Arthur Crabtree wrote:Did Bodyline not suggest England were willing to win at all costs? Wasn't the amateur code just hypocrisy?
I think that is two very different questions....
Taking the latter first, amateurism was just an attempt to keep the game from becoming meritocratic, and within the social confines of upper classes control. Those professionals who entered the game did so being treated as a sub-class with seperation of classes on every level when not on the field, and were mindful of the fact their existence in the game was wholly down to the patronage of those above them, who could (and often did) end careers at their whim. Cricket as such, became an open affirmation of the class system.
For that reason I do not think it is greatly important whether or not it was hypocritical. Games might have been played in a spirit of fierce competition, but the pretence of it not being played on that basis of winning was used regularly as an argument against further professionalism and to tear down the reputation of those professionals who did well, and became a consistent barrier to lower classes being acknowledged in the sport. So amateurism served its purpose in keeping the game clean of those people the upper class did not want to be there. As I said above, upper class leagues in the South rejected the invasion of competition, so as to keep the game in its most traditional form.
So in the context of the point, it doesnt make a difference in my opinion. The fact is, elite cricket in the country was administered and run at the whims and political aims of the elite classes, and working class participation was allowed/tolerated at controlled levels. And never as equals, regardless of career success.
As for bodyline.....
I think its the same thing. The Ashes series between World Wars were played out in a very different world. The British Empire was in decline, Australia as an Independent nation wanted to be acknowledged. Ashes series were concieved as much as a carnival of Empire soft power as much as a cricket tour. The social values and morals England teams represented were played up as a key element. Could there be anything more of a danger to this than being beaten badly by an upstart nation you used to, or still did, consider inferior? I guess it would have been bad optics for an elite class to go play a load of working class boys at their own game and get their bottoms handed to them on a plate... so was it about the sporting result, or more the social results, that become more important?
Either way, a lot is made of Bodyline tactics, but much of it is mythological. The series is often treated in historical isolation, without any reference to the contemporary cricketing culture... Bodyline was only one tactic that emerged out of plenty of controversial ones, much of which would make modern day audience laugh. Bowling outside of 4th stump to enduce edges was seen as negative and unworthy of amateur players. Playing defensive and grinding runs was the same. The most bizarre was leg side scoring, which was also seen as a cheap way of winning - many sides in the English county game fielded everyone on the offside and if a batsman hit the ball on the onside, they were expected to decline a run. Bowlers were expected to bowl at he stumps, Batsman were expected to dazzle everyone with their strokes and get on with it with an exhibition of trying to hit.
You have to think that Australia paid no reverence to any of this. Its noted quite a lot in historical records that Bradman on the 1930s tour hooked, pulled and glanced a lot into the leg side and took runs without question. For amateurs in England, that would have been seen as controversial, unsporting and displaying little skill. Its not how they played. Bodyline itself emerged mostly to stop it, with bowlers like Fred Root swtiching to leg theory if professionals dared to steal singles for nudging it into the onside. You take a cheap run, I put 7 man back on the leg side and bowl at your feet. So while it became an option to field that way to stop runs, it also became a way to stop batsman exploiting what was seen as a loophole while batting. It had a sporting and moral element to it. There is significant evidence to suggest Jardine's mindset was based on that.
Jardine also got barracked to shreds on both tours of Australia (28-29 and 32-33). Australian working class crowds mimicked similar loud, brash crowds of English football, and this was something that Jardine playing in the sanctity of English county cricket's upper class tendencies, would never have come close to experiencing. Aussie hated his Harlequin cap and upper class, snotty air - Jardine thought the Aussie crowds swearing, sledging and jeering were sub-human scum, and made no effort on his first tour in Australia to make friends - in fact, by the second tour, he would purposefully wind up crowds and the Aussie press by being silent in interviews, not releasing team lists before games so people didnt know if stars were playing, etc.
Either way, to Jardine not only did he find the environment of playing in Australia unbecoming of the sport (or of humans), the way Australian's played was seen as lousy also. Feeling like someone might having been told to come outside after a disagreement at the local, he turned up with a pool cue, some brassed knuckles, and got stuck in. He justifies bodyline on that type of mindset, to him he was simply reducing himself down to Australia's level, but with better weapons and tactics. In a way, I think he is right. For any English amateur, the tactics of the day would have felt equally unfair and against the spirit of the game. They were simply playing by the rule book set by Australia.
I dont really care personally. The rules are the rules, and I have not seen anything claim Australia or England broke them during this period. But it does give you a picture of how the completely alien differences in culture effect how they perform....
The only time England set aside all that class based nonsense and went out and played the "professional way", they beat the undefeatable Bradman, and reduced him to a mere mortal. Its almost certain if England continued to pay no attention to the useless elements of the game they brought themselves down with, they would have done that more regularly.