“Up to” the Batsmen

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 97, 18 January 1933, Page 11

“Up to” the Batsmen

Sir, —It is with great regret that 1 rgad the sub-leader on cricket tactics published in this morning’s edition of “The Dominion.” Leaving alone any question of comparison with past fast bowlers, let us look at “leg theory” from the point of view of the bowler. It is the tendency of the modern batsman to get behind his bat in adopting the “two-eyed” stance, and with the increased width of wicket this brings him dead in front of the stumps to the bowler who is bowling right-handed round the wicket. A proof of this lies in the fact that in the present series of matches Australia’s leading batsmen —Woodfull, Fingleton, AlcCabe, Bradman, and Ponsford—have all on occasion been bowled “round their legs” when stepping toward the off out of the way of balls coming at their legs. Thus it would appear that many of the “unfair” balls are bowled on the wicket, and a protest at bowlers bowling on the wicket seems to defeat its end by “reductio ad absurdum.” It certainly should not be termed “playing the man.” Rather -.should the modern batsman play the man and admit that his footW’ork is not good enough to allow him to combat leg theory, and then set to and make it good enough. The famous Ranji would not have been troubled by leg theory. Woe betide the leg theory fieldsman who stood in the way w’hen Ranji was turning them like cannonballs to leg. No, Sir, let the modern batsman, English or Australian, set his house in order and improve his footwork, then no more will so-called unfair tactics be thought of.— I am. etc., SUPPORTER OF “CRICKET.” Wellington, January 17.