldn't let the 32/33 season lie down. They wanted guarantees that future series between England and Australia would see leg theory bowling outlawed, and they even demanded that Jardine be removed as Captain. This was opposed by figures such as Lord Hawke. Jardine himself resolved the issue by stating that his business interests meant he would not be able to commit himself fully to cricket for several seasons and stood down as captain. This effectively ended his test career.

Jardine was seen as having a classical technique. While batting, he stood very straight and side on to the bowler. His off-driving was powerful, his defence was excellent, and he was superb at judging the line of the ball and letting it pass by if it was going to miss his wicket. His on-side play was also excellent, being able to place the ball between fielders for easy runs. Christopher Douglas described Jardine as "the epitome of the old-fashioned amateur."

Douglas argues that Jardine liked to make his runs when his side was in difficulty and enjoyed being tested; his approach would often lead his team to recovery from an unfavourable situation. Jack Hobbs classed him as a great batsman and believed that he was under-rated by his contemporaries.

As a captain, Jardine inspired great loyalty in his players, even if some did not approve of his tactics. Christopher Douglas judges that Jardine did very well to keep the team united and loyal on the 32/33 tour. Hedley Verity even named his son Douglas after the captain. Bill Bowes expressed approval of his leadership after initial misgivings, and went on to call him England's greatest captain. If he had a fault, it was that he could be intolerant and unsupportive of players of lesser talent, expecting everyone to perform at world-class standards.

Robertson-Glasgow wrote that Jardine made thorough preparation for games in which he was captain, studying individual batsmen at great length to find weaknesses. He had very clear plans, judged the strengths and weaknesses of his teams and knew how to get the best out of individual players. Pelham Warner described how Jardine "was a master of tactics and strategy, and was especially adept in managing fast bowlers and thereby preserving their energy. He possessed a great capacity for taking pains to be thorough in his planning, which, it has been said, is the mark of a genius ... As a field tactician and selector of teams he was, I consider, surpassed by no one and equalled by few, if any."

In his Wisden obituary, Jardine was described as one of England's best captains, while Jack Hobbs rated him the second best captain after Percy Fender. Plum Warner also said that he was a fine captain on and off the field, and in dealing with administrators. In fact, he stated that, "If ever there was a cricket match between England and the rest of the world and the fate of England depended upon its result, I would pick Jardine as England captain every time."

Jardine divided opinion among those with whom he played. He could be charming and witty or ruthless and harsh, while many people who knew him believed him to be innately shy. David Frith describes him as a complex figure who could change moods quickly. Although he could be friendly off the field, he became hostile and determined once he stepped onto it. At his memorial service, he was described by Hubert Ashton as being "provocative, austere, brusque, shy, humble, thoughtful, kindly, proud, sensitive, single-minded and possessed of immense moral and physical courage."

Harold Larwood maintained great respect for Jardine, treasuring a gift his captain gave him after the 32/33 tour and believing him to be a great man. Jardine showed affection for Larwood in return even after both of their retirements. He hosted a lunch for the former fast bowler shortly before he emigrated to Australia and met him there in 1954.

Donald Bradman, on the other hand would never speak to journalists about Jardine, and refused to give a tribute when Jardine died in 1958, replying to journalists questions with a surly "No comment".

Jack Fingleton admitted that he had liked Jardine and stated that he and Larwood had both simply done their job on the 32/33 tour, and expressed regret at the acrimonious way both were treated by the Australian press and public. Fingleton also described Jardine as an aloof individual who preferred to take his time in judging a person before befriending them, a quality that caused problems in Australia.

Bill O'Reilly stated that he disliked Jardine during the tour, but on meeting him later found him agreeable and charming.

Alan Gibson said that Jardine had "irony rather than humour".He sent Herbert Sutcliffe an umbrella as a joke on the day of his benefit match, when rain would have ruined the event and lost Sutcliffe a considerable amount of money. Sutcliffe appreciated the jest and made light of it.

Following intense pressure from Australian administrators, the MCC changed the laws of the game in 1935 to prevent leg theory bowling, and also changed the LBW law, Jardine retired almost completely from cricket, working in law, journalism and he even wrote a book titled "How To Succeed in Cricket." It became a standard text for sports teachers in England. He married and raised a family and even became the President of the Cricket Umpires Association.

Jardine joined the Territorial Army in August 1939 and went with the British Expeditionary Force to France. Where he was fortunate to escape at Dunkirk, suffering serious injuries. He also served in India during the war.

In 1953 he travelled, with some trepidation, as a board member of the Scottish Australian Company to inspect some land in Australia. While there, he struck up a friendship with Jack Fingleton and was surprised to be well received in the country, in his (Fingleton's) words, as "an old so-and-so who got away with it."

In 1957, Jardine travelled to Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), again to inspect some land, with his daughter Marion. While there, he became ill with tick fever. He showed no improvement upon his return to England and further tests revealed that he had advanced lung cancer. After some treatment, he travelled with his wife to a clinic in Switzerland but it was discovered that the cancer had spread and was incurable. He died in Switzerland on 18 June 1958 and his ashes were scattered over the top of Craigs Cross mountain in Perthshire, Scotland. His family had enquired about having his ashes dispersed at Lord's, but were informed that this honour is restricted to war dead.

John Arlott wrote in 1989 that "It is no exaggeration to say that, among Australians, Douglas Jardine is probably the most disliked of cricketers." However, in the view of Christopher Douglas, his name "stands for the legendary British qualities of cool-headed determination, implacable resolve, patrician disdain for crowds and critics alike. To Australians his name is synonymous with snobbishness, cynicism and downright Pommie arrogance.

After the 32/33 tour, according to cricket writer Gideon Haigh, Jardine was seen as "the most reviled man in sport." This perception faded from the 1950s onwards, and in more recent times, Jardine has been viewed more sympathetically. In 2002, the then England captain Nasser Hussain was compared to Jardine when he displayed ruthlessness against the opposition.

Hussain said he took the remark as a compliment.

Fourth Lion - that's an absolutely cracking post, thank you. We are going to have to put you to work on the Hall of Fame thread (if the Memsaab says she needs a new outfit for this as well, we can probably get you a scholarship!  ). 

I did a piece a while back on the HofF thread for Lol Larwood and your article brought back some memories. Particularly the treasured siver ashtray 'To Harold from A Grateful Skipper' and Alexander bowling to nightwatchman Larwood with the crowd screaming 'Knock his bl**dy head off, Bull!'. As well as Jardine, Jack Fingleton also befriended Larwood in later years (and was very generous towards him).

Just a couple of questions at this stage, although your article deserves more thorough review.

Do you feel Jardine could have done more with his bowlers before they left England to explain the likely tactics and what would be involved? I'm particularly thinking of Gubby Allen who by many accounts was appalled and uncooperative.

Upon return to England, Larwood was very much vilified and disowned by the England establishment. Do you feel Jardine could have done anything to improve matters here?

As an aside, 'bodyline' or 'leg theory' required great accuracy from Larwood and Voce to be successful in its execution. I suspect that's largely and wrongly overlooked now. They deserve credit for getting it right and Jardine for going with the right men.

Other posters may raise 'spirit of the game' concerns (as happened on my case for Larwood) but I'll leave that to them.

I think the problem with assessing Jardine is that there are so many versions of him.
There's the English version of him which portrays him as a tactical genius who did nothing wrong other than find a chink in the otherwise impenetrable armour of Don Bradman. Then there was another English version of him as someone who, while staying within the rules, probably breached the spirit of the game.
Then there's the Aussie version of Jardine that offers him grudging respect, ranking him alongside numerous 'tough' Australian captains and, finally, there's the Australian version of Jardine as the snobbish, aloof, autocratic son of empire, determined to put the upstart Aussie nation (in the shape of its great champion Don Bradman), in its place.
Because of the strength of this latter narrative in Australia, it is this version of Jardine that has come to be widely accepted, although that may be changing.
So it is probably true that Jardine has been unfairly vilified, particularly in Australia, and that his personality and actions were probably far more complex than is generally acknowledged. It is, perhaps, his misfortune that some of his actions and parts of his background and personality allowed him to be portrayed as an almost pantomime villian in the Australian narrative of their nation's emergence from the yoke of empire.

I've got to respond to this as there are some posts on here that are utter drivel, but this is a fantastic effort - sadly I expect it will get much less attention than DRS thread v50.

Re Jardine, I think you have covered everything there, to me the guy is a hero having read fully detailed accounts of the tour in the past.

Also the whole "Bodyline" thing to me is overblown, it is probably all that most people know about that tour and gives the perception that it was a) something new (which as you describe is wasn't) and b) used all of the time (it was used sparingly)

To bring things to more modern times, we had Ricky Ponting almost a Jardine light with the unfair and embarassing reaction from crowds in this country. In all sports you do get those players that sometimes for no particular reason the crowd are against and it can all snowball from there.

Wonderful post, fourthlion.

For me, Jardine is a national hero. It not only takes a shrewd, calculating and perceptive man to deploy fast leg theory - an otherwise little tested tactic at international level - and have success with it against the greatest batsman of them all, but an incredibly brave man too given the context, location and general cricketing ethos of the time.

His willingness to stick with it in the face of an unbelievable barrage of criticism, threats and the possibility of being pretty much exiled from anyone of any importance within the game (and within his own country, too) is equally commendable.

Sport is about entertainment, but it is also about winning. Not many captains have had to deal with an opponent as remarkable as Don Bradman and Jardine, utilising the rather sharp instrument that was Harold Larwood, simply did what he had to do to get the job done. It's a style of captaincy that I hold in high regard.

Jardine was hated by the Aussies even before they toured in 32-33. I get the feeling that if a working class lad like Larwood had been England captain, then the amount of abuse dished out may have been slightly less.

Indeed a magnificent post from Fourth Lion (which also surely set a new record for length , but justified every line with its clarity and general excellence of detail )

I have always thought Jardine abominably treated in popular Australian accounts , though as Hoggy says a lot of sensible Australians have a slightly more balanced view. Since Larwood ended up living here it is hard to maintain hatred for him , so Jardine was the obvious chief villain...and his manner , distinctive headgear , and refusal to be cowed by aggressive barracking from the crowd made him a natural for the part.

It seems clear he was highly regarded by his team ( with the possible exception of Allen ) so you would think he must have been a pretty decent fellow ... If he was more ruthless in his pursuit of victory than his contemporaries , I imagine he was merely "ahead of his time".
If a tactic like "Bodyline" were developed for the first time today , I think it would have generated a lot less angst.
In any case it would almost certainly be invented by an Australian  

 
Great piece from The Lion, Thanks!

Ironic (or not?) that the competitive wing of the Australian Party tends to hold Jardine, Larwood etc in sometimes higher regard than the MCC, (not to mention some negative stuff on here during the Larwood HOF campaigns).


Alfie,
You're in the golfing capital of the world last week and this (sure your golfing friends would add the other 50 weeks of the year also!); hope you've been getting along to RMGC?

A fairly interesting post I must say.
Just to add support to a couple of points that Guildford made.
The Fourth Lion will be a seriously good addition to the HoF debates and I hope we'll have the company soon.
Then there is the 2nd question that Guildford asked. Could Jardine have done anything in shaping Larwood's treatment after the bodyline series?

2nd that. Beautifully written article Lion  

Could be wrong MSP but from what i remember from my research the MCC at the time following the series forced Jardine into a shallow apology but Larwood refused to do so because he said he was following orders from both.

And Jardine did not stand by Larwood. And Larwood was ditched.

skyeman wrote:2nd that. Beautifully written article Lion  

Could be wrong MSP but from what i remember from my research the MCC at the time following the series forced Jardine into a shallow apology but Larwood refused to do so because he said he was following orders from both.

And Jardine did not stand by Larwood. And Larwood was ditched.

Yeah, Skyeman, that's what I seem to remember from my readings. More than any of his tactics, this is something that I'd hold against Jardine.......

msp83 wrote:

skyeman wrote:2nd that. Beautifully written article Lion  

Could be wrong MSP but from what i remember from my research the MCC at the time following the series forced Jardine into a shallow apology but Larwood refused to do so because he said he was following orders from both.

And Jardine did not stand by Larwood. And Larwood was ditched.

Yeah, Skyeman, that's what I seem to remember from my readings. More than any of his tactics, this is something that I'd hold against Jardine.......

Got to agree with you.

Larwood was treated appallingly by both. Maybe because of his working class background or in that era they could get away with it.

Douglas Jardine was clearly a man with personalities at opposite ends of the spectrum. Would you say that's something that has made you particularly interested in him Fourth Lion?

Excellent original post and good follow up. Nothing specific to add other than I am an appreciative reader of this thread.  

Thank you, gentlemen, for your kind comments and for taking the time to read all the way through my 'magnum opus'.   I must admit, I did think it might get more criticism for length than interest for content.  

I must say I am very glad I found this site.  It is good to be, at last, amongst people who clearly have a genuine passion for sport  and enjoy discussing it objectively, rather than some forums I have used, which are little more than bear pits.

I think Guildford raises some very interesting questions.   Firstly, even with the plethora of material available on this particular tour, there does seem to be little insight, that I can find, into how much detail Jardine may have gone into regarding the various issues, prior to the tour.  

It is known that Larwood and Voce were present when Jardine first discussed his plans with Arthur Carr (E W Swanton's biography of Gubby Allen refers), although it was only a 'sounding out' discussion at that stage.  But it suggests that both were in the loop from the get-go.  Did they raise objections or were they enthusiastic..?  It isn't clear, but we can assume that, as it all went ahead, nobody tried or was able to talk Jardine out of it at that point.

As for Bill Bowes and Gubby Allen, I can only offer an opinion and I'd be interested to read what you all think.  Jardine was clearly a very thorough man, and also an honourable one.  He would have known that the course of action he was about to embark on would be controversial and would have repercussions.  He wouldn't subject his bowlers to anything that would bring condemnation upon them without making it quite clear to them beforehand what they were letting themselves in for.  I am pretty sure he would have wanted them to go into it with their eyes open.  At what point he did this, I am not sure.  Before or after their place on the tour was confirmed..?  Who knows.  If I were Jardine, I would have wanted the men to know everything before confirming their selection.

If anyone knows of any article that would confirm or dispute that, I'd like to read it.

This would certainly explain the loyalty of the bowlers to Jardine when things started to go pear-shaped.  Far from being the cloth-eared, forelock-tugging peasants that some Australian accounts of the series have portrayed them as (particularly Larwood, who had been a Nottinghamshire coal miner and was stereotyped by some as an uneducated prole).  No, these men would have stayed loyal to Jardine because he had been honest and 'up front' with them and they had accepted.  They were not the sort of men to jump ship when the going got tough.

Then again, if this was the case, it raises the Gubby Allen question.  Allen, on tour, came out as being unhappy with the situation and one wonders how committed he would have been from the outset.  If he was put in the picture beforehand, did he feel obliged to agree with it because he felt that not to do so could jeopardise his place on the tour..?   Perhaps he was unwilling from the start, but played his cards close to his chest to ensure a place on the tour.

Allen was born in Australia, although his family moved to England when he was young.  This may or may not have been a factor.  It is possible his roots made him more open to the Australian point of view.  

There is also conjecture about his real feelings towards Jardine.  Allen was openly critical of Jardine's instruction to the English players that they should 'hate' the Australians.  

Superficially, the two men got along quite amicably and during the darkest days, Allen claimed that he was Jardine's best friend on the tour, but in letters home, he said that Jardine was "the stupidest man I know", claimed to be 'terrified' of him and amidst a welter of criticism of Jardine, said that at times he 'felt like killing him'.  

Opinions about Gubby Allen and his stance on leg theory bowling vary.  To some he was a man of honour, disobeying orders for the noble ideal of the spirit of the game.  To others he was disloyal to his captain and team mates and should have been dropped.  We can all make our own minds up about that.

As for the aftermath of the tour, I quite agree, Guildford, that Jardine could, and should, have done more to support Harold Larwood, who was treated badly by the MCC.  

The MCC were, at this time, keen to appease Australian anger and Larwood was a convenient scapegoat.  He didn't help his own cause by writing a book called 'Bodyine?' in which he said things like:  "Woodfull was too slow, and Bradman too scared.  Richardson and McCabe played me all right, Woodfull and Bradman could not".  He was highly critical of the Australian crowds who, he said, knew nothing of cricket—all they wanted was for Bradman to score runs.

The MCC would have seen this as pouring petrol on the flames and when Larwood refused their (in my opinion) entirely inappropriate and craven demand for Larwood to apologise to the Australians, they had the excuse they needed to drop him from the team.  Perhaps that was their intention all along.

Yes, Jardine should have done more to stand by Larwood.  Perhaps he (Jardine) was exhausted by it all and was no longer able to resist the forces ranged against him.   I am sure we all have our own feelings about that.  

I also agree your comment about the need for great accuracy when bowling leg theory, Guildford.  Larwood and Voce were both extremely accurate, and I found a little quote by Denis Compton who played against both Larwood and Voce in 1938 and said in his autobiography that they were the most accurate bowlers he ever faced and that Larwood was the fastest.  Larwood took 1427 first class wickets at 17.51.  I think most captains today would want some of that in their attack..!!

Finally, in reply to Hibbz...... yes, I am intrigued by Jardine's personality traits, but that isn't all.  I think the whole panoply of analyses, investigations, conjectures and conclusions drawn from that tour have all cast Jardine as the villain, which I believe is unfair and unreasonable.  

I think the Australian point of view is over represented and I simply wanted to redress the balance a little.  It is pleasing to read the follow up posts on this discussion generally agree with me.

Things like saying well bowled to Larwood while the Aussie captain woodfull is in great pain bent over probably helps with his dark reputation....and isn't very clever....

You can see it both ways.........He saw a flaw in a great batsman and didn't break any laws..........Or you can say he broke the spirit code of the game.........

Being a Toff also doesn't help him with detractors..

I imagine a 90 mph bowler continually aiming at your head with a ball that If it hits the right spot could be fatal...Isn't a lot of fun.......and Isn't great to watch.......

Woodfull the Australian captain seems to come out of the series..A genuine cricket lover and a true gentleman in the face of adversity.....

Jardine won but at what price..........

Was it worth it ??........

Fourth Lion - thanks for your follow up post. I don't have any definitive answers to the matters raised but with the aid of a delightful book from the 1970s - Bradman and the Bodyline Series by E W Docker - I can perhaps give a few pointers.

I do though need to read up a bit more first - I'll try to post tonight.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Things like saying well bowled to Larwood while the Aussie captain woodfull is in great pain bent over probably helps with his dark reputation....and isn't very clever....

You can see it both ways.........He saw a flaw in a great batsman and didn't break any laws..........Or you can say he broke the spirit code of the game.........

Being a Toff also doesn't help him with detractors..

I imagine a 90 mph bowler continually aiming at your head with a ball that If it hits the right spot could be fatal...Isn't a lot of fun.......and Isn't great to watch.......

Woodfull the Australian captain seems to come out of the series..A genuine cricket lover  and a true gentleman in the face of adversity.....

Jardine won but at what price..........

Was it worth it ??........

I would agree with you that the "well bowled, Harold" incident was not diplomatic, but as I said in my OP, he was being extensively barracked at the time and besides that, actually, Larwood had bowled well, and Jardine didn't want Woodfull's discomfort to introduce any feelings of sympathy in Larwood. He wanted Larwood to remain mean and I would say his comment was intended to help Larwood retain his focus. Yes, it would have been better from a PR point of view if he had said nothing, but out in the middle is not the place for a PR exercise. Again, as I wrote in my OP.... the Australian public and press had treated Jardine disgracefully ever since he first set foot in Australia. Perhaps if they had showed some civility to him in the first place, Jardine may not have been so abrasive himself.

It takes two to tango.

Also.... as I explained in my OP, Jardine wasn't any sort of "toff" at all. It is true that he had had a university education, but he wasn't from the aristocracy or even what would have been described in England at that time as the "gentry". He was, in fact, a pretty ordinary bloke who had worked hard to make something of himself. I always thought that was a character trait that Australians respected.

Nobody was bowling 90 MPH bouncers "all the time". I'm afraid that's a bit of exaggeration on your part there, old chap. Leg theory bowling, as has been stated by other posters in this thread, was used sparingly.... that was its' effectiveness. If it had been used 'all the time' the batsman would have simply ducked every ball, and all the England bowlers would have gotten was to finish the day fatigued and wicketless. The clever part of that form of bowling was to get into the batsman's psyche. Get him thinking about when it was coming next. It was no coincidence that when Bill Bowes got Bradman out first ball in the second test, it was because Bradman anticipated a short pitched ball on the leg side and moved accordingly. What he didn't expect was the Yorker that took his middle stick out of the ground. That's how it worked. Once the tactic was in the Australian's heads, England could benefit from it even when they didn't use it.

You make the point that this wasn't great to watch, and in normal circumstances I would agree with you. But Jardine wasn't there to entertain Australians, whom he didn't like and who had long established that they didn't like him. I'm quite sure the Australians would have loved England to turn up, bowl lollipops to Bradman and watch him cream them all around the cricket grounds of Australia. But sometimes, along comes a Pom who just doesn't read the script.

Would things have been different if the Australian public and press hadn't been so antagonistic towards Jardine..? I cannot say. We'll never know.

I agree with you entirely that Bill Woodfull was a gentleman and a fine cricketer. He was one of the few people on either side to come out of it all with credit, unlike Bradman who was forever bitter, resentful and surly whenever the incident was discussed. To be as petulant as he was when he heard of Jardine's death does not befit such a great batsman. It wasn't his finest moment.

Was it all worth the price..? Good question. The answer depends entirely on your point of view.

Fourth Lion
Great batsman Bradman may well have been. Great man is far more debatable.

A former team mate of mine died a few weeks ago having taken a bumper to the head. He was actually wearing a helmet. But the incident has made me look at the bodyline debate in a completely different light. Not sure I can ever quite condone a strategy built on playing Russian Roulette with someone's life.

Raf - I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. Clearly upsetting for you and all concerned. I don't really agree with your interpretation of the strategy but it would be crass to try and argue the point now. Best wishes, Guildford.

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Nobody was bowling 90 MPH bouncers "all the time".  I'm afraid that's a bit of exaggeration on your part there, old chap.  Leg theory bowling, as has been stated by other posters in this thread, was used sparingly.... that was its' effectiveness.  If it had been used 'all the time' the batsman would have simply ducked every ball, and all the England bowlers would have gotten was to finish the day fatigued and wicketless.  The clever part of that form of bowling was to get into the batsman's psyche.  Get him thinking about when it was coming next.   It was no coincidence that when Bill Bowes got Bradman out first ball in the second test, it was because Bradman anticipated a short pitched ball on the leg side and moved accordingly.  What he didn't expect was the Yorker that took his middle stick out of the ground.   That's how it worked.  Once the tactic was in the Australian's heads, England could benefit from it even when they didn't use it.

To back that up. Larwood took a mighty impressive 33 wickets in the five Test Bodyline series. The split of those wickets was: 16 bowled; 2 lbw; 15 caught. The high number and proportion of bowled (or bowled and lbw) should show the barb of ''all the time'' bouncers for the myth it is.

Thanks Guildford. Hadn't seen the bloke for a year or so. But like all Saffers from the coast, the bloke couldn't play the shortball if you gave him Kevlar body armour and a lightweight log. I fell out of love with cricket for a few days after that. Didmt watch it, Didnt play nothing. Closest I've ever come to hating a sport.


Not sure the split of Larwoods wickets proves much. Brett Lee got the majority of his wickets vs the South African tail bowled/LBW in the 2001/2002... But that doesnt change the fact that when Nantie Hayward backed away from the stumps in very real fear, Lee Followed him repeatedly.

Raf - totally different circumstances but I and many of my fellow Surrey supporters also fell out of love with the game for a while last year when Tom Maynard was killed. Not surprisingly, it affected his team mates longer and harder (and perhaps still does).

A bit insensitive now - given your original post - but I was trying to show that Larwood couldn't have been bowling bouncers ''all the time'' as Truss claimed given a fair few balls were hitting stumps or rapping pads. I think Larwood's wickets were split fairly evenly across the batting order - certainly not a tailend bully.

No, it's alright. I think sensitivity, while understandable, shouldn't get in the way of reasoned discussion. Not likening Harwood to a tailend bully, but rather illustrating that the final wickets column isn't always a reliable indicator of how a bowler bowled, whether it be line or length. I'd certainly wager it easier to get more "Bowled & LBW" dismissals if the batsman is in real fear after you bowled five whizzing past the ear.

Yeah all this is great The Fourth Lion but I'm intrigued to know if you're really a 29 year old female as you were last time you graced this forum with your presence or if you're the ageing gent of your current persona?

Oh that I were, Hibbz.  With my current aching back, creaking joints, dicky knees and deteriorating eyesight, the body of a  younger woman, in her prime, would be somewhat preferable to what I have now.  I think the Me'm sahib might have something to say about it, though.  

I know to whom you allude though, and it makes me chuckle quietly to myself that you should have done the sort of digging necessary to find even the most spurious of connections between us.  I might respond to you with a question as to why you would do such a thing..?

The Fourth Lion wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Things like saying well bowled to Larwood while the Aussie captain woodfull is in great pain bent over probably helps with his dark reputation....and isn't very clever....

You can see it both ways.........He saw a flaw in a great batsman and didn't break any laws..........Or you can say he broke the spirit code of the game.........

Being a Toff also doesn't help him with detractors..

I imagine a 90 mph bowler continually aiming at your head with a ball that If it hits the right spot could be fatal...Isn't a lot of fun.......and Isn't great to watch.......

Woodfull the Australian captain seems to come out of the series..A genuine cricket lover  and a true gentleman in the face of adversity.....

Jardine won but at what price..........

Was it worth it ??........

I would agree with you that the "well bowled, Harold" incident was not diplomatic, but as I said in my OP, he was being extensively barracked at the time and besides that, actually, Larwood had bowled well, and Jardine didn't want Woodfull's discomfort to introduce any feelings of sympathy in Larwood.  He wanted Larwood to remain mean and I would say his comment was intended to help Larwood retain his focus.  Yes, it would have been better from a PR point of view if he had said nothing, but out in the middle is not the place for a PR exercise.  Again, as I wrote in my OP.... the Australian public and press had treated Jardine disgracefully ever since he first set foot in Australia.  Perhaps if they had showed some civility to him in the first place, Jardine may not have been so abrasive himself.  

It takes two to tango.  

Also.... as I explained in my OP, Jardine wasn't any sort of "toff" at all.  It is true that he had had a university education, but he wasn't from the aristocracy or even what would have been described in England at that time as the "gentry".  He was, in fact,  a pretty ordinary bloke who had worked hard to make something of himself.  I always thought that was a character trait that Australians respected.

Nobody was bowling 90 MPH bouncers "all the time".  I'm afraid that's a bit of exaggeration on your part there, old chap.  Leg theory bowling, as has been stated by other posters in this thread, was used sparingly.... that was its' effectiveness.  If it had been used 'all the time' the batsman would have simply ducked every ball, and all the England bowlers would have gotten was to finish the day fatigued and wicketless.  The clever part of that form of bowling was to get into the batsman's psyche.  Get him thinking about when it was coming next.   It was no coincidence that when Bill Bowes got Bradman out first ball in the second test, it was because Bradman anticipated a short pitched ball on the leg side and moved accordingly.  What he didn't expect was the Yorker that took his middle stick out of the ground.   That's how it worked.  Once the tactic was in the Australian's heads, England could benefit from it even when they didn't use it.

You make the point that this wasn't great to watch, and in normal circumstances I would agree with you.  But Jardine wasn't there to entertain Australians, whom he didn't like and who had long established that they didn't like him.   I'm quite sure the Australians would have loved England to turn up, bowl lollipops to Bradman and watch him cream them all around the cricket grounds of Australia.  But sometimes, along comes a Pom who just doesn't read the script.

Would things have been different if the Australian public and press hadn't been so antagonistic towards Jardine..?  I cannot say.  We'll never know.  

I agree with you entirely that Bill Woodfull was a gentleman and a fine cricketer.  He was one of the few people on either side to come out of it all with credit, unlike Bradman who was forever bitter, resentful and surly whenever the incident was discussed.  To be as petulant as he was when he heard of Jardine's death does not befit such a great batsman.  It wasn't his finest moment.

Was it all worth the price..?   Good question.  The answer depends entirely on your point of view.

Have to remember these were helmet-less days...........Also have to remember that cricket is a form of entertainment whatever you say about Jardine not being there to entertain.......The life blood of any sport are the fans.........Would the Aussies know what a Toff is ??...He certainly looked and spoke like one......Good enough for me.......But then again I'm American so what do I know..

I read your thread and It was superb as usual...You really are a credit to the board and hope you stick around.....

Cricket for me like American Football is bigger than one team or individual........Like I said I believe it was a hollow victory and his behaviour for me was un-sportsmanlike in a game of Gentleman............

What does "Not diplomatic" mean when Woodfull is bent over ?............Guy is in serious pain and he is saying well bowled....

Quite pathetic...........behaviour.........Be competitive, play hard, even sledge but show compassion and remember the game is bigger and more important than a little Urn you'd only have to defend two years later anyway..

Like I said...love reading your stuff but disagree with you on this............

But keep contributing..

The Fourth Lion wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Things like saying well bowled to Larwood while the Aussie captain woodfull is in great pain bent over probably helps with his dark reputation....and isn't very clever....

You can see it both ways.........He saw a flaw in a great batsman and didn't break any laws..........Or you can say he broke the spirit code of the game.........

Being a Toff also doesn't help him with detractors..

I imagine a 90 mph bowler continually aiming at your head with a ball that If it hits the right spot could be fatal...Isn't a lot of fun.......and Isn't great to watch.......

Woodfull the Australian captain seems to come out of the series..A genuine cricket lover  and a true gentleman in the face of adversity.....

Jardine won but at what price..........

Was it worth it ??........

I would agree with you that the "well bowled, Harold" incident was not diplomatic, but as I said in my OP, he was being extensively barracked at the time and besides that, actually, Larwood had bowled well, and Jardine didn't want Woodfull's discomfort to introduce any feelings of sympathy in Larwood.  He wanted Larwood to remain mean and I would say his comment was intended to help Larwood retain his focus.  Yes, it would have been better from a PR point of view if he had said nothing, but out in the middle is not the place for a PR exercise.  Again, as I wrote in my OP.... the Australian public and press had treated Jardine disgracefully ever since he first set foot in Australia.  Perhaps if they had showed some civility to him in the first place, Jardine may not have been so abrasive himself.  

It takes two to tango.  

Also.... as I explained in my OP, Jardine wasn't any sort of "toff" at all.  It is true that he had had a university education, but he wasn't from the aristocracy or even what would have been described in England at that time as the "gentry".  He was, in fact,  a pretty ordinary bloke who had worked hard to make something of himself.  I always thought that was a character trait that Australians respected.

Nobody was bowling 90 MPH bouncers "all the time".  I'm afraid that's a bit of exaggeration on your part there, old chap.  Leg theory bowling, as has been stated by other posters in this thread, was used sparingly.... that was its' effectiveness.  If it had been used 'all the time' the batsman would have simply ducked every ball, and all the England bowlers would have gotten was to finish the day fatigued and wicketless.  The clever part of that form of bowling was to get into the batsman's psyche.  Get him thinking about when it was coming next.   It was no coincidence that when Bill Bowes got Bradman out first ball in the second test, it was because Bradman anticipated a short pitched ball on the leg side and moved accordingly.  What he didn't expect was the Yorker that took his middle stick out of the ground.   That's how it worked.  Once the tactic was in the Australian's heads, England could benefit from it even when they didn't use it.

You make the point that this wasn't great to watch, and in normal circumstances I would agree with you.  But Jardine wasn't there to entertain Australians, whom he didn't like and who had long established that they didn't like him.   I'm quite sure the Australians would have loved England to turn up, bowl lollipops to Bradman and watch him cream them all around the cricket grounds of Australia.  But sometimes, along comes a Pom who just doesn't read the script.

Would things have been different if the Australian public and press hadn't been so antagonistic towards Jardine..?  I cannot say.  We'll never know.  

I agree with you entirely that Bill Woodfull was a gentleman and a fine cricketer.  He was one of the few people on either side to come out of it all with credit, unlike Bradman who was forever bitter, resentful and surly whenever the incident was discussed.  To be as petulant as he was when he heard of Jardine's death does not befit such a great batsman.  It wasn't his finest moment.

Was it all worth the price..?   Good question.  The answer depends entirely on your point of view.

Have to remember these were helmet-less days...........Also have to remember that cricket is a form of entertainment whatever you say about Jardine not being there to entertain.......The life blood of any sport are the fans.........Would the Aussies know what a Toff is ??...He certainly looked and spoke like one......Good enough for me.......But then again I'm American so what do I know..

I read your thread and It was superb as usual...You really are a credit to the board and hope you stick around.....

Cricket for me like American Football is bigger than one team or individual........Like I said I believe it was a hollow victory and his behaviour for me was un-sportsmanlike in a game of Gentleman............

What does "Not diplomatic" mean when Woodfull is bent over ?............Guy is in serious pain and he is saying well bowled....

Quite pathetic...........behaviour.........Be competitive, play hard, even sledge but show compassion and remember the game is bigger and more important than a little Urn you'd only have to defend two years later anyway..

Like I said...love reading your stuff but disagree with you on this............

But keep contributing..

TRUSSMAN going off the deep end there with comparisons of cricket and American Football.

One is played in schools, village greens, clubs and, yes, the professional top of the pyramid.

"Football" is played at some schools and youth organizations, but after the age of 18 is mostly played for money only, whether at the College/University level (financing their athletic programmes) or, for the elite, in the NFL. Very little semi-pro or amateur "Football" played, certainly in comparison w/cricket.

And: Once the courts and insurance companies have got their arms around liability for concussions and potentially fatal brain injuries, the landscape will be narrowed still further due to soaring insurance premiums and cost of litigation.

Mate.....This is about Jardine.......

Not about claims direct..

Quite!!!!!

Very sporting game American Football!!!!!

The Fourth Lion wrote:Oh that I were, Hibbz.  With my current aching back, creaking joints, dicky knees and deteriorating eyesight, the body of a  younger woman, in her prime, would be somewhat preferable to what I have now.  I think the Me'm sahib might have something to say about it, though.  

I know to whom you allude though, and it makes me chuckle quietly to myself that you should have done the sort of digging necessary to find even the most spurious of connections between us.  I might respond to you with a question as to why you would do such a thing..?

Well either you are the dearly departed Jennifer1984 or you've stolen her work post for post.

http://www.theforumsite.com/forum/post/6554576

A google search of the first few lines of your post is hardly Sherlockesque style digging, and as to why it's because I have an pathological hatred of bullsh!t and bullsh!tters.

Hibbz wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:Oh that I were, Hibbz.  With my current aching back, creaking joints, dicky knees and deteriorating eyesight, the body of a  younger woman, in her prime, would be somewhat preferable to what I have now.  I think the Me'm sahib might have something to say about it, though.  

I know to whom you allude though, and it makes me chuckle quietly to myself that you should have done the sort of digging necessary to find even the most spurious of connections between us.  I might respond to you with a question as to why you would do such a thing..?

Well either you are the dearly departed Jennifer1984 or you've stolen her work post for post.

http://www.theforumsite.com/forum/post/6554576

A google search of the first few lines of your post is hardly Sherlockesque style digging, and as to why it's because I have an pathological hatred of bullsh!t and bullsh!tters.

By way of 'Right of Reply' to spurious and not-properly-thought-through allegations


And that would be my wife's niece, Jen, who with my permission, used that old post of mine in one of her own threads some time ago.  I raised this topic of discussion in another place some years ago.  The original, original, article is still in my documents file (I often write a piece as a document so it can be revised, polished and proof-read before posting) and I brought it up on 606 in the belief that I had, at last, found a site where the posters are objective, topic-focused and mature enough to not indulge in petty, boorish sniping. It seems my belief isn't entirely well founded.

The trouble with amateur sleuths, who have some sort of childish axe to grind, is that they tend to go off half-cocked and make silly posts that only end up making them look foolish.

A word to the wise:   What you should have done, if you had any sense, was to PM me first and ask why my original message was appearing in another site.  That way I would have informed you as to what happened and you wouldn't now have egg on your face.  Now, having unnecessarily gone to the trouble of explaining myself,  I do not intend to indulge you any further in your pointless, pot-stirring.  Fool.

I believe she posted on here for a while too.  In fact, it was she who told me of the existence of this site.  

It's a small world.  Even on the interweb.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Things like saying well bowled to Larwood while the Aussie captain woodfull is in great pain bent over probably helps with his dark reputation....and isn't very clever....

You can see it both ways.........He saw a flaw in a great batsman and didn't break any laws..........Or you can say he broke the spirit code of the game.........

Being a Toff also doesn't help him with detractors..

I imagine a 90 mph bowler continually aiming at your head with a ball that If it hits the right spot could be fatal...Isn't a lot of fun.......and Isn't great to watch.......

Woodfull the Australian captain seems to come out of the series..A genuine cricket lover  and a true gentleman in the face of adversity.....

Jardine won but at what price..........

Was it worth it ??........

I would agree with you that the "well bowled, Harold" incident was not diplomatic, but as I said in my OP, he was being extensively barracked at the time and besides that, actually, Larwood had bowled well, and Jardine didn't want Woodfull's discomfort to introduce any feelings of sympathy in Larwood.  He wanted Larwood to remain mean and I would say his comment was intended to help Larwood retain his focus.  Yes, it would have been better from a PR point of view if he had said nothing, but out in the middle is not the place for a PR exercise.  Again, as I wrote in my OP.... the Australian public and press had treated Jardine disgracefully ever since he first set foot in Australia.  Perhaps if they had showed some civility to him in the first place, Jardine may not have been so abrasive himself.  

It takes two to tango.  

Also.... as I explained in my OP, Jardine wasn't any sort of "toff" at all.  It is true that he had had a university education, but he wasn't from the aristocracy or even what would have been described in England at that time as the "gentry".  He was, in fact,  a pretty ordinary bloke who had worked hard to make something of himself.  I always thought that was a character trait that Australians respected.

Nobody was bowling 90 MPH bouncers "all the time".  I'm afraid that's a bit of exaggeration on your part there, old chap.  Leg theory bowling, as has been stated by other posters in this thread, was used sparingly.... that was its' effectiveness.  If it had been used 'all the time' the batsman would have simply ducked every ball, and all the England bowlers would have gotten was to finish the day fatigued and wicketless.  The clever part of that form of bowling was to get into the batsman's psyche.  Get him thinking about when it was coming next.   It was no coincidence that when Bill Bowes got Bradman out first ball in the second test, it was because Bradman anticipated a short pitched ball on the leg side and moved accordingly.  What he didn't expect was the Yorker that took his middle stick out of the ground.   That's how it worked.  Once the tactic was in the Australian's heads, England could benefit from it even when they didn't use it.

You make the point that this wasn't great to watch, and in normal circumstances I would agree with you.  But Jardine wasn't there to entertain Australians, whom he didn't like and who had long established that they didn't like him.   I'm quite sure the Australians would have loved England to turn up, bowl lollipops to Bradman and watch him cream them all around the cricket grounds of Australia.  But sometimes, along comes a Pom who just doesn't read the script.

Would things have been different if the Australian public and press hadn't been so antagonistic towards Jardine..?  I cannot say.  We'll never know.  

I agree with you entirely that Bill Woodfull was a gentleman and a fine cricketer.  He was one of the few people on either side to come out of it all with credit, unlike Bradman who was forever bitter, resentful and surly whenever the incident was discussed.  To be as petulant as he was when he heard of Jardine's death does not befit such a great batsman.  It wasn't his finest moment.

Was it all worth the price..?   Good question.  The answer depends entirely on your point of view.

Have to remember these were helmet-less days...........Also have to remember that cricket is a form of entertainment whatever you say about Jardine not being there to entertain.......The life blood of any sport are the fans.........Would the Aussies know what a Toff is ??...He certainly looked and spoke like one......Good enough for me.......But then again I'm American so what do I know..

I read your thread and It was superb as usual...You really are a credit to the board and hope you stick around.....

Cricket for me like American Football is bigger than one team or individual........Like I said I believe  it was a hollow victory and his behaviour for me was un-sportsmanlike in a game of Gentleman............

What does "Not diplomatic" mean when Woodfull is bent over ?............Guy is in serious pain and he is saying well bowled....

Quite pathetic...........behaviour.........Be competitive, play hard, even sledge but show compassion and remember the game is bigger and more important than a little Urn you'd only have to defend two years later anyway..

Like I said...love reading your stuff but disagree with you on this............

But keep contributing..

I understand where you're coming from and entirely respect your point of view, however on this occasion I think we can agree to disagree.  

Thanks for joining in the discussion.  It's always interesting to read objective comments.

Chinny Reckon.

Chinny? That takes me back.