Editing Bodyline (section)

==Ashes series of 1932–33==

===Early development on tour===
[[Image:Bodyline Team.jpg|thumb|The England team that toured Australia in 1932–33. Back row: [[George Duckworth]], [[Tommy Mitchell]], [[Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi|Nawab of Pataudi]], [[Maurice Leyland]], [[Harold Larwood]], [[Eddie Paynter]], W. Ferguson (scorer). Middle row: [[Pelham Warner]] (co-manager), [[Les Ames]], [[Hedley Verity]], [[Bill Voce]], [[Bill Bowes]], [[Freddie Brown (cricketer)|Freddie Brown]], [[Maurice Tate]], [[Richard Palairet|R. C. N. Palairet]] (co-manager). Front row: [[Herbert Sutcliffe]], [[Bob Wyatt]], [[Douglas Jardine]], [[Gubby Allen]], [[Wally Hammond]]]]
{{see also|English cricket team in Australia in 1932–33}}
[[File:Bodyline Cricket Series 1932 SLNSW FL1660012.jpg|thumb|Jardine leads the English Team onto the Sydney Cricket Ground, 2 Dec 1932]]
The England team which toured Australia in 1932–33 contained four fast bowlers and a few medium pacers; such a heavy concentration on pace was unusual at the time, and drew comment from the Australian press and players, including Bradman.<ref>Frith, pp. 54–55.</ref> On the journey, Jardine instructed his team on how to approach the tour and discussed tactics with several players, including Larwood;<ref name="journey"/> at this stage, he seems to have settled on [[leg theory]], if not full bodyline, as his main tactic.<ref>Douglas, pp. 123–24.</ref> Some players later reported that he told them to hate the Australians in order to defeat them, while instructing them to refer to Bradman as "the little bastard."<ref name="journey">Frith, pp. 61, 66.</ref> Upon arrival, Jardine quickly alienated the press and crowds through his manner and approach.<ref>Frith, pp. 69, 90–91.</ref><ref name=D126>Douglas, p. 126.</ref>

In the early matches, although there were instances of the English bowlers pitching the ball short and causing problems with their pace, full bodyline tactics were not used.<ref>Frith, pp. 79–94.</ref> There had been little unusual about the English bowling except the number of fast bowlers. Larwood and Voce were given a light workload in the early matches by Jardine.<ref name=D126/> The English tactics changed in a game against an Australian XI team at Melbourne in mid-November, when full bodyline tactics were deployed for the first time.<ref name=ha344>Harte, p. 344.</ref><ref name="p249">Pollard, p. 249.</ref> Jardine had left himself out of the English side, which was led instead by [[Bob Wyatt]] who later wrote that the team experimented with a diluted form of bodyline bowling. He reported to Jardine that Bradman, who was playing for the opposition, seemed uncomfortable against the bowling tactics of Larwood, Voce and Bowes. The crowd, press and Australian players were shocked by what they experienced and believed that the bowlers were targeting the batsmen's heads. Bradman adopted unorthodox tactics—ducking, weaving and moving around the [[Crease (cricket)|crease]]—which did not meet with universal approval from Australians and he scored just 36 and 13 in the match.<ref>Frith, pp. 94–96.</ref>

The tactic continued to be used in the next game by Voce (Larwood and Bowes did not play in this game), against [[New South Wales cricket team|New South Wales]], for whom [[Jack Fingleton]] made a century and received several blows in the process. Bradman again failed twice, and had scored just 103 runs in six innings against the touring team; many Australian fans were now worried by Bradman's form.<ref>Frith, pp. 99–105.</ref> Meanwhile, Jardine wrote to tell Fender that his information about the Australian batting technique was correct and that it meant he was having to move more and more fielders onto the leg side: "if this goes on I shall have to move the whole bloody lot to the leg side."<ref name="Frith, p. 105">Frith, p. 105.</ref><ref>Douglas, p. 128.</ref>

The Australian press were shocked and criticised the hostility of Larwood in particular.<ref>Frith, pp. 97–98.</ref> Some former Australian players joined the criticism, saying the tactics were ethically wrong. But at this stage, not everyone was opposed,<ref>Frith, pp. 106–7.</ref> and the Australian Board of Control believed the English team had bowled fairly.<ref>Frith, p. 99.</ref> On the other hand, Jardine increasingly came into disagreement with tour manager Warner over bodyline as the tour progressed.<ref>Frith, p. 98.</ref> Warner hated bodyline but would not speak out against it. He was accused of hypocrisy for not taking a stand on either side,<ref>Growden, pp. 62–63.</ref> particularly after expressing sentiments at the start of the tour that cricket "has become a synonym for all that is true and honest. To say 'that is not cricket' implies something underhand, something not in keeping with the best ideals&nbsp;...&nbsp;all who love it as players, as officials or spectators must be careful lest anything they do should do it harm."<ref>Frith, p. 68.</ref>

===First two Test matches===
[[File:Bodyline cable descriptions 2nd Test 30 December 1932 a295004.jpg|thumb|Description of play in the second Test, including Bradman's wicket. Cables briefly describing each day's play were sent by reporters to England, where they were turned into scripts for broadcast.| alt=Photograph shows telegrams describing the events of the first day of the second test.]]
Bradman missed the first Test at Sydney, worn out by constant cricket and the ongoing argument with the Board of Control.<ref>Frith, p. 109.</ref> Jardine later wrote that the real reason was that the batsman had suffered a [[nervous breakdown]].<ref name=ha344/><ref name=h71>Haigh and Frith, p. 71.</ref> The English bowlers used bodyline intermittently in the first match, to the crowd's vocal displeasure,<ref>Frith, pp. 117, 120, 126, 134.</ref> and the Australians lost the game by ten wickets.{{refn|Winning by ten wickets means that the team batting last had ten wickets left to fall when they passed their opponent's match aggregate of runs.|group=notes|}} Larwood was particularly successful, returning match figures of ten wickets for 124 runs.<ref name=F137>Frith, p. 137.</ref> One of the English bowlers, [[Gubby Allen]], refused to bowl with fielders on the leg side, clashing with Jardine over these tactics.<ref name="Frith, p. 116">Frith, p. 116.</ref>{{refn|Allen, whose definition of bodyline differed from that of others, maintained that England did not use bodyline until the second innings of the second Test, when Larwood began to bowl outside leg stump.<ref>Swanton, pp. 137–38.</ref> Despite his objection to bodyline, he fielded in the leg trap throughout the series and took several catches off Larwood's bowling.<ref name="Frith, p. 116"/>|group=notes|}} The only Australian batsman to make an impact was [[Stan McCabe]], who hooked and pulled everything aimed at his upper body,<ref name=c172>Colman, p. 172.</ref> to score 187 not out in four hours from 233 [[Delivery (cricket)|deliveries]].<ref name=F137/><ref name=ha344/> Behind the scenes, administrators began to express concerns to each other. Yet the English tactics still did not earn universal disapproval; former Australian captain [[Monty Noble]] praised the English bowling.<ref>Frith, pp. 134–35.</ref>

Meanwhile, Woodfull was being encouraged to retaliate to the short-pitched English attack, not least by members of his own side such as [[Vic Richardson]], or to include pace bowlers such as [[Eddie Gilbert (cricketer)|Eddie Gilbert]] or [[Laurie Nash]] to match the aggression of the opposition.<ref name=w132>Whitington and Hele, p. 132.</ref> But Woodfull refused to consider doing so.<ref>Frith, p. 134.</ref><ref>{{Cite web| last = Haigh | first = Gideon | url = http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/316110.html| title = Gideon Haigh on Bodyline: A tactic of its time| date = 22 October 2007 |publisher = ESPNCricinfo| access-date = 1 February 2011}}</ref><ref>Colman, pp. 181–182.</ref> He had to wait until minutes before the game before he was confirmed as captain by the selectors.<ref>O'Reilly, p.88.</ref><ref name=ha346>Harte, p. 346.</ref>

For the second Test, Bradman returned to the team after his newspaper employers released him from his contract.<ref>Frith, p. 139.</ref> England continued to use bodyline and Bradman was dismissed by his first ball in the first innings.{{refn|Jardine, who was known for being extremely dour even by the standards of the day,<ref name=pi132>Piesse, p. 132.</ref> was seen to be so delighted that he had clasped his hands above his head and performed a "war dance".<ref>Bowes, p. 107.</ref>|group=notes|}} In the second innings, against the full bodyline attack, he scored an unbeaten century which helped Australia to win the match and level the series at one match each.<ref>Frith, pp. 150, 159–63.</ref> Critics began to believe bodyline was not quite the threat that had been perceived and Bradman's reputation, which had suffered slightly with his earlier failures, was restored. However, the pitch was slightly slower than others in the series, and Larwood was suffering from problems with his boots which reduced his effectiveness.<ref>Douglas, p. 137.</ref><ref>Frith, p. 165.</ref>

===Third Test match===
{{Main|Adelaide leak}}
The controversy reached its peak during the [[Third Test, 1932–33 Ashes series|Third Test]] at Adelaide. On the second day, a Saturday, before a crowd of 50,962 spectators,<ref name=ha346/><ref name="h73">Haigh and Frith, p. 73.</ref> Australia bowled out England who had batted through the first day. In the third over of the Australian innings, Larwood bowled to Woodfull. The fifth ball narrowly missed Woodfull's head and the final ball, delivered short on the line of [[Stump (cricket)#Part of the wicket|middle stump]], struck Woodfull over the heart. The batsman dropped his bat and staggered away holding his chest, bent over in pain. The England players surrounded Woodfull to offer sympathy but the crowd began to protest noisily. Jardine called to Larwood: "Well bowled, Harold!" Although the comment was aimed at unnerving Bradman, who was also batting at the time, Woodfull was appalled.<ref>Hamilton, p. 156.</ref><ref>Frith, p. 179.</ref> Play resumed after a brief delay, once it was certain the Australian captain was fit to carry on and, since Larwood's over had ended, Woodfull did not have to face the bowling of Allen in the next over. However, when Larwood was ready to bowl at Woodfull again, play was halted once more when the fielders were moved into bodyline positions, causing the crowd to protest and call abuse at the England team. Subsequently, Jardine claimed that Larwood requested a field change, Larwood said that Jardine had done so.<ref name=F180/> Many commentators condemned the alteration of the field as unsporting, and the angry spectators became extremely volatile.<ref name=F181>Frith, p. 181.</ref> Jardine, although writing that Woodfull could have [[Substitute (cricket)#Retired hurt (or not out)|retired hurt]] if he was unfit, later expressed his regret at making the field change at that moment.<ref name=F180>Frith, p. 180.</ref> The fury of the crowd was such that a riot might have occurred had another incident taken place and several writers suggested that the anger of the spectators was the culmination of feelings built up over the two months that bodyline had developed.<ref name="F181"/>

During the over, another rising Larwood delivery knocked the bat out of Woodfull's hands. He batted for 89 minutes, being hit a few more times before Allen bowled him for 22.<ref>Frith, p. 182.</ref> Later in the day, Pelham Warner, one of the England managers, visited the Australian dressing room. He expressed sympathy to Woodfull but was surprised by the Australian's response. According to Warner, Woodfull replied, "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."<ref name=F185>Frith, p. 185.</ref> Fingleton wrote that Woodfull had added, "This game is too good to be spoilt. It is time some people got out of it."<ref name=fingo>Fingleton (1947), p. 18.</ref> Woodfull was usually dignified and quietly spoken, making his reaction surprising to Warner and others present.<ref name=F185/><ref name=fingo17>Fingleton (1947), p. 17.</ref> Warner was so shaken that he was found in tears later that day in his hotel room.<ref>Hamilton, pp. 156–57.</ref>

There was no play on the following day, Sunday being a rest day, but on Monday morning, the exchange between Warner and Woodfull was reported in several Australian newspapers.<ref>Frith, p. 194.</ref> The players and officials were horrified that a sensitive private exchange had been reported to the press. [[News leak|Leaks]] to the press were practically unknown in 1933. David Frith notes that discretion and respect were highly prized and such a leak was "regarded as a moral offence of the first order."<ref name=F187>Frith, p. 187.</ref> Woodfull made it clear that he severely disapproved of the leak, and later wrote that he "always expected cricketers to do the right thing by their team-mates."<ref name=F188>Frith, p. 188.</ref><ref>Growden, p. 72.</ref> As the only full-time journalist in the Australian team, suspicion immediately fell on Fingleton, although as soon as the story was published, he told Woodfull he was not responsible. Warner offered Larwood a reward of one pound if he could dismiss Fingleton in the second innings; Larwood obliged by bowling him for a [[Duck (cricket)|duck]].<ref name=F188/><ref name="Hamilton, p. 157">Hamilton, p. 157.</ref> Fingleton later claimed that Sydney Sun reporter [[Claude Corbett]] had received the information from Bradman;<ref name="Fingleton">Fingleton (1981), p. 108.</ref> for the rest of their lives, Fingleton and Bradman made claim and counter-claim that the other man was responsible for the leak.<ref>Frith, pp. 187–92.</ref>

[[File:Bodyline 3rd Test Oldfield 02.jpg|left|thumb|Bert Oldfield staggers away with his skull fractured.]]
The following day, as Australia faced a large deficit on the first innings, [[Bert Oldfield]] played a long innings in support of [[Bill Ponsford]], who scored 85. In the course of the innings, the English bowlers used bodyline against him, and he faced several short-pitched deliveries but took several [[Boundary (cricket)|fours]] from Larwood to move to 41.<ref>Frith, pp. 194–96.</ref> Having just conceded a four, Larwood bowled fractionally shorter and slightly slower. Oldfield attempted to hook but lost sight of the ball and edged it onto his temple; the ball fractured his skull. Oldfield staggered away and fell to his knees and play stopped as Woodfull came onto the pitch and the angry crowd jeered and shouted, once more reaching the point where a riot seemed likely. Several English players thought about arming themselves with stumps should the crowd come onto the field.<ref name=Oldfield>Frith, pp. 196–98.</ref> The ball which injured Oldfield was bowled to a conventional, non-bodyline field;<ref>Frith, p. 200.</ref> Larwood immediately apologised but Oldfield said that it was his own fault before he was helped back to the dressing room and play continued.<ref name=Oldfield/>{{refn|As a result of the injuries in this game, the costs of insurance cover for players doubled.<ref>Frith and Haigh, p. 77.</ref>|group=notes|}} Jardine later secretly sent a telegram of sympathy to Oldfield's wife and arranged for presents to be given to his young daughters.<ref name="Frith, p. 201">Frith, p. 201.</ref>

===The cable exchange===
At the end of the fourth day's play of the third Test match, the Australian Board of Control sent a [[Electrical telegraph|cable]] to the [[Marylebone Cricket Club]] (MCC), cricket's ruling body and the club that selected the England team, in London:

{{blockquote|Australian Board of Control to MCC, January 18, 1933: <br>
Bodyline bowling assumed such proportions as to menace best interests of game, making protection of body by batsmen the main consideration. Causing intensely bitter feeling between players, as well as injury. In our opinion is unsportsmanlike. Unless stopped at once likely to upset friendly relations between Australia and England.<ref name="f218">Frith, p. 218.</ref>}}

Not all Australians, including the press and players, believed that the cable should have been sent, particularly immediately following a heavy defeat.<ref>Frith, pp. 218–19.</ref> The suggestion of unsportsmanlike behaviour was deeply resented by the MCC, and was one of the worst accusations that could have been levelled at the team at the time. Additionally, members of the MCC believed that the Australians had over-reacted to the English bowling.<ref name=BBC/><ref name=Williamson/> The MCC took some time to draft a reply:

{{blockquote|MCC to Australian Board of Control, January 23, 1933: <br>
We, Marylebone Cricket Club, deplore your cable. We deprecate your opinion that there has been unsportsmanlike play. We have fullest confidence in captain, team and managers, and are convinced they would do nothing to infringe either the Laws of Cricket or the spirit of the game. We have no evidence that our confidence is misplaced. Much as we regret accidents to Woodfull and Oldfield, we understand that in neither case was the bowler to blame. If the Australian Board of Control wish to propose a new law or rule it shall receive our careful consideration in due course. We hope the situation is not now as serious as your cable would seem to indicate, but if it is such as to jeopardise the good relations between English and Australian cricketers, and you would consider it desirable to cancel remainder of programme, we would consent with great reluctance.<ref>Frith, pp. 218–22.</ref>}}

At this point, the remainder of the series was under threat.<ref name="p259">Pollard, p. 259.</ref><ref>Frith, p. 227.</ref> Jardine was shaken by the events and by the hostile reactions to his team. Stories appeared in the press, possibly leaked by the disenchanted [[Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi|Nawab of Pataudi]],<ref>Frith, p. 215.</ref> about fights and arguments between the England players. Jardine offered to stop using bodyline 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 the captain and his tactics.<ref name="Frith, pp. 214–15">Frith, pp. 214–15.</ref><ref name="Douglas, p. 146">Douglas, p. 146.</ref> Even so, Jardine would not have played in the fourth Test without the withdrawal of the "unsportsmanlike" accusation.<ref>Douglas, pp. 145–46.</ref>

The Australian Board met to draft a reply cable, which was sent on 30 January, indicating that they wished the series to continue and offering to postpone consideration of the fairness of bodyline bowling until after the series. The MCC's reply, on 2 February, suggested that continuing the series would be impossible unless the accusation of unsporting behaviour was withdrawn.<ref>Frith, pp. 226–28.</ref>

The situation escalated into a diplomatic incident. Figures high up in both the British and Australian government saw bodyline as potentially fracturing an international relationship that needed to remain strong.<ref name="Frith, pp. 241–59"/> The [[Governors of South Australia|Governor]] of [[South Australia]], [[Alexander Hore-Ruthven, 1st Earl of Gowrie|Alexander Hore-Ruthven]], who was in England at the time, expressed his concern to British [[Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs]] [[James Henry Thomas]] that this would cause a significant impact on trade between the nations.<ref>Frith, pp. 242–248.</ref><ref name="p2601"/> The standoff was settled when [[Prime Minister of Australia|the Australian prime minister]], [[Joseph Lyons]], met with members of the Australian Board and outlined to them the severe economic hardships that could be caused in Australia if the British public boycotted Australian trade. Following considerable discussion and debate in the English and Australian press, the Australian Board sent a cable to the MCC which, while maintaining its opposition to bodyline bowling, stated "We do not regard the sportsmanship of your team as being in question".<ref name="p2601">Pollard, pp. 260–261.</ref><ref>Frith, pp. 255–259.</ref> Even so, correspondence between the Australian Board and the MCC continued for almost a year.<ref>Douglas, pp. 145–47.</ref>

===The end of the series===
Voce missed the fourth Test of the series, being replaced by a [[leg spinner]], [[Tommy Mitchell]]. Larwood continued to use bodyline, but he was the only bowler in the team using the tactic; even so, he used it less frequently than usual and seemed less effective in high temperatures and humidity.<ref>Frith, pp. 274, 277, 293.</ref> England won the game by eight wickets, thanks in part to an innings of 83 by [[Eddie Paynter]] who had been admitted to hospital with tonsillitis but left in order to bat when England were struggling in their innings.<ref>Frith, pp. 288–91.</ref><ref>{{Cite web| url = http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/151782.html| title = England v Australia 1932–33 (Fourth Test) | work = Wisden Cricketers' Almanack  | year = 1934 | publisher = John Wisden & Co | location = London |access-date = 28 October 2017}}</ref> Voce returned for the final Test, but neither he nor Allen were fully fit,<ref>Frith, p. 309</ref> and despite the use of bodyline tactics, Australia scored 435 at a rapid pace, aided by several dropped catches.<ref>Frith, p. 314.</ref> Australia included a fast bowler for this final game, [[Harry Alexander (cricketer)|Harry Alexander]] who bowled some short deliveries but was not allowed to use many fielders on the leg side by his captain, Woodfull.<ref>Frith, pp. 315–18.</ref> England built a lead of 19 but their tactics in Australia's second innings were disrupted when Larwood left the field with an injured foot; [[Hedley Verity]], a spinner, claimed five wickets to bowl Australia out;<ref>Frith, pp. 324–25.</ref> England won by eight wickets and won the series by four Tests to one.<ref>Frith, pp. 328, 330.</ref>