The Decentralization of America’s Political Institutions

Abstract

One of the most infamous episodes in the history of sport was the use by the England cricket team of a tactic called “fast leg theory” during their series of test matches against Australia in 1932–3. It was designed explicitly to prevent the brilliant young Australian batsman Don Bradman from playing his attacking shots in these games. It duly did this, but made these games less entertaining; it threatened—and delivered—serious injury to some Australian players. Apart from prompting a diplomatic incident between the two countries, the use of “fast leg theory” led to a change in the laws of cricket to prevent such a tactic being deployed again. Bradman’s dominance of international cricket resumed subsequently. The rules governing any activity—including sport and politics—determine the optimal tactics and strategies that can be employed by its participants. A strategy that may dominate others under one set of rules may become ineffective if some of those rules are changed. Even seemingly minor changes sometimes produce major shifts in how a participant can best engage with potential opponents or allies. Changing the rules changes the game. Equally, though, when rules persist over time the range of strategies and tactics that can be successful is likely to be limited, and well-known to the participants. Of course, this does not mean that they do not change at all. External developments may prompt a reassessment of how to win. For example, in many sports the increased height, size, and fitness of players over a number of decades have modified how successful teams go about winning.