CRICKET CHANGES

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19735, 27 September 1929, Page 9

CRICKET CHANGES

THE BIGGER WICKET. EXPERIMENT JUSTIFIED. (F.ROJi OT7B OWI COE2ESPOJCDZNT.) LONDON, August 23. Now that the end of the first-class cricket season is approaching, the M.C.C. will be considering changes in the laws of the game "Cover -Point," in "Sporting Life," asks: "Have the experiments justified themselves? Would their permanent adoption make for an improvement?" Upon the answers to those questions will depend whether the M.C.C. will leave the laws as they now stand, or make changes that are not altogether acceptable in some quarters. The M.C.C. never has claimed, and certainly it will not claim in the future, any jurisdiction in the game, except in so tar as its own members are concerned, 01 in matters in which it has been requested to aet by other cricket bodies. It is important that that should be thoroughly understood because, it is stated, in the North cricket leagues are federating to "pi'otect their interests." 1 'Cover Point'' continues : Further, there is a movement to form a National Federation, with the avowed object of influencing legislation on the game. Obviously it aims at obtaining a locus standi with the M.C.C., and to express in an authoritative manner the considered views of club cricketers on any proposed change in the laws or the implements. We know that the Club Cricket Conference, a body that speaks on behalf of club cricket in the South with a power and authority that a few years ago would have been deemed impossible, is opposed to the larger wickets used in the County Championship this reason. We know also that the conference does not consider the experimental alteration in the lbw law with favour. Those opinions must carry great weight. They however, will not be allowed lo over-rule the considered opinions of the first-class counties, the Advisory Committee, and the M.C.C. Beneficial Change. It would be idle to pretend that the use of the larger wicket this season in first-class competitive cricket has not been a success. There is a consensus of opinion, so far as I have been able to ascertain it, that the change has been of considerable benefit in the direction of bringing games to a definite conclusion. Maurice Tate has placed on record has view. He says that the bigger wicket has "helped bowlers a bit, and, goodness knows, the bowlers were getting into a state when they needed a considerable amount of help." The idea in the minds of those who secured a trial of the larger wicket was not so much consideration for the bowlers as the best interest of the game. They knew that an inordinate number of draws palled on the public, and considered that a larger wicket would assist bowlers to get sides out more quickly. In conjunction with the larger wicket there was the minor ehange in the lbw law. Personally, I do not think that has seriously affected the run of a match this season. The change , was not drastic enough to accomplish what its sponsors hoped for. The New LBW Kale. The experiments have proved the advantage of the larger wicket, because

of the greater probability of games being brought to a conclusion. The result of testing the altered lbw law has been negligible. Club cricketers must assume that the bigger wicket will be made permanent, but that the lbw law will not be persevered with. A much more comprehensive modification of the law has been suggested in the direction of a batsman being out from any ball, no matter where it pitched, that would have hit the wicket if not stopped or turned from its course by the batsman other than with the bat. That alteration will not be yet. League cricket and club cricket may or may not be played under the amended law, which provides for the larger wicket. That must be decided by themselves for themselves. It is optional, but it would be a thousand pities of there were two sets of lawsone for the first-class game and another for minor cricket. In the long run it would be the minor cricket that would sufEer.