ENGLISH TACTICS

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21239, 10 August 1934, Page 15

ENGLISH TACTICS

CASE FOR LARWOOD COUNTIES BLAMED FOR DEADLOCK i LBy I>. K. JAKDJNE.] LONDON, June 26. There are some who say that if only our attacking batsmen, Hammond, Hendren, Ames, Barnett, or Leyland, treated a test match as a country house game, and O'Reilly and Grimmett as club bowlers, they would clout the bowling all over the field and score at the rate of at least a hundred runs an hour. I cannot subscribe to this as being sound tactics. In practice, however, were two of our batsmen to get on top of Grimmett and. O'Reilly early on, the Australian captain might find himself in an embarrassing tangle. The Australians' batting is good enough to win unless their scoring strokes are more adequately dominated by the placing of the field, and bowling to that field. The strength of a foolproof side, however, depends on batsmen Nos. o —B. Soundness and solidity here allows of experiments elsewhere. "Horses for courses," they say, and in a modified form this is true of certain cricketers for certain grounds Every cricket ground has something of a personality for those with eyes fond enough to see and appreciate it. Austerity of Lord's A word, then,' about Lord's, with its atmosphere of calm austerity so fitting for the headquarters of the world's cricket. Barracking, unpleasant enough anywhere, is little short of sacrilege at Lord's. Perhaps the very tranquility of Lord's has militated against its being associated with such close and desperate finishes as are connected with Kennington, Old Trafford, Melbourne and Adelaide—finishes at which strong men gnaw iheir umbrellas and squash their hats. Perhaps this is just as well, for if a French Premier can lose his place by so far relaxing as to play goif with Mr Lloyd George, the report of a Cabinet Minister fainting with excitement at Lord's might produce complications at Geneva. I shall not easily forget taking pity on one who, I thought, had lost his sight during the test match which ultimately decided the fate of the ashes at Melbourne six years ago. He was standing outside the English dressing room (from which vantage point all but three of its inmates have, in their turn, to stand in order to see the game). Every two or three minutes he kept asking what was the score, and what was happening. Considering the huge score-boards in vogue in Australia and the fact that his back was often turned to the game, my conviction that he was blind seemed a reasonable one.

Accordingly, I invited him into our dressing room, lest he should get jostled in the excitement at the end, only to find that all he was suffering from was a weak heart, accentuated by a large bet on the result, and his doctor's confident assurance that if he watched and got too excited he would almost certainly drop down dead. Politicians Criticised Politicians who go whooping into the arena of sport, which has nothing to do with them, do little to help anyone retain a sense of proportion. A repetition of the absurd animosities of 1932-1933 would be hardly in keeping with our position as hosts to the Australian visiting team. Openness and plain dealing should be able to clear up the mess.

Any suggestion of victimising the best bow.er of a decade—Harold Larwood —must leave a most unpleasant taste in the mouth. It would be a thousand pities if the Marylebone Cricket Club, which legislates for nearly all the cricket world, should be embroiled in what is at most a very domestic matter. Past crooked thinking is partly responsible for the present deadlock. A deal of the blame must be borne by the counties. It has always struck me as incongruous to agree not to bowl leg theory in county cricket, while leaving it possible to bowl leg theory in any other sort of cricket.

Leg Theory and Finance One cannot avoid the suspicion that finance, instead of the merits of the case, has been the deciding factor. It is common knowledge thai, although all the counties are "interested," four or five simply cannot get on without Die profits accruing from test matches. They are not free to take a line or vote over anything which might endanger their share of these profits. Anyone who knows anything of the relations existing between cricketers could not refrain from laughing at the idea that Larwood or Voce toured the countryside as a couple of menaces to their brother professionals' lives and limbs. Would it not be more honest to say leg theory closes up the game (although it does so less than oft theory), and, therefore, we will not have it since it affects the gate receipts? Or even admit that Larwood is so good that he must be penalised by legislation? Anything will be bettor than the evasions about individuals placing a field. Most club bowlers insist on placing their own fields. No good captain would care to ride roughshod over a bowler's idiosyncrasies in this respect. It is childish to suggest that an England captain would not think an England bowler competent to place his own field. Nor would it be fan to shoulder any captain with the lesponsibility for refusing such a bowler the field he wanted, unless it was openly announced beforehand that these were the captains instructions. Larwood Not Unreasonable Those who know Larwood best know him as a great-hearted trier. His best is only just good enough for his side or his captain. Larwood is not an unreasonable individual. Is it too much to ask the chairman of the selection committee to have 10 minutes' private conversation with him, putting all the cards on the table? Few people probably appreciate the sacrifice which Larwood is prepared to make in a matter which in hard fact concerns his bread and butter. All Nottingham must feel his position keenly. Personally, I venture to express the view that the only thing which might stop Larwood being the devastating success which his skill entitles him to be might be his fear of hitting a batsman and of the consequent and inevitable howl that would go up.

Compromise has seldom satisfied all parties. The merits of any case

must be the deciding factor. Many people have refused invitations to play for England or expressed their unwillingness to receive an invita-tion-Colin Blyth, C. B. Fry, and Hobbs, among others Ballyhoo does cricket no goodThe game is bigger than its institutions or its individual. Theie must be many, like myself, only too thankful that they are no longer actively concerned with these matT'am left only with regret that it seems unlikely that people will have the opportunity of seeing leg theory practised by its greatest exponent. I have little doubt that the public would have appreciated the true skill and interest entailed, and discounted the sensational allegations of "unfair."'