LEG-THEORY BOWLING

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 99, 20 January 1933, Page 11

LEG-THEORY BOWLING

Correspondents’ Views on Larwood’s Methods

CRICKET TEST DISPUTE Views for and against the “leg theory” as adopted by the English fast bowlers in the present cricket Test series in Australia are contained in the following letters to the editor: — Experience in England Sir, —Allow me to congratulate you on your editorial on leg theory bowling. It was fearless, outspoken, and perfectly true. The average Englishman will not admit that the leg theory bowling being practised in the present Tests is unfair. Is it because it’s the Australians that are receiving the knocks? I have before me a book published by Frank Laver, manager of the Australian eleven which toured England in 1905, in which he describes the happenings at the Test match at Trent Bridge thus: “The crowd behaved badly toward Armstrong for his bowling of the leg theory. They not only hooted him, but yelled at him as he was about to deliver the ball. Several times he stopped in the middle of his run from delivering the ball in consequence of their behaviour. Much to our surprise, McLaren gave them some encouragement by kicking at the ball, etc. I think McLaren must have done this without quite realising what his action really meant.” In England this class of bowling should not be allowed. As our friend Warner says, “It’s not cricket,” but in Australia it is quite fair, and true sportsmanship. It is very convenient to have a short memory sometimes. I write this, Sir, to remind some of those who forget that this class of bowling was received in England exactly as it is in Australia to-day.—l am. etc.. AUSSIE. The Batsman’s Rights Sir,—The views of “Supporter of Cricket” with reference to your recent sub-leader on tbe English bowling tactics in the present Tests must appear very superficial to any thoughtful follower of the game. The article by P. F. Warner on the bowling of Bowes against Surrey, written prior to the present tour, which has recently been reprinted both here and in Australia, affords probably the best answer to your correspondent. But perhaps he saw Nicholls of the M.C.C. team bowling against Wellington some years ago. On that occasion in the local side’s second innings both Dempster and McLeod were hurt,, and had to retire. Nicholls bowled “off-theory,” with most of his field in the slips. Had he bowled the “leg-theory” adopted in Australia, or the “head and body theory,” as it has been called by old internationals such as Howell and Noble, it is next door to a certainty that few of the Wellington team would have completed their innings, and there would have been some work for the ambulance.

If your correspondent had “played the man” against an over or two from Nicholls under such circumstances, I think his views as to the fairness of this type of bowling would have suffered drastic revision.

His suggestions as to how Ranji might or might not have played a type of bowling by which be was never attacked are surely irrelevant. Cricketers, even Test cricketers, who do not attain to the standard of Ranji, have a right to be protected against a serious risk of injury through unfair tactics.—l am, etc..

NOT CRICKET. Wellington, January 19.

Bowlers’ Views Sought

Sir, —Dismissing "Once a Cricketer’s” inquiries after my cricket credentials with the remark that I have probably played big cricket in more countries than he has seen. I would like to mention that he has based his judgment on leg-theory bowling entirely on the batsmen’s viewpoint (e.g., Warner, Armstrong, Noble, Hobbs, etc.).

Unfortunately, great bowlers rarely are given the publicity equally great batsmen receive, hence a dearth of their opinions; if we did hear more from those automatons whose function is to hurl balls for batsmen to strike (as the majority of the cricketing public regard bowlers), the above gentleman and others possessing the “herd instinct” in abundance, probably, might alter their opinions on the subject. This is the first time in cricket history that bowlers have made, themselves felt, hence. tbe undignified whining by cen-tury-loving spectators and those denied their centuries. The leg theory may be an evil, but it is definitely stamping out a greater evil —that is, the excessive use of pads and over-caution on the part of batsmen. —I am, etc., SAHIB.