The second day’s report that follows is from The Cricketer without editing and the only change is the use of Allen’s name instead of calling him the Middlesex’s man as originally-written.
“Larwood and Allen opened the England attack. The former had three slips, gully, short and long legs, but no mid-off. Allen’s field was orthodox. Off Allen’s third ball Fingleton was caught and off the last ball of Larwood’s second over Woodfull received a nasty blow over the heart which set the crowd roaring at the bowler. Bradman began most confidently and then fell into the leg trap. McCabe, too, was caught on the leg side. Hammond might possibly have caught Ponsford off a very difficult chance when the batsman was 3, but the old partnership of Woodfull-Ponsford was not destined to produce a big stand, the Australian captain playing on at 51 to a ball from Allen which kept low.”
You can see the cruel irony in what had happened as Larwood’s name was blackened for something he emphatically didn’t do. The evidence exists on tape and can be viewed on YouTube. ‘The ball that hit Woodfull wasn’t bowled to a Bodyline field. Larwood insisted the ball was straight. Jardine claimed that Woodfull had stepped outside his off stump to play it. The umpire George Hele said Larwood bowled it on leg stump.’
It hit him near the heart and his weight fell forward and not back. The photographs and his immediate physical impulse do not indicate that the ball was on leg stump. He lifted his right leg—though no sideways movement can be detected—which opened him up a little and then he held his chest in pain walking towards the off side. The impact of a ball on leg stump would have pushed him to the on side a little bit at least and not to where he went unless he was standing well outside the leg stump. To me it is a clear case of poor judgment and reflexes but you should see and decide for yourself.
What was more crucial and appalled Woodfull—and later critically dictated his response—was the reaction of Jardine to his discomfort. Jardine walked past Woodfull and patted Larwood on the back and said loudly, ‘Well bowled, Harold.’ It was a psychological ploy designed to unnerve Bradman at the other end. Jardine then did what he years later admitted as inappropriate. He stopped Larwood in mid-stride, quite obviously for base psychology again and moved fielders to ‘Bodyline’ positions on the leg side.
This behaviour understandably shocked the crowd, sending the message that here was a captain who rather than showing some concern and asking about the injury of the opposition captain was instead trying to rub salt on his wounds. It was a poor call and must have had an impact in increasing the hostility towards the visitors later. Shortly afterwards Larwood sent the bat spinning out of Woodfull’s hands. Jardine knew—and didn’t care—that he would provoke both Woodfull and Bradman, who made a meagre eight runs before Larwood claimed him.
The Adelaide Leak
These were deliberate tactics—and the Australian team would have understood them as such as they weren’t spring chickens in international cricket—the purpose of which England manager Pelham Warner could not comprehend.
When Woodfull was bowled by Allen and he returned to the dressing room, Warner without giving any consideration to timing immediately went to inquire about his injury and commiserate about the ball from Larwood. He had no idea about the theatrics that had taken place on the field and a delay may have cooled Woodfull. It became the defining moment of the series and the volcano erupted in a strange manner where the best of intentions produced the worst consequences.
Warner was playing the diplomat with his Victorian attitudes towards fair play but he was incapable of understanding the situational sensitivity and Woodfull’s mood. ‘The exchange lasted less than a minute and 25-words got imprinted not just to the series but to the entire cricketing world. Woodfull, in no mood to be diplomatic, spat out his terse reply: “I don’t want to see you, Mr Warner. There are two teams out there. One is trying to play cricket and the other is not.”’
The sophisticated Warner, who was ‘used to being spoken to as if he were a Lord in ermine, was so jolted that he was found sobbing, shaking, and wailing in his bedroom later’. Jardine told the team not to discuss the matter with anyone, especially with someone holding a pencil and paper. ‘Bradman understood that his captain’s response was incendiary and that he could use it as a weapon to fight Bodyline—something he’d been unable to do consistently with his bat. The Bodyline furore, Larwood always maintained, was caused by Woodfull’s ‘temper’ and Warner’s ‘need to say sorry’.’
The next day was a Sunday and no play took place as it was planned as the rest day. On Monday morning something far more vicious than a couple of injuries and player confrontations was spread across the front pages of almost all newspapers. The stories describing Woodfull’s injury and his conversation with Warner were splashed all across the front pages of newspapers; a couple of them carried extensive accounts. Woodfull was a man of principles and was livid that a sensitive dressing room incident got reported in the press.
‘Woodfull’s public silence on the tactics had been interpreted as approval; the leak was significant in persuading the Australian public that Bodyline was unacceptable. Any pretence that this was just another rough Ashes series with Woodfull’s searing opinion set in hard type across front pages could not have been maintained now.’ The crowd filled the stadium seething with anger and armed with the knowledge that their captain abhorred England’s tactics.
“And then, of course, came Larwood again…
“The tipping point of the Bodyline Series—the ball that struck Bert Oldfield—wasn’t bowled to a Bodyline field either. But it didn’t matter. The climate was so fevered that Bill Woodfull, the Australian Board of Control and even those who paid to watch were blind to, and unable to discriminate between, genuine fast bowling and Bodyline—even when Jardine, the auteur of it, didn’t deploy a leg-side field.” There was no question of rationality now and Harold Larwood—no matter what the evidence and the fault—was always going to be guilty and exposed to a spillage of hate.
Larwood had noticed on his first trip to Australia that one of every three or four balls skimmed off the surface and the bounce was unpredictable. There was no need to dig it in as the bounce occurred naturally especially with the new ball.
Oldfield was on strike when Jardine took the new ball and gave it to Larwood. Bertie had made 41 impressive runs, frequently pulling Larwood through mid-wicket. The ball that struck him was short and a foot outside the off stump and Oldfield decided to step across to hook or pull again, lost sight of it because of the low sightscreen and mistimed his shot. He knew immediately that had the ball struck him on the temple ‘it would have been the end of me’.
The edge flew to the right side of his forehead. He moved in short jerky steps and his legs collapsed beneath him. In confusion and pain, he tried to take his cap off, and then he put it on again. This time Larwood dashed up the pitch terrified that Oldfield might have died. And he might have, had the peak of his cap not broken the trajectory of the ball. He suffered a linear fracture of the right frontal bone. ‘I’m sorry, Bertie,’ said Larwood in blind terror. Oldfield replied: “It’s not your fault, Harold. I was trying to hook you for four.” Hamilton argues that if only Oldfield’s reply could have been broadcast at the moment or if only the crowd could have heard his view that ‘criticism of Larwood is unjustified’.
These are exact words from the day’s report © The Cricketer. “Grimmett fell to a magnificent catch by Voce in the slips and then with the score at 217 for seven, Oldfield was hit by a ball from Larwood. The bowler could not be blamed for the accident but when O’Reilly took Oldfield’s place, the crowd booed every time Larwood bowled.”
The manner in which Oldfield got injured can be seen on YouTube and this incident is very clear as it shows how he went towards the off side to fetch the ball. It was extremely-poor shot selection to hook a new ball at Larwood’s speed from outside off stump. You need to be in a pre-meditated position or lightening fast to get into one and even then hooking it is dangerous as there is always a possibility of unpredictable bounce.
A bouncer on the leg stump or outside leg stump does not present the same physical danger as the batsman’s body is away from the ball and only the extension of the bat is used to hit it and as a result any kind of edge, under edge or leading edge, would have extremely low probability to come in the reverse direction of the ball’s trajectory to hit the batsman. In case of a bouncer on off stump the body is behind and has the same trajectory as it would require to hit a batsman and an under edge has a good chance of hitting him.
Modern players slash the off stump bouncer over point or even thump it in a cross bat fashion in the arc between mid-off and mid-wicket thus reducing the chance of the body being the second line of defence in case the shot is not properly executed. The percentage behind the wicket is very low. Oldfield was the first to clarify this and his clarification is reported in the end of the day report by The Cricketer and also in the sixth day summary. He could take no further part in the Adelaide game.
Connect With Me