The pages of cricket history bear witness to moments that transcend boundaries, etching themselves into the collective memory of the sport. Among these, the underarm controversy involving the Chappell brothers, Greg and Trevor in 1981 stands as a poignant chapter, provoking debates on sportsmanship, ethics, and the very essence of the gentleman’s game.
When did the underarm controversy happen?
In the late summer of 1981, the Melbourne Cricket Ground became the stage for an incident that would reverberate across cricketing circles.
On February 1, in a One Day International (ODI) match between Australia and New Zealand, the underarm controversy unfolded, leaving an indelible mark on the annals of cricket.
In this article we look at what exactly transpired in this incident, the players involved and the ramifications around the same.
Who were involved in the 1981 underarm incident?
While the teams involved in the underarm controversy were the cricket teams of Australia and New Zealand, the main players responsible for this event were captain Greg Chappell and his bowler Trevor Chappell. The batter in question was New Zealand’s Brian McKechnie.
What exactly transpired in the underarm controversy?
This event transpired during Australia’s home ODI series in 1980-81, a tri-nation tournament that went by the name of the Benson & Hedges World Series Cup. Australia and New Zealand had topped the points table, relegating India to the third spot and in turn featured in the best-of-five final.
New Zealand had won the first of those five finals at the SCG by 78 runs before Australia levelled things out at the MCG, winning the second game by seven wickets.
Just a day later, the two sides clashed in the third final and led by Greg Chappell’s knock of 90 and Graeme Wood’s 72, Australia made 235 for four from their 50 overs. Interestingly, Greg had been involved in another controversy when he had refused to walk away when on 58 after being caught low down by Martin Snedden.
The fielder had claimed the catch but the umpires had not been convinced and ruled Chappell not-out. Even Aussie commentator and former Australian cricket captain Richie Benaud had said on television that it wasn’t just a clean catch but also “one of the best catches I have ever seen in my life”.
With Chappell refusing to take Snedden’s word because, in his words, he wasn’t sure of its validity, it was left to the umpires to decide who ruled it in favour of the batter.
Also Read:
- Why did Sreesanth and Gambhir Clash in a T20 Game?
- History of Gambhir and Afridi’s Cricketing Troubles
For New Zealand, Bruce Edgar responded with a century of his own. With not a lot of support for him, however, once Australia had broken their opening stand of 85, things had gotten tougher for the Kiwis.
New Zealand were left with 15 to score from the last over and an apparently captaincy mix-up from Greg Chappell had left him without his premier pacer Dennis Lillee to bowl the 50th. Instead, it was Trevor who took over the responsibility.
A first ball boundary and just four runs off the following four balls to go with the wickets of Richard Hadlee and Ian Smith left New Zealand needing six runs off the final ball to tie.
It was at this point that the Australian captain, Greg Chappell, made a fateful decision, one that was probably a brain-fade that cost him and his side their reputation.
Chappell asked his younger brother, Trevor Chappell, “How are you bowling your underarms?”
Trevor replied, “I don’t know.”
Greg: “You are just about to find out, aren’t you?”
Trevor: “I guess so.”
The move, though within the technicalities of the rules, was a deliberate ploy to prevent the possibility of a six, ensuring New Zealand could not secure the required runs to tie the game.
The underarm delivery, an unusual and contentious tactic, ignited a firestorm of controversy. The cricketing fraternity grappled with the ethical implications of a move that seemed to defy the unwritten codes of sportsmanship. Interestingly, while the laws of the game allowed an underarm ball in Australia, it was deemed illegal in the sport in England!
Once the umpire, Don Weser, was instructed that Chappell was going to bowl underarm, the message was passed on to the batsman Brian McKechnie.
Trevor took a couple of steps forward and rolled the ball down to the batsman who defended it back, leaving Australia winners by six runs. A dismayed McKechnie then threw his bat away in frustration before walking back to the pavillion.
Interestingly, Australia’s pacer Dennis Lillee, who was supposed to be fielding inside the 30-yard circle at short fine-leg, hadn’t come in when the ball was bowled leaving Australia with just three fielders inside. This should have been called a no-ball but both umpires, Peter Cronin and Weser failed to pick that up.
The reactions to the incident were understandably that of shock and disbelief.
What did the other cricketers & cricket experts say?
Cricket experts and pundits were quick to express their disapproval of the underarm delivery. The move was seen as a stark departure from the principles that underpin the spirit of cricket.
Commentators lamented the erosion of sportsmanship and fair play, emphasizing the responsibility of players and captains to uphold the integrity of the game.
The incident prompted a broader discourse on the ethical boundaries within which cricketing tactics should operate. It raised questions about the balance between the pursuit of victory and the preservation of the sport’s noble traditions.
Rod Marsh, who was the Aussie wicket-keeper in the game, shook his head in disgust as he cried out, “No mate, no” to the Chappell brothers. Some like Bruce Edgar, who had scored a century in the game and was at the non-striker’s end, would later claim
that Lillee had deliberately moved outside the circle to convert that delivery into a no-ball.
Bill Lawry, who was commentating at the time, remarked, “this is a little bit disappointing,” and after the match had finished, added, “this is a disappointing finish”
The third Chappell brother, Ian, who had retired from the game by then and become a respectable commentator for Channel Nine, also said, “No, Greg, no, you can’t do that” before writing a scathing piece about it in newspaper. One of the lines he used was, “Fair dinkum, Greg. How much pride do you sacrifice to win $35,000?”
Former Aussie great Keith Miller announced, “Yesterday one-day cricket died, and Greg Chappell should be buried with it.”
New Zealand prime minister Robert Muldoon, called it “the most disgusting incident I can recall in the history of cricket” and that “it was an act of true cowardice and I consider it appropriate that the Australian team were wearing yellow”.
Australian PM Malcolm Fraser also criticised the incident calling it “contrary to the traditions of the game”.
Interestingly, former English captain Tony Greig was one of the few to later criticise McKechnie for not even trying to hit the ball for a six.
McKechnie, on his part, had spoken to the Aussie newspaper The Age on the 25th anniversary of the event and said the Kiwis had attempted an experiment to try and flick the ball up and hit it for a six but that had proved to be too difficult.
He said:
“We tried a few years later to flick it up and hit it. You can flick it up if the ball is at the right pace, but the coordination of it is damn difficult. And then you’d have to hit it about 90 metres for it to be six at the MCG. I would defy anyone to do that. When we tried, it took about 30 or 40 goes to get to the level where you could actually hit the ball. But we could only hit it 40 metres.”
McKechnie also added that while the Kiwis were ‘pissed’ immediately after the event, they had moved on in an hour or two, not realising how big the event would turn out to be.
Also Read:
Why did Greg Chappell get Trevor to bowl underarm?
In the immediate aftermath, Greg Chappell defended his decision, asserting that it was a strategic move permitted by the laws of the game. He argued that his primary responsibility was to win the match for Australia.
However, even as legality shielded the captain’s decision, the cricketing world questioned the ethicality of a move perceived as unsportsmanlike.
Chappell’s post-controversy remarks showcased the tension between strategic pragmatism and the expectations of fair play deeply embedded in cricket’s ethos.
In later years, Greg has opened up about the incident and blamed the sheer exhaustion leading up to this controversial event as the reason behind his brain-fade.
So exhausted was Greg that he had wanted to go off the field by the 40th over of the New Zealand chase but Rodney Marsh, the Aussie keeper had stopped him from doing so.
Greg had fielded at long-on and long-off during most part of the second half of the New Zealand innings, which, for a captain was a surprise but again, it had been down to his inability to handle the pressure and intensity of playing so much cricket.
As a captain, Chappell had been playing non-stop for his country with Australia having played 14 ODIs and three Test matches in a period between November 23, 1980 and February 11, 1981.
In fact, just three days after the fourth final of this tri-series was played, Australia featured in the third Test of their series against India and went on to lose it by 59 runs despite having taken a first innings lead of 182 runs.
All of this came to head in the lead-up to the underarm delivery with Greg Chappell claiming he did not realise how much all of it was affecting him till this controversial incident actually happened.
Chappell would admit it was all down to him and that he was the guilty party with Trevor – and the rest of the team – being innocent.
Was any cricket law changed after the underarm controversy of 1981?
Before this controversy, bowling underarm in an international game of cricket hadn’t been outlawed. It was against the spirit of the game and wasn’t legal in cricket in England but in Australia it was allowed, something that Greg Chappell had taken advantage of.
In the wake of the controversy, the International Cricket Council (ICC) recognized the need to address the ethical dimension of on-field tactics. The cricketing governing body introduced a significant amendment to the laws of the game making any delivery bowled underarm as illegal with the umpires needing to call it a no-ball.
There was also another change as any delivery that rolled on the ground or bounced more than twice before reaching the popping crease was deemed to be a no-ball.
The introduction of this law aimed to prevent players from using deceptive tactics to influence the course of play, safeguarding the fundamental principles of sportsmanship and fair competition.
Final Word on the Underarm Controversy
The underarm controversy of 1981 was more than a strategic maneuver in the dying moments of a cricket match. It was a moment of reckoning that compelled the cricketing fraternity to reflect on the values that define the sport. The incident spurred changes in the laws of the game, emphasizing the importance of fair play and ethical conduct.
Beyond the statistics and scorecards, the underarm controversy serves as a testament to the enduring spirit of cricket. It stands as a reminder that the essence of the game lies not only in winning but in upholding the principles of sportsmanship that make cricket a gentleman’s pursuit.