CRICKET ETHICS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 42, 20 February 1933, Page 6

CRICKET ETHICS.

Your correspondent "Square Deal" certainly does not give the Australians a square deal with his criticism. E. .Tones, tlie great Australian express 'of other days, might have sent an occasional ball whistling through "W.G.V beard, but he certainly did not bowl shortpitched balls on the leg side, i.e., at the batsman with a stacked leg field of seven fieldsmen waiting to snaj> up a catch often given, through the batsman trying to defend his body. Regarding Gregory and McDonald, it has been conclusively proved that these fast bowlers did not bowl at the batsmen, or, for that matter, at the leg stump, with a stacked leg field. Maclaren, Oldfield and Carter have positively stated that this is so. Had this redoubtable pair of fast bowlers exploited the short-pitched ball on the leg side, with ® stacked leg field, during the Tests i» England, I feel sure that the M.C.C., with the best interests of the game at heart, would have protested in no uncertain manner. The same type of bowling was condemned by J. B. Hobbs when exploited against him by W. E. Bowes during the Yorkshire-Surrey match, and alfio by P.' F. Warner, who, in a scathing arUcle written after the match, severely criticised this type of bowling. On Mr. Warner's lin® of reasoning it is unsportsmanlike when llse d in county matches, but is quite all right when exploited against the Australians. Is this "Square Deal's" idea of sportsmanship? That Larwood does bowl at the batsmen was conclusively proved at Brisbane, when, peeved over the umpire's decision going against him, h® sent down a particularly vicious over of shortpitched balls to Oxenham, the batsman concerned. ENZED.