LEG-THEORY BOWLING

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 102, 24 January 1933, Page 9

LEG-THEORY BOWLING

English Methods in Test

Match Series

CORRESPONDENTS’ VIEWS

Correspondents’ opinions on the subject of the leg theory as demonstrated by the English fast bowlers in the present series of cricket Test matches in Australia are as follow:—

Fast Bowlers of Past

Sir, —It may interest some of your readers to know what M. A. Noble wrote to the English Press after the first Test match in Sydney about the English bowlers:

“The outstanding feature of the first Test match was the great superiority of rhe English bowling over that of Australia. Larwood never ceased to be dangerous. He kept up an incessant attack, maintained a great pace throughout long periods, showed wonderful staying powers, and was extremely accurate, in spite of the views of certain critics, I am certain his bowling was always legitimate and fair. Voce’s leg theory was not aimed at the batsman. His methods continued excellently with Larwood’s in spreading timidity and anxiety among other opponents. I see no possible combination of Australian bowlers’- which is comparable to Larwood, Voce, Tate, and Hammond.” The following are the views of R. M. Crockett, the “prince of Australian umpires," in the Melbourne “Herald”:

“There have been fast bowlers in the past who, by comparison, would have made Larwood a medium paced bowler. Batsmen were hit in those days, but nobody complained. I recall that on one occasion Barnes was hit by an Australian bowler who offered his apologies. Barnes, however, brushed them aside with ‘Serve me dom well right. Haven’t I got a bat in ma hand?’" Your correspondent “Not Cricket” says that if Gilligan or Chapman had been in charge of the present side we would not have had this type of bowling. Let me tell him that Chapman was in charge of the last English team that visited Australia, and that Larwood to my own knowledge bowled the leg theory in the third Test at Melbourne to Ryder and Kippax, and he got Kippax caught on the leg boundary after making a century. He had Jardine and Hammond right on the leg boundary and Jardine brought off the catch. Also on another occasion there was a demonstration on the Melbourne ground when the game was stopped and Woodfull and Chapman tried to reason with a section of the spectators to give , the Englishmen a fair go.—l am, etc., NOT A SQUEALER. Petone, January 21. Rise of “Larwoodism” Sir, —Your correspondent, “Once a Cricketer,” is not so near the truth as either “Sahib” or “Supporter of Cricket” in regard to the epidemic of Larwooditis which is at present sweeping through Australia. If all will admit that leg theory bowling is entirely within th<* laws of cricket—and I have not yet read that Larwood and Co. have been even once “no-balled” during the present tour —the matter is simplified. We must realise that a fundamental change is overtaking the game, hence all the outcry by those who think »it should remain as they knew it. Larwoodism has come to stay and the batsmen must adjust themselves to it and, if they can, win back the ability to knock up centuries monotonously. Surely a spectator should find at least as much pleasure in “six wickets for 40 runs” as in “400 for two” no matter which side suffers, otherwise he is not a sportsman. -Let me ask a question: If Australia possessed Larwood and Co., would they or would they not play them? The Australian bowlers, Macdonald and Gregory, were both responsible for a good deal of physical injury to English cricketers, but England did not make a song about them. When Larwood’s pace makes Gregory’s look like that of a goods train compared to the Flying Scotsman, the heavens are rent in twain. The .sob stuff about Oldfield lying still and white on the green sward is childish. Oldfield played the ball which knocked him out. —I am, etc., BONNE FOI. Napier, January 19.