Armstrong’s Methods

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

Armstrong’s Methods

Sir, —I would like a few inches of your valuable space to reply to “Aussie’s” letter re the barracking of the Australian team at Trent Bridge, Nottingham, in 1905. Quoting as “Aussie” does from Frank Laver’s book must give readers the impression that the English public were incensed with Armstrong because of his deliberately bowling at the man. This is wide of the mark, as W.W.A.’s mediumpaced bowling was directed that day not at the man but at a spot well outside the leg stump. All his field was placed on the leg side, fairly close in, and the remainder on the boundary waiting for the catch that was sure to come if the batsmen attempted .to hit the good-length bowling. At the other end was C. E. McLeod, of Victoria, one of the most accurate commanders of length who ever played. His objective was a spot outside the offstump—a few inches short of a wide — with all his field arranged on the off waiting for the Englishmen to have a go. This, however, for over after over, they wisely refused to do, and that is when the crowd, very naturally, I think, became annoyed and subjected the Australians, and Armstrong in particular, to a severe spell of barracking. McLaren’s kicking of the ball has often been done by batsmen to a slow-medium leg bowler, and it was far safer from his point of view than using his bat. This incident alone, happening ns it did when McLaren was batting, proves. I think, conclusively that there was nothing dangerous about Armstrong’s bowling. Nobodv would care to kick Larwood. Allen, or Voce.—l am. etc.. AUSSIE ALSO. Wellington, January 23.