AN UNPLEASANT SEASON

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21456, 24 April 1935, Page 17

AN UNPLEASANT SEASON

"WISDEN'S" REVIEW OF ENGLISH CRICKET PRESS SENSATIONALISM DEPLORED "No matter the angle from which it may be viewed it is next to impossible to regard the cricket season of 1934 as other than unpleasant," writes Sydney J. Southerton, editor of "Wisden's Almanack," in the 1935 issue, which has just reached New Zealand. He explains thac in using this word he is not referring to the defeat of England by Australia in the test matches, but he considers that the whole atmosphere of cricket in England was "utterly foreign to the great traditions of the game." "As a journalist., born and bred in cricket, arid in mature years coming under the influence of that great lover and writer of the game, Sydney Pardon, I deplored the attitude of a certain section of the press in what seemed to me an insane desire constantly to stir up strife." continues the editorial. "One can only assume that the modern idea of being always in search of a 'stunt" —horrible word—was the dominating influence which caused them to see trouble where none existed and, ns the Hon. Mr Justice Evatt says in his article in another part of the book, to magnify an 'incident' into a 'dispute' and subsequently into an 'international episode.' All sense of proportion was lost and we constantly read during the test matches, not so much how the game was going or how certain players acquitted themselves, but rather tittle-tattle of a mischievous character which, in the long run. prompted the inevitable question: 'Are test matches really worth while?' "One outcome of this was that the Australians themselves. who had come here perfectly prepared and hoping to go through the season without any bother or recurrence of the arguments surging around 'direct attack' bowling, proceeded through their programme of matches constantly on the look-out for something which might occur to give them just cause for complaint. Happily the season was nearing its close before anything happened to rouse their feelings, but at Nottingham in August they were subjected to a form of attack in bowling which not only they themselves but tho majority of people in England, fondly imagined had been 'scotched.' The Nottingham Disjjute "While, therefore, 14 of the 17 firstclass county captains—the other tlnve being represented—at a joint meeting of the Board of Control and the Advisory County Cricket Committee in November, 1933, came to an understanding that they would not permit cu countenance any form of bowling which was obviously a direct, attack on the batsman, Mr A. W. Carr, the Nottinghamshire captain, whether lie agreed with, the 'understanding' or not, stated that not only was he opposed to 'direct attack' bowling, but that neither Larwood nor Voce practised it. Consequently it was not in the least degree; surprising (hat. influenced by his opinions, so often freely and openly expressed. Voce and Larwood felt that they were justified in continuing to bowl on many occasion:; during the summer fast bumping legtheory deliveries with the leg-side packed with fieldsmen. Larwood '•'•■ leaned censure: Voce, on the definite evidence of the ■ umoires, exploited direct attack methods against both tiie Australians at Trent Bridge and Middlesex at Lord's, but it is important to note that Carr did not captain Nottinghamshire in either of these games. Tn each ease complaint, was made: the allegation was found proved and the Molt inghamshire committee, as they were bound to do. apologised. Later on this committee appointed two young amateurs. G. F. ITeane and S. 1). Rhodes, joint captains of the Nottinghamshire eleven for next season in place of A. W. r arr. This sequence of events led to a storm of protest in Nottingham and the county. A special general meeting was held, at; which a resolution of 'no confidence' in the committee was passed. The committee thereupon resigned en bloc. "A Disservice to Cricket" "No greater disservice was ever done to English cricket than when Larwood was induced to dash into print and become responsible for statements which put him beyond the pale of being selected for England. I think T am right in saying that he would have boon chosen for the test match at Lord's to mention only one ■—hut for the article under his name which aopeared shortly before that game. No selection committee worthy of the name could possibly have considered him after that, and the backing which unfortunately he received in the press from certain quarters merely added fuel to the flames of' controversy ab lit. this unhanpv incident. Jardino ruled himself out of selection by Ys communications from India and -■ ibsequent decision to write for the press on the test matches; thus two cricketers, whose services England greatlv needed, were absent from the big games. "Perhaps, after all. it was as well. Possibly greater comnlications than those which arose in Nottinghamshire were avoided. After deen consideration. and carefully weighing un the effects of 'he disruntion in English cricket together with contributory causes. T incline to the opinion that it would in the long run have been better if the Australians had postponed their visit until the echoes of the cable fencing between the Mawlebone Cricket Club and the Australian Board of Control died away. Test cricket then could have been resumed when both sides were In the mood to meet in the traditional sporting spirit w'uch characterised the struggles of 30 or 40 years ago. One littl r ' sentence more: let us get back to cricket as a game: comoose our internal differences and. above all, go on to the field against Australia with the knowledge that we intend to 'play the game.'

"Direct Attack" Boivlinsr "And now I have to draw attention to two very important decisions that occurred when the season was over. At n meeting of the Advisory County Cricket Committee last November a ruling by the Marylcbone Cricket Club Committee that the type of bowling regarded as a direct attack by the bowler upon tho batsman is unfair was endorsed. A year ago I had occasion to express the opinion that this bowling was scarcely such as could be prevented by the passing of any law, but that it could be stamped out if county committees would, through the medium of their captains, drastically discountenance it. I thought then _ that the agreement reached at the joint meeting of county captains and the advisory committee would efleet its purpose. Not for a moment did I imagine that any captain would _ behind that agreement and, in effect; repudiate it. All the sime I still believe that it would have been better to have left the matter to the captains, who in time would have worked out their own salvation, always, of course, if backed up by their committees. It is a subject requiring a lot of thought. Even a definition of this type of bowling is difficult. However, I will quote and paraphrase a saying of a very famous Blackheath and England Rugby footballer, the late Arthur Budd. Asked one day If there was any difference between hard and rough play at Rugby he replied: 'There is a very great difference, sir, between hard

and vcjiit;h play, and a Krnllcman knows Ihe difference.' I would ;;;iy in r(7, r ;ird to this howling which Ikc; caused su<• 11 (rouble that 'There is a Kvcal difference between fast bowlinjl and direct; attack bowling, and a cricketer knows the difference.' '.here, I think, wc can for the time leave it. New LIJW Rule "The olher decision was the most momentous for very many years in the hislory of cricket: one which, if if had not been obscured by the olher issues engaging the attention of everybody, would have received far greater notice. It dealt with the vexed question of leg-be fore-wicket.. In the efTort to obliterate, by an alteration of law 2-1 regarding log-beforc-wiekel, the excessive pad-play which has crept into and disfigured so much modern batting, the mantle of the Hon. R. 11. Lytl.ellon. so long an advocate of a change, fell upon the shoulders of Mr E\ O. >T. Foi'd, the old Middlesex batsman. Largely in consequence of hi;: persuasion, a sub-committce of the Marylebone Cricket Club was formed to g'o into the matter. As the outcome of their deliberations it was decided by a large majority at a meeting of flic Advisory County Cricket Committee that a trial be given to an amended lbw law. "Many old cricketers aver that direct attack bowling way largely brought about by excessive pad-play, so that in thin respect the matter of the proposed new rule impinges on the other question. I am a rank const.- olive so far as cricket and its laws are concerned, but 1 have for some time felt that something ought to be done whereby the bowler could reap th: reward of his own good work. To some extent pad-play has largely deprived him of this. But the whole business is of such vital importance in all its ramifications that I am very chary of expressing any definite opinion as to whether the suggested new law will prove a satisfactory solution. I,ike many others I prefer 1 wait and see. Meanwhile, I don't think that the new rule goes quite far enough. .Nothing whatever is said about the ball pitching on the legside of the striker's wicket. Surely, 'sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander'; and I can see no cogent reason why off-break bowlers arc favourer' and leg-break bowlers ignored. There are also the left-handed break bowler and left-handed batsman to be considered. We have at! seen batsmen hold up their bats and present both pads to a leg-break and the same thing, often happens when a lefthanded bowler is making the ball come back from leg to a right-hand batsman or from the ofT of a lefthand batsman. Practically all the older school of cricketers are in favour of the change; most modern cricketers are against it. so that we have strong and clc-arlv marked differences of opinion. The altered rule will be tried in the coming season, and the South Africans, who will be with us, have agreed that it shall be in force in their matches. I scarcely think, however, that the result of one season's trial will prove much either one way or the other. A wcrt" summer in 1935 might go a long way towards wholesale condemnation of the change. So that its effects can be estimated fully a trial for two or even three seasons is desirable."

SOUTH AFRICANS' FIRST MATCH (tnmXD FEISS ASSOCIATION—II? ZLUC'I'BIO TBLEGPJiPH—COVYBICHT.) LONDON, April 22. The South African cricketers made their first appearance in a one-day match when they beat Reigate Priory, who, in the first innings, scored 16*6, and in the second 30. South Africa first innings, scored 196 for eight wickets declared (I. J. Seidle 78).