This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of
cricket. Please participate by visiting the
project and
talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket articles
There is a toolserver based
WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in
one big list and in
CSV format)
(Fast Leg Theory) turned out to be extremely dangerous, and most Australian players sustained injuries from being hit by the ball. Wicket-keeper Bert Oldfield's skull was fractured by a ball hitting his head, almost precipitating a riot by the Australian crowd.
at the time (of Oldfield's injury) England was not using the Bodyline tactics
which seems to contradict this page. Is anyone able to clarify?
TSP 09:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
When Oldfield was hit, England were not using a Bodyline field (concentrated fielders behind square leg), but clearly the ball was pitched short and fast enough to collect Oldfield on the head. It was in the greater context of the entire series that Oldfield's injury is significant to the history of Bodyline. -
dmmaus 23:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)reply
It was not really Larwood's fault that Oldfield got hit. It was an ordinary bouncer. Oldfield was slow on the hook and got a top edge onto his head. Oldfield himself later admitted that 'it was all my fault'. -
Tintin1107 01:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)reply
Agree with this complaint. The fast leg theory section reads as a polemic, with no citations to suggest a consensus of expert opinion to support the view given here; it stands in stark opposition to the main bodyline article.
Ché (
talk) 16:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)reply
2023 Ashes
Were not Australia and England using the short ball as a tactic. As above, this appears to have been written from an Australian perspective. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2001:630:E4:4220:8D59:DE7F:9C0D:76B9 (
talk) 10:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm sure there are probably better examples over the last ~90 years since the Bodyline series than a game that finished a month ago now (or had just finished at the time of the original insertion) with a lot of complaining on both sides about short bowling, and a better source to cite about it than the final scorecard which makes no mention of it.
Mrpsb (
talk) 18:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of
cricket. Please participate by visiting the
project and
talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket articles
There is a toolserver based
WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in
one big list and in
CSV format)
(Fast Leg Theory) turned out to be extremely dangerous, and most Australian players sustained injuries from being hit by the ball. Wicket-keeper Bert Oldfield's skull was fractured by a ball hitting his head, almost precipitating a riot by the Australian crowd.
at the time (of Oldfield's injury) England was not using the Bodyline tactics
which seems to contradict this page. Is anyone able to clarify?
TSP 09:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
When Oldfield was hit, England were not using a Bodyline field (concentrated fielders behind square leg), but clearly the ball was pitched short and fast enough to collect Oldfield on the head. It was in the greater context of the entire series that Oldfield's injury is significant to the history of Bodyline. -
dmmaus 23:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)reply
It was not really Larwood's fault that Oldfield got hit. It was an ordinary bouncer. Oldfield was slow on the hook and got a top edge onto his head. Oldfield himself later admitted that 'it was all my fault'. -
Tintin1107 01:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)reply
Agree with this complaint. The fast leg theory section reads as a polemic, with no citations to suggest a consensus of expert opinion to support the view given here; it stands in stark opposition to the main bodyline article.
Ché (
talk) 16:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)reply
2023 Ashes
Were not Australia and England using the short ball as a tactic. As above, this appears to have been written from an Australian perspective. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2001:630:E4:4220:8D59:DE7F:9C0D:76B9 (
talk) 10:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm sure there are probably better examples over the last ~90 years since the Bodyline series than a game that finished a month ago now (or had just finished at the time of the original insertion) with a lot of complaining on both sides about short bowling, and a better source to cite about it than the final scorecard which makes no mention of it.
Mrpsb (
talk) 18:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply