Player Comments - Fingleton and Ferguson
"Cricket
Crisis", by Jack
Fingleton (Extracts)
After
a lot of praise for Bradman's uncanny timing:
I hasten to add that all this concerned Bradman the
Great, of the Good wicket. In that category he stood
alone. He was towering, majestic, omniscient until the
platter, the platter on his palace roof told him that
the rains had arrived. Then he put off his majestic
plumes and stole out to mix with the rabble, his features
indistinguishable in the ranks of wet-wicket mediocri-ties.
Bradman's repeated failures on wet wickets must remain
the mystery or his career. I saw him bat on innumerable
occasions on damaged wickets, but only twice did I see
him succeed - Once for NSW against England, and again
for Australia against Yorkshire.
About Bradman's attitude on a wet wicket:
It always seemed that Bradman refused to take wet wickets
seriously. This was not in his gait to the wickets that
slow, measured tread so common to him. He came in a
hurry and invariably left in a hurry, as if he were
in the middle of a telephone conversation in the pavilion
when his turn came to bat. It seemed he could not be
interested in such wickets; that he knew the good wicket
would soon enough come along and provide him with his
customary big score, thus effacing any memory of his
failure on a bad wicket.
About Bradman's dismissal in the second test of the
bodlyline series when a lot of expectation rested on
him after Australia lost the first test badly:
Never could there have been such
a dramatic anti-climax. I was at the other end and saw
Bradman take his gaurd. Bowes whose pace in Australia
was not comarable with that of Voce, let alone Larwood,
began his lumbering run, and to my surprise, I saw Bradman
leave his guard and move accross the wicket before Bowes
had bowled the ball. The first natural and obvious principle
of batsmanship is not to make up one's mind before the
ball had been bowled. Not even Bradman could flout the
canons of the game in such a manner, for if much could
be done and disguised under the guise of unorthodoxy,
that unorthodoxy itself had it's earthly limitations
and did not embrace a miraculous foresight which told
by the bowler's run to the wicket where the ball would
pitch and it's direction. Bradman was outside the off-stump
when the ball reached him. He swung at it and it hit
into the base of his leg-stump. A hush fell over the
ground, an unbelievable hush of calmity, for men refused
to believe what they had seen. Bradman left the wickets
in silence.
Was
Bradman afraid? (dealing with Bradman's 71 at Sydney)
Bradman's
stumps were left open not once but a dozen times. An
ordinary straight ball from Larwood would have been
enough to end Bradman's innings, but it seemed that
the stumps were of minor concern to both Larwood and
Bradman. It seemed that Larwood was anxious to claim
a hit on Bradman in the final test - a thing that the
Englishman had not done previously. And Bradman seemed
just as determined that Larwood shouldn't. Larwood got
a hit, late in Bradman's innings, with a stinging blow
high on Bradman's left arm. In some quarters Bradman
drew criticism upon himself with this type of batting.
In others he was given lavish praise for the plan he
had evolved to defeat bodyline. Was it not better, it
was claimed, to die thus than to give a simple popping
catch to the leg-trap?
Larwood made the blatant statement on returning to England
that Bradman was frightened.
The taunt stung Bradman.
"I resent Larwood's accusation and deny it emphatically,"
he said. "According to Larwood's ideas, it would seem
that to adopt orthodox methods and get hit is displaying
courage. Any other method whereby his theory might be
defeated evinced fear." "Actually," continued Bradman."My
method of playing Larwood exposed me to considerably
more danger than the orthodox way. Anyone who understands
cricket knows that." These divergent opinions on the
two leading actors of the Body-line drama are worth
recording, though Bradman will not find an Australian
batsman of that series to agree with him that he took
more risks than they did.
When
an acquaintance wished Bradman as he was leaving for
the fourth test in Brisbane, he replied: "I would sooner
return from Brisbane with a pair of ducks rather than
with a pair of broken ribs." The person to whom this
was said was amazed at what seemed to be Bradman's lack
of thought for Australia's Test prospects, but Bradman
at this stage and earlier, saw bodyline clearly for
what it was.
About
Larwood's bowling in general:
Hobbs
wrote that Larwood of that year was at the peak of his
career, and his figures compared to those of four years
before, when the Australian batting wasnt so compact
nor established as in 1932-33, lend support to the contention.
A portion of his success, and a good portion, was due
to the indimidatory nature of Badyline; but the truth
is that Larwood was so fast and so skilful in the 1932-33
season that his figures would still have set a standard
in history had he contented himself with an orthodox
means of attack.
I
write this with conviction and a true appreciation of
the ability of Woodful and Ponsford, the might of Bradman,
of the induvidual artistry of Kippax and McCabe and
the rugged honesty of Richardson. That orthodoxy would
have had to include the occasional bumper, a nessasary
shaft in the armoury of all fast bowlers worthy of the
name. It could also have included a concentration on
the line of flight of the ball around the area of the
hip, a delivery which gave Hendren many a catch at short
leg.
One
or two of the Australians might have grumbled at the
bumper, as one or two of any country would, but they
would not have recieved a word of sympathy from their
team-mates or the public. Nobody, either, could have
made a winning case against a battery of balls rising
on the hip, even if the leg-side was packed. But the
case passed from this category to that of bodyline as
soon as the ball went higher than the hip, when it reared
above the chest and especially the head. This, together
with the cramping legside field, was intimidation and
Body-line and a batsman's first concern was for his
personal saftey.
A little foot-note about the infamous Warner-Woodful
incident (Warner had accused Fingleton of releasing
this information to the media):
The
story as told me by Claude Corbett, then writing for
the Sun, and a collegue of mine, was this: "I got a
call from Don Bradman who told me he wanted to tell
me something. Don was also working on a third sense
for the Sun, being assosciated with a broadcasting firm
and a sports store. We arranged a meeting in North Terrace,
and, while we sat in his car, he told me all about the
Warner-Woodful incident. It was too hot a story for
me to run on my own, and I gave it all to the press."
I
have always held it against the Don that he did not
own up and clear me. Warner himself had the cheek to
think such a sensational story would not leak out, as
there were several in the team who maintained a "leaking"
connection to the press. Bradman obviously didnt like
what I wrote about him in "Cricket Crisis" and for years
ignored me. Then one night we were both with the English
team at dinner at Government house, Perth, and throughout
the evening we studiously ignored each other. I thought
it was all too silly and wrote the Don accordingly,
and we agreed to bury the hatchet. No doubt this explanation
will unearth the old feud again, but I think I owe it
to myself to tell the story as Claude Corbett told it
to me. At least Don Bradman was a very good and observant
reporter. He had every detail correct.
More
about Larwood:
Bowes
had the bodyline spirit, but lacked the pace, and even
though Voce, swinging into the batsman with the new
ball, could be exceedingly difficult at times, he had
neither the sustained pace nor control of Larwood. Larwood
was the master, Voce merely the coadjuctor, whose haul
was ripe because he followed in the footsteps of the
master. It will thus be seen that the first essential
of bodyline was control. And Larwood had control. It
is my conviction that had Larwood not been in the 1932-33
side and bodyline had to rely on it's existence on Voce
and Bowes, the theory would not have survived the first
Test.
I
will never see a greater fast bowler than Larwood. I
am sure of that, and at this moment pay a tribute to
him as a truly magnificent bowler. His genius that season
with the ball was of the same mould as Bradman's with
the bat in 1930. he had the advantage of a canny, astute
captain in Jardine, who carefully nurtured him in quick,
small bursts of bowling and who moreover (apart from
the bodyline field placing), was as artful a skipper
as you would ever meet in a day's walk in smelling out
the weaknesses of bats-men. I, for one, will never cease
to sing Larwood's praises as a bowler. I saw so much
of pace bowlers from other lands, but I dont hesitate
to put him on the highest pinnacle by himself (I never
saw McDonald). One could tell his art from his run to
the wickets. It was a poem of atheletic grace, as each
muscle gave over to the other with perfect balance and
power. He began his long run slowly, this splendidly
proportioned athelete, like a sprinter unleashed for
a hundred yards dash. His legs and arms pistoned up
his speed and as he neared the wickets, he was in very
truth like the flying Scotsman thundering through an
east coast station. He was full of power, fire and fury
- or so he looked at the batting end just before he
delivered the ball at you at an estimated 90 miles an
hour.
On
Bradman as a captain:
Bradman
did not have an inspiring influence on those who played
under him. His leading bowlers did not consider him
as a good captain. In the first place, he was not an
idolized leader of men like Richardson was, for instance.
The Australian team in South Africa in 1935-36, without
Bradman and under the captaincy of Richardson pulled
better together and was a superior all-round side to
the Australian Eleven Bradman led in Australia in 1936-37
and 1938. No one made a 200 on the South African tour,
but the fifties, sixties and centuries of the players
gave all the margin McCormick, O'Reilly, Grimmet and
Fleetwood-Smith desired for victory. The prescence of
Bradman in a side, because he was so much an individualist,
often had a bad effect. he swamped the others and made
them indifferent. Only a batsman knows how difficult
it is to score a century, but Bradman made that poor
meat and he made the scoring of 50 in a test match,
once considered a splendid feat, almost go unrecognized.
About
the Indian tour:
India
was almost Australia all over again. Larwood, Voce and
Bowes were not there. But Jardine, Clark, of Northants,
and the Bodyline field were sufficient for a hot curry
of trouble. Here is a portion of what happened in India:
Merchant had his chin split; Naoomal had his eye cut
open; a ball in Madras narrowly missed the Maharajah
of Patalia's turban and bitterly incensed the crowd.
Dilawar Hussain was hit on the head at Calcutta and
like Oldfield at Adelaide, was carried off the field.
Clark, at Colombo amazed everyone by walking down the
wicket and deliberately scraping off with his sprigs
that part of the pitch where the good length ball would
land. Clark's action was so blatant that the MCC batsman
at the other end apologized to the Cingalese captain,
Dr. Gunesakari.
About
the W Indies giving something back to England in 1933:
I
am credibly informed that the West Indians bowled bodyline
in that match on an agreed understanding with some influential
MCC member who wanted to see what the theory was like.
Grant, the West Indies skipper was agreeable, but some
of his fast bowlers protested that if there was to be
an exibition of bodyline, it should be on some more
responsive wicket rather than Old Trafford which was
notoriously lifeless. Even at that, the West Indies,
with Constantine, Martindale and Griffiths greatly inconvenienced
the batsmen. Hammond had three stitches put in a gaping
cut that stretched from eye to ear he looked a very
sick warrior when he was out after making a few runs
against the theory. Jardine, full of pluck as usual,
batted 65 minutes to score 14 runs.
An
interesting one-liner: Since
all is fair in love and cricket, Bowl at the batsman
and not at the wicket.
"Bodyline Bowling, 13 - 19 January 1933", by W.H. Ferguson (Extracts)
Although
Douglas Jardine [the English captain] showed his hand,
to some extent, in the second test match at Melbourne
at the turn of the year, the actual eruption of the
volcano occurred during the third test at Adelaide from
13th to 19th January. I sensed the preperations for
assault on Australia when everyone - bar those on official
business - was banned from the ground during the MCC
pre-match practices.
This
was destined to be an historic and sensational match,
one of the most unpleasant exhibitions - from many aspects
- it has been my misfortune to witness. I have no doubt
in my mind that the Australian cricketers were terrified
by Harold Larwood and his leg theory bowling, an attitude
of mind fully justified by the events of the match.
One
batsman after another suffered physically as Larwood
relentlessly set about the job allocated to him by Jardine;
Bill Ponsford, who frequently turned his back on the
ball, had dozens of bruises to emphasize the folly of
such attempted evasive action. Bill Woodfull, never
very quick on his feet, suffered even more, and I was
in full sympathy with his wife who feared for Woodfull's
safety. It came as no surprise at when, after receiving
a severe blow on the chest from a Larwood delivery,
Woodfull had to be taken to the dressing room, a very
sick man.
When
Bert Oldfield, always a popular figure with spectators,
had to be carried to the pavillion, knocked unconscious
with a fast, rising ball, the indignation of spectators
was at boiling point. Maurice Tate, who was not playing
for England, told me, 'Bill, I'm getting out of here.
Somebody is going to get seriously hurt, and the people
will start a riot.' I felt sure some hotheads in the
crowd would jump the rails and try to assault the English
cricketers, but, thank Heaven, it did not come to that.
'Plum'
Warner, in an effort to do the right thing, looked into
the Australian dressing room which, by this time, resembled
a casualty clearing station, and expressed his regret
for the injuries caused by the tourists' fast bowling.
He received a snub which made front page news all over
the world, when Woodfull told him, 'I don't want to
speak to you, Mr Warner. There are two teams out there
and one is playing cricket. If these tactics are persevered
with, it may be better if I do not play the game. Good
afternoon.'
