CRICKET TOURS

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 89, 9 January 1926, Page 7

CRICKET TOURS

SHOULD PLAYERS’ WIVES GO ALSO? AUSTRALIAN DECISION VARYING OPINIONS IN ENGLAND Bi Telegraph.—Press Association. —COPTBTOHT. London, January 7. The general opinion in England in regard to the Australian Board of Control’s decision not to permit cricketers’ wives to accompany them on the English tour is that the decision is overdrastic.

J. W. H. T. Douglas (Essex), interviewed, said that he could not see how a wife could detrimentail}’ affect a player’s game. His own wife had twice journeyed to Australia without affecting him. Hobbs, when accompanied by his wife to Australia, never played better, and there were scores of similar incidents. The Australians would be absent from home for eight months, which was a long separation. J. B. Hobbs (Surrey) says that be is surprised at the decision, coming as it does from a country priding itsell upon its democratic outlook, particularly when the order applies the restriction to amateurs. His own experience was that players benefited through the presence of their wives, although he admits that transport difficulties are increased. The decision was particularly hard luck on those who had been looking forward to taking their wives, because coming to England is a great thing with Australians. The idea must be that women might interfere with the harmony of the tour. E. Hendren (Middlesex), said that wives were best left behind in the interests of the players themselves. If every player was accompanied by his wife’ a ladies’ committee to select the team would be essential. Moreover, there were many functions to which wives could not be invited.

F. C. Toone, secretary of the Yorkshire Countv Club, and manager of the last British team to tour Australia, declared that the Board of Control was evidently determined that cricketers shall not be embarrassed by their social duties. There was a good deal to be said for the restriction, as the presence of wives must have its obvious drawback. Whether England would follow Australia’s lead was a matter for Alarylebone to decide. •

P. F. Warner (Middlesex), says that everything depends on the wife. There are certain women who would upset any cricket team, just as they would, cause trouble anywhere else. Personally, he would not prevent wives from accompanying their husbands, but the Australian’s know their own business best. Cricket has become something like a battle, and the latest order apparently is: “No women at the front.”

Lively Press Discussion.

The question has developed into a live topic of discussion ip cricketers' newspapers. There is a feeling that the Board of Control is perfectly justified in exercising its jurisdiction over players, but is not justified in seeking to place its jurisdiction over others. There is also some question as to the legality of the board endeavouring to restrict the liberty of the wives and relatives of players, even a Gov--erument not possessing such powers. The prevailing opinion is that the board has overstepped the mark, especially in view of the fact that the case is already virtually met by means of the existing embargo, which, from the English. viewpoint, worked satisfactorily. The “Westminster Gazette” says that the ban is obviously due to Australian girls’ well known love of amusement and night life. “Sackcloth and Ashes.” The “Star,” in a leader entitled "Sackcloth and Ashes,” says: “We must only conjecture what the Australian cricketers think at the banning of their wives, because no man is likely to incriminate himself, and we can well imagine what their wives are thinking and perhaps emphatically saying. We sympathise with them. It is the ambition of every good Australian to come Home al: least once in his or her lifetime. A woman could not have a better excuse than when the partner of her joys and sorrows has business, to come to England. The Australian cricket mandarins have issued a ukase which is harsh ana an interference with the subjects’s liberty. The natural affections of a cricketer are more likely to be hampered by an uneasy feeling that his wife is half a world away, than with her presence with him in England. We cannot believe that the wives would hamper the team more abroad than at heme. The Board of Control’s next decree to players must, to be consistent, be to deport the wives when England next visits Australia. Whether the Australians’ wives will submit or compel the board to reverse its decision wc cannot tell, but we hope they will begin a movement demanding recognition of the theory that when a man embarks on a six months’ picnic his wife is entitled to accompany him.” —Sydney "Sun” Cable.