In the early 1930s the English cricket team, ahead of an upcoming Ashes tour Down Under, were looking for a secret weapon to help conquer the unstoppable batting force that was Don Bradman.
Under the leadership of captain Douglas Jardine they came up with a bowling tactic known as fast leg theory, more commonly (and infamously) known as Bodyline. During the 1932/33 Ashes tour England deployed Bodyline to devastating effect: hurling fast, aggressive balls at the body of Australia’s batsman, forcing them to defend themselves, and leaving them vulnerable to wickets in the process. The highly controversial tactic drew outrage in Australia, particularly following the Adelaide test where numerous batsman were struck by the ball. Wicketkeeper Bert Oldfield was left with a cracked skull.
Australian cricketer Bert Oldfield is struck in the head by Harold Larwood during the Bodyline series of 1933.
A furious Australian Cricket Board telegraphed their English counterparts, accusing the touring team of “unsportsmanlike” behaviour. The comment didn’t go down well in London –English administrators demanded Australia withdraw the accusation. The tension escalated, ultimately leading to concerns that England would organise a trade boycott of Australia. The situation only settled when no less than Australian prime minister Joseph Lyons, who was conscious of the vulnerability of the Australian economy, pleaded with his cricket board to withdraw the “unsportsmanlike” slur.
It’s one of the most fascinating episodes in Australian cricket history, and a classic example of how, even 90 years ago, sport and politics were deeply intertwined. It’s a story I often think about when the dull and ahistorical refrain to “keep politics out of sport” crops up.
The issue reemerged recently following Cricket Australia’s decision to boycott an upcoming series in Afghanistan in response to the Taliban-led government’s policies targeting women. The decision has divided the cricket community. While many have congratulated Cricket Australia for taking a stand, others bemoaned it as a setback for growing popularity of cricket in Afghanistan, one of the sport’s most exciting developments.
One of the most interesting things about the decision, however, is that unlike other examples of political intervention from sporting codes, it wasn’t in response to a grassroots call for action. This was a top-down decision made by Cricket Australia executives in consultation with the Australian government. This is significant because in recent years those two institutions have attempted to keep up the charade that politics and sport shouldn’t mix.
Cricket Australia CEO Nick Hockley denied cancelling the Afghanistan tour in response to its government’s policies was a political decision.Credit:Brook Mitchell
In fact, Cricket Australia’s CEO Nick Hockley has attempted to maintain the notion that politics and cricket don’t mix, despite making one of the most politically charged calls in recent cricket history.
“Basic human rights is not politics,” Hockley said, in response to criticism of CA’s decision. It’s an absurd statement. Of course human rights are political, of course choosing not to play in a country because of its policies is political, and of course consulting your government on how to proceed is political.
Hockley’s position is where you end up when you feel compelled to pretend that sport is immune from the social context games are played within but still want to take a stand on certain issues – in this case the very laudable desire to promote women’s rights. But the confusion is unnecessary. Cricket Australia should back itself and recognise that it’s helped put the nail in the coffin of the ludicrous proposition that sport should be insulated from politics.
One of the staunchest proponents of this theory was former PM Scott Morrison, who criticised CA for removing references to Australia Day, trotting out the same old tired line that the organisation should focus more on cricket alone, less on politics. It’s apparently not a rule he thought applied to himself, when he was part of a WhatsApp group consisting solely of himself, Australia’s national cricket coach, and the Test cricket captain.
But around the world, across different sporting codes, the imaginary walls between politics and sport are tumbling. Right now, during the tennis Australian Open, Russian and Belarusian players are prohibited from playing under their national banner due to the invasion of Ukraine, and on Tuesday those nations’ fans were banned from waving their flags in the crowd.
Regardless of what you think about the specific decisions – the constraints on Russian players and fans, or boycotts of countries like Afghanistan – the fact that big sporting bodies have fully embraced their reality as political players is a good thing. From now on, instead of having a phony debate about whether these institutions should take a stance on fundamental issues like war and human rights, we can debate whichvalues we want sport to embrace and how it should articulate them.
The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.
