Henry Blofeld: Lawmakers must stamp out the new 'Bodyline'

It simply is not cricket. Nasser Hussain's defensive tactic of using Ashley Giles to frustrate batsmen by bowling into the rough outside the right-hander's leg stump is legitimate, but it is also an unacceptable blight on the game, just as the Bodyline saga was almost 70 years ago.

Bodyline was designed to curb the prolific powers of Don Bradman. Here, the negative line of Giles's bowling has been used principally to negate Sachin Tendulkar – a batsman Bradman himself admired more than any other in recent times.

It is not surprising that there should be a marked similarity between Hussain and Douglas Jardine, the England captain who had a hand in designing Bodyline and put it into action. Hussain gives the impression of being almost as ruthless as him, and equally impervious to criticism. There is, too, an uncanny visual similarity. Hussain wears a cap which appears to have a larger peak than most, although of course it is not the Harlequin cap with which Jardine so infuriated Australian crowds. Both also have pronounced aquiline features.

Bill O'Reilly, one of only three Australians to play in all five Tests in 1932-33, insisted that what made Bodyline so lethal was that Jardine was able to place as many fielders as he wanted behind the wicket on the leg side. He used at least three backward short legs and one or even two men on the boundary for the hook.

In terms of the laws as they then stood, Bodyline – bowling short and fast at the batsman's body – was a legitimate tactic. To draw its fangs the laws were altered to allow only two fielders to be placed behind the wicket on the leg side.

The legislators must now spring into action once again to prevent Hussain's policy becoming a permanent, festering sore.

It has been a depressing and unedifying spectacle to see such a superb batsman as Tendulkar reduced to kicking the ball away outside the leg stump for over after over, as he has in the last two Tests here.

These things are infectious, too, and although the rain allowed Harbhajan Singh only one ball in England's second innings, it was bowled at or just outside the leg stump with a short fine leg in position for the top-edged sweep.

In 11 successive overs from Giles before lunch on the third day, 55 of the 66 balls were padded away, and Tendulkar padded 40 of the 46 that he faced. If that is allowed to go on the cricket grounds of the world will soon empty and television sets will be switched off in their millions.

Cricketers of all generations have done their best to push the laws to the limit, if not to find a way round them. It is the duty of the legislators to protect the game and to make sure it is not grotesquely distorted like this.

It isn't only slow left-armers bowling down the leg side that should feel the legislators' wrath. The lawmakers must also prevent faster bowlers from adopting similar tactics as, for example, Trevor Bailey did so famously against Australia at Headingley in 1953.

While they are about it they should face up to another issue they have turned their backs upon for year after year. Over rates, which in Test cricket are sometimes as low as 11 or 12 an hour, are palpably unacceptable.

Cricket is above all an entertainment which relies on the public to pay its bills, and for years the spectators have been miserably short-changed. They deserve a great deal better.