SPORTING SPIRIT.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 259, 2 November 1933, Page 5

SPORTING SPIRIT.

AUSTRALIAN CROWDS.

VIGOROUS REPLY TO CRITIC,

CHEERING ON THE LOSERS,

(From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, October 26. This country is much affected' by a certain small percentage of Englishmen who, having come here thoroughly impressed with a sense of their own superiority, lose no chance of decrying Australia, and miss no possible opportunity for asserting that .Australians are not "good sports." Of course not all

our British kinsfolk take this offensive tone, but some of them are quite intolerable. For instance, the other day, when the Kangaroos lost their first Test match at Home, one of their "friendly critics" wrote to the "Sun" to point out that the Australians claimed to have been "unlucky." If this person had chosen to read the cable messages carefully he would have seen that at least three of the principal sporting papers in England on their own account volunteered this excuse for the Australian defeat. Further, this critic objects to the suggestion that the greasy ball was against the Kangaroos —why, he asks, should this have been a disadvantage to one side more than another? Apparently this man does not know the difference ' between the passing and the dribbling game, and he is not aware that Australian forwards play only the passing game, and that a wet ball is easier to kick than to catch. In the same letter occurs the assertion that Australian "fight fans" always cheer their own man, "win, lose or foul." American Boxer Acclaimed. It happened that this was written in the same week as Carroll's fight with the American Morgan. The Australian had an advantage over Morgan in height, weight knd reach, and was winning easily after punishing *<he other man

severely. Then in the fourteenth round Morgan, who had fought most pluckily, suddenly got home on Carroll's chin—the Australian reeled to the ropes and for the moment it looked as if the fight was over. How did the vast Australian audience —there were over 11,000 spectators packed into the stadium that night—take this sudden reversal of fortune? According to Jim Donald, one of our most reliable "sporting scribes," they were all on their feet in a moment, waving hate, clambering on to chairs, roaring and shouting encouragement to Morgan, cheering him on to victory over their own champion. And why? Simply because he had fought courageously and well, and he was "a stranger in a strange land." I presume that the critic whom I have quoted was not among those present that night; but after we have heard from Larwood and Jardine, I can imagine that he might not have noticed it, even if he had been there. As. it happened Morgan did not win the fight, but he expressed himself most appreciatively about the generous and "sporting" conduct of the crowd after it was over.

A Great League Match. Here is another illustration: Claude Corbctt, who is with the Kangaroos, in his account of the first Test, mentioned that the crowd cheered the Australians after the match was over. Another EngI lishman at once wrote to the "Sun" to remark that he was pleased to read of the Englishmen's generosity, because he had never seen anything like it in Australia. Let me quote his own words: "I have seen every Test match in Sydney since Harold Wagstaffe's team came out here many years ago, when they won the Ashes at the Sydney Cricket Grpund with only nine men at the finish. Not once have I heard the same tribute paid to an English team—only abuse and vile i language, especially if they had won." Personally I may say that I saw two Test matches against the Englishmen here last year, as well as two against the New Zeaianders, and the report of the behaviour of Australian football "fans" given above is disgracefully and libellously untrue. But happily I do not need to depend on my own judgment on this point. It happens that a few weeks ago there appeared in the "Referee" here an account of the famous League Test of 1913 mentioned above —"the League Rorke's Drift" it has been called—written by the English captain, Harold Wagstaffe himself. He describes the whole

game most effectively, and "when he comes to "the last scene of all" when still a few points ahead, the nine sorrowing Englishmen, bruised and battered, were making their final desperate stand against the Australian onslaught, he tells us that the crowd,- "from being purely Australian in sympathy, turned round in the last 10 minutes, and became real British—everything we did they cheered to the echo." I wish that the critic lam criticising would read Wagstaffe's story of this great fight, and feel thoroughly ashamed of himself. But, considering the lead that Jardine and Larwood have been giving their countrymen at Home in regard to the behaviour of Australian crowds, I suppose that one should not feel much surprised at it. Larwood and Bradman. As it happens, we have had another illustration of the effects of this antiAustralian crusade during the past week. An English paper of high standing published a report to the effect that Bradman had decided to leave Australia and would probably come to England. A day or two later it published a report that Larw-ood's foot had responded to surgical treatment and that he would probably be able to bowl fast again. Then another English paper put the two reports together and added the comment that this is convincing proof that Bradman was afraid of Larwood, because the mere rumour of Larwood's recovery was enough to make Bradman leave his country rather than risk facing "the Nottingham terror" again. And no doubt there are people at Home who will believe it. Certainly if they can be induced to swallow what Larwood and Jardine and Duckworth have told them, they will believe anything.