BODYLINE! How English Bowlers On Day 5 Reminded Us Of The 1970s

A deliberate attempt to hit the batsman with the sole purpose of intimidating or hurting him is at the core of bodyline bowling that originated during the 1932 Ashes but developed in the 70s.

On Monday in England, at the Lord's Cricket Ground, the English bowlers reminded us of the age-old days when the two-bouncers' rule was not implemented in cricket and intimidation was at the center of fast bowling. Experience of facing Thompson, Lillee, Malcolm Marshall, Andy Roberts, and other fast bowlers about whom, the current generation has only heard in archives or books was relived again on Monday. Things turned a bit ugly on Day 5 of the Test match as some Indian fans thought it was a "negative" play by the English bowlers. 

The classic way of getting tail-enders out by bowling bouncers that directly aimed for the shoulder or skull of a batsman was bowled on Day 5. Jasprit Bumrah and Mohammed Shami were at the crease with just two wickets remaining. It felt like England would wrap up the Indian innings and attempt to win the Test match. Things were about to go south for the English as they went on the defensive with their field placements. At a time when Joe Root should have opted for more close-in fielders, he chose to keep his fielders in defensive areas, in the deep and asked his bowlers to bowl short and fast to the two tail-enders. 

The fans were reminded of one specific name, Douglas Jardine: the man who captained England against Australia in the 1932-33 Test series. There were some similarities between him and Root on Day 5 of Lord's Test. Jardine was the one who employed the 'Bodyline' technique for the first time to intimidate the Australian batsmen. Joe Root, in a somewhat similar fashion, asked Anderson and co. to get back strongly at Bumrah and Shami. But why? Why would someone in the 21st century decide to bowl sharp bouncers aiming for the ear of the tail-enders? At a point, Anderson bowled four bouncers in one over. Bumrah got hit on the helmet twice and the physio had to come running to see if the Indian pacer was ok. 

The fact that Mark Wood bowled fiery bouncers despite having a shoulder injury is a testimony of England's deliberate game-plan. 

What Transpired The Heated Exchanges?  

 It looked like a clear order from Root to intimidate two lower-order batsmen, or even hurt them in the process. Sanjay Manjrekar, on commentary, said that it was due to Bumrah's bowling to Anderson in the first innings that might have acted as a catalyst. Rather than bowling tight lines, the English bowlers started bowling bouncers and kept the fielders in the deep in the hope to pick a caught wicket. All these attempts were wasted as Shami and Bumrah piled up close to 90 runs for the 9th wicket that took away the game from England.

Take a look at this video to understand the scenario better: 

There are two ways to look at it - a batsman's point of view and a bowler's point of view. The bowlers' point of view, as Michael Holding would point out in the documentary, Fire in Babylon, goes like, "You don't want to hurt someone, but inevitably a batsman will get hurt!" While in the same documentary, West Indies batsman Desmond Haynes while talking about Aussie fast bowler Denis Lillee says, "He wanted that ball to cause harm, he wanted to inflict pain, to injure me."

While both these perspectives are coming from the 'Calypso Cricketers' of the 1970s, the explanation from the batsmen and bowlers would be on the same line even in 2021. 

Jasprit Bumrah and Mohammed Shami faced the onslaught. Bumrah even complained to the Umpire about it. Buttler and Root were seen exchanging smiles hinting that the bouncers were a part of the plan. But unfortunately, for England the plan backfired and both of them took India to a comfortable position. Captain Kohli, in the post-match interview, said,  "The tension on the field during our batting in the second innings inspired us to win."

Nonetheless, however you may look at it, the heated exchanges on Day 5 definitely brought more spice to the game and reminded us that the age-old techniques of intimidation can never truly disappear even after changing the rules of cricket. 

What do you feel about such intimidation? Do we need stricter rules about 'Bodyline bowling' or do the fast-bowlers get away with the bouncers stating the 'pro-batsman' rules in cricket?