PROTEST TO M.C.C.

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 97, 18 January 1933, Page 9

PROTEST TO M.C.C.

Control Board Cables

LEG THEORY BOWLING Australian Objections (By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright.) Adelaide, Jan. 17. A cablegram has been sent by the members of the Australian Board of Cricket Control to the Marylebone Cricket Club, formally protesting against the policy of the English bowlers. The Australian officials conferred with Messrs. Warner and Palairet, joint managers of the English team, and discussed leg theory bowling. It is understood that the managers explained that they had no control over the team when it was on the field. The officials then gathered together as many members of the Board of Control as were available and decided to cable a protest and inform the members of the board in the other States. During the day Mr. Warner told the Press that Woodfull had apologised for his remarks on Saturday. This Woodfull emphatically denied. Mr. Jeanes, secretary of the Board of Control, called newspaper . men together and stated that Woodfull had authorised him to make the following statement on his behalf:—“X did not apologise to Mr. Warner for any statement I made. I merely told him that the matter was not a personal one between himself and myself. I strongly repudiate any suggestions that I tendered an apology to Mr, Warner for any statement I made.”

Sydney correspondents at Adelaide describe the demonstration when Oldfield was injured as the worst ever seen at a sporting fixture in Australia. Noble, in a broadcast speech, said: — “Woodfull has given England’s representatives a badly-needed lesson. Australia asked for bread and she was given a stone. I mean every word of that. There is no retraction. It is inconceivable that Mr. Warner and the M.C.C. should countenance such methods. It would appear that England’s desire to win at all costs will not stop them bowling the leg theory. There is nothing in the rules to prevent the use of such tactics. Outside the rules, however, there is the common ethical code and the spirit of the game which prevents players from doing something which by common consent is taboo.” PLAY OBSCURED Incidents Like Smoke Cloud “FAT IN THE FIRE AGAIN” (Received Jan. 17, 9.30 p.m.) London, Jan. 16. The Warner-Woodfull controversy ranks with tlie actual play as the most important Adelaide news in tlie “Evening Standard,” which says: “Amid all this war and rumour of further war, there is also some actual cricket.” Warner told Harris, the “Standard” correspondent, that the Woodfull incident was now closed. “Woodfull having expressed regret in a very nice manner, we are now the best of friends.” Harris adds: “Present appearances indicate that the choice lies between winning the Ashes and leaving soreness in Australia or risking defeat in the interests of friendship by modifying the leg theory. The authorities at Lord’s cannot ignore the position. Jardine has pluck and captained the side magnificently at Adelaide, despite his unpopularity with the crowd.” The “Star” editorially describes Woodfull’s protest to Warner as very dignified. “Many English cricketers would prefer to see us win without the leg theory, because it gives the otherside a chance to protest,” it says. “We believe that England’s job is to win within the rules. We hope she is going to do it.” Carson in the “Evening News” says: “It is scarcely possible to see cricket for incidents drifting like a smoke cloud. England started with the foolish suggestion that Ironmonger used resin, followed by a trivial objection to Richardson changing his place in the field. Now the leg theory Ms put the fat in the fire again.” Carr, a former Test captain, declares that “if a fast bowler must be told how to bowl, the sooner we abandon cricket the better.” Not Always Bowler’s Fault. - Giving his opinion regarding body bowling, H. Gilligan said it was “disgraceful that the newspapers had turned cricket into a sort of circus game.

The leg theory proved that the people hit had very slow feet. It was not always the bowler’s fault. Duleepsinhji and Bradman at their best could play short-pitched balls very easily.” Strudwick said: “A fast bowler cannot control his length as easily as a slow one. I don’t think Larwood would try to hit anybody, and nobody would be more sorry if he did. I remember that Gregory at Melbourne hit me over the heart three times successively. I don’t believe for a moment he tried to.” Howard Marshall, in the “Dally Telegraph,” says: “There is nothing new in the leg theory which Foster exploited in Australia. We may argue, though not complain. Gregory and McDonald bumped the ball alarmingly, though to the slip field, whereas Larwood bumps to four short legs. There is no denying' that Larwood, in carrying the ball breast high, must be dangerous when he employs such tactics, but nevertheless the incidents are unwisely and unnecessarily magnified. If a protest is made to the M.C.C. we may get rid one way or tlie other of an argument which has already been the cause of too much acrimonious and harmful discussion.” Unskilful Batting. The “Daily Telegraph” says: “It is high time that lovers of cricket in England and Australia should declare their impatience at the sulphurous atmosphere in which the Tests have become involved. Printed opinions of old Australian Test players are not agreeable. Descriptions of the play suggest that unskilful batting rather than dangerous bowling caused the loss of wickets and injuries. However, the strain of Test play always tends to produce unfortunate incidents, but players, spectators and critics should minimise them or they will become a noxious element in cricket.”

The “Daily Mail” satirically asks: “Why not start a free r for-ail fight and have done with it, or let the Australians bat in armour plate or use a rubber ball or tennis racquets?” The “Chronicle,” in a leader, says: “If tlie Marylebone Cricket Club decides that the leg theory is not cricket, that will be the end of it, but at present there is no ground for supposing that it is not. Australia’s sporting answer is to discover batsmen quick enough on their feet to meet the attack.” The “News-Chronicle” says: “We don’t know what reply, if any. Marylebone will make to the Australian protest about the leg theory. The whole controversy is rather mystifying. Why is the leg theory not cricket? Why, 'f it is applied unfairly, have the umpire > said nothing? All fast bowling is dangerous.” The “Daily Herald” says: “Some things are not cricket. One of them is the most undignified snivelling by a section of Australians because-the English bowling tactics have beaten their best batsmen. The so-called leg theory attack is many years old. The Australians in 1926 didn’t protest against the bowling of Root because it did not worry them.” Sir Julian Cahn, speaking at a London dinner, said: “I do not believe much of this Test controversy. I have entertained all Australian teams. They are all good fellows. ' I am not going to have anything said against Larwood because he belongs to my club.” “CRICKET WARFARE” A Nauseating Experience Sydney, Jan. 17. Majot-General Antill, writing in the “Daily Telegraph,” says: “It has always been the boast of Englishmen that fair play comes first, whatever the issue. After recent happenings it might seem that this no longer cuts any ice. Had Woodfull marched his men off the field and refused to continue in such barbarous cricket warfare, his action would have coinmended itself to every lever of a fair game.” J. Fingleton, writing in the “Telegraph,” says: “It has come at last. As we players looked at Oldfield as he lay white as a sheet on the dressingroom floor, one could not help thinking that all along we had expected something like this. It was a frightful experience for Oldfield and nauseating for those who witnessed it. The hooting and scenes of disgust were amazing and hard to associate with cricket, buc then one has come to expect almost anything from this game of late.” Dr. James Byrne, Roman Catholic Bishop of Toowoomba, stated in Melbourne that he watched every ball, and the one that hit Woodfull was enough to kill an average man. “To see batsmen dodging for their very lives reminded me of coconut shies at country fairs, not of the sport that is the backbone of England.” D. G. Bradman, broadcasting, estimated that Oldfield’s retirement cost Australia 150 runs, made up of fifty more runs added to the Australian total and a hundred that Oldfield might have saved by taking two possible catches behind the wicket. N.S.W. TEAM AGAINST M.C.C. Sydney, Jan. 17. The New South Wales side to play England on January 26 is as follows:— Kippax, Bradman, Brown, Fingleton, Hill, Hird, Howell, McCabe, Oldfield, O'Reilly, Stewart, with Cummins as twelfth man.