WALL’S DAY

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 112, 4 February 1933, Page 11

WALL’S DAY

Dismisses N.S.W. Eleven TEN WICKETS FOR 36 Four for None in One Over SHEFFIELD SHIELD GAME (By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Received Feb. 3, 9.15 p.m.) Sydney, Feb. 3. Sensational bowling by the Test fast bowler, T. W. Wall (South Australia), featured the first day’s play in the Sheffield Shield match, New South Wales v. South Australia. Wall took all ten wickets for thirty-six runs. At lunch the New South Wales total was one wicket for 82, Wall then having one for 31. In an inspired first over after the adjournment Wall captured four wickets for no runs, and went on to take nine wickets after lunch for 5 runs. He clean bowled six, had two caught by the wicketkeeper, one in the slips, and Bradman in the outfield. Avail’s performance is unique in Sheffield Shield cricket.

Tobin, the new Test man, bowled well without having any luck. The excitement continued as the New South Wales bowlers in turn routed the South Australians. The eighth wicket fell at C 7, when Shepherd and Wall added 37 for the ninth wicke.t giving South Australia a lead of one run on the first innings. The wicket was perfect, / The New South Wales scores were:— Brown, 0; Flngleton, 43; Bradman, 58; McCabe, 0; Kowe, 0; Cummins, 0; Love, 1; HIU, 0; Howell, 0; O’Reilly, 4; Stewart, not out, 2. Total, 113. South Australia made 114 (Shepherd 32, Lonergan 22, 'Wall 13, Nltschke 12, Richardson, 5). Howell took five wickets for 31; McCabe, two for 18; O'Reilly, one for 31; Bradman, one for 4.

PEACE RESTORED Term “Unsportsmanlike” in Board’s Cable BODY-LINE CONTROVERSY (Received Feb. 3, 5.25 p.m.) Brisbane, Feb. 3. It is learned on reliable authority that the dispute regarding the use of the word “unsportsmanlike” in the Cricket Board Control’s cablegram to the M.C.C. regarding body-line bowling has been amicably settled. The Queensland delegates, Messrs. Hutcheon and Hartigan, deputed by the board to settle the dispute with Mr P. F. Warner, manager of the . English team, have succeeded in restoring peace. MANAGERS RESPONSIBLE Sydney, Feb. 8. Telegrams to the "Sydney Morning Herald” from Brisbane make it clear that the English managers alone are responsible for the effort to have the word “unsportsmanlike” withdrawn. The English players did not start the idea. The secretary of the Queensland Association said that he knew nothing of any suggestion that the Queensland match would be cancelled, and arrangements, he said, were going ahead. Mr. R. C. N. Palairet, joint manager of the English team, declined to say what he thought would happen to the fourth Test if the word “unsportsmanlike” were not withdrawn. Mr. Jeanes, secretary of the Board of Control, interviewed at Adelaide, said that he could make no announcement or comment. MARYLEBONE C.C. CABLE No Comment by Board Chairman (Received Feb. 3, 10.50 p.m.) Melbourne, Feb. 3. The chairman of the Board of Control, Mr. Robertson, refused to discuss any possible action by the board in reply to the latest Marylebone cable.

MR. CRUTCHLEY’S EFFORTS (Received Feb. 3, 10.50 p.m.) Canberra, Feb. 3. Mr. Crutchley, representative in Australia of his Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, stated to-day:— “Messrs. Palairet and Warner asked me to use my influence to get the withdrawal of the word ‘unsportsmanlike,’ so I did what I could to help. The result, If any, Ido not know. Both managers and several members of the English team are very good friends of mine, and I know how they are feeling about the stigma which they attach to that word.” Questioned yesterday on a report from Brisbane that he had endeavoured to obtain the withdrawal of the word unsportsmanlike, Mr. Crutchley said he had nothing to say. DOMINIONS OFFICE VISIT M.C.C. Astounded at Disclosure London, Feb. 2. “It’s leg pulling rather than leg bowling,” said Mr. J. H. Thomas, smiling broadly, when shown the report, given prominence in one of the newspapers, that he had conferred at the Dominions Office with members of the M.C.C. regarding the body-line controversy. It is true that certain members of the committee informally visited Mr. Thomas in response to the latter’s desire that he should be fully informed of developments. The M.C.C. is astounded at the disclosure of the visit to Mr. Thomas, which was intended to be confidential. Sir Stanley (F. S.) Jackson, a committeeman, who expressed surprise at the publicity, said that the talk was purely informal. “Mr. Thomas was anxious to help and invited us to explain the position fully." Sir Stanley thought that in view of the situation an M.C.C. emergency meeting should be convened for tonight. He added “AU the M.C.C. mem-1

bers and everybody 7 else feel that the Tests must continue at all costs.’’ Though the secretary of the.M.C.C. declined to give information as to the visit to Mr. Thomas, and denied knowledge Of a special meeting of the committee to-day to discuss the present situation, and another statement from Downing Street, which said that Mr. Thomas yvas simply interested in the Tests and that it was absurd to suggest any official intervention was intended, it was learned later that certain members of the M.C.C. Committee, including Lord Bridgeman and Sir Stanley Jackson, had arrived at Lords. Though it is still stated that no meeting istakingplace, it was understood that a conference of some of the leading officials had been summoned. The “Evening Standard’s” diarist says that if Mr. Thomas desired an informal talk wi.th the M.C.C. committeemen, the Dominions Office was illchosen as the venue. The Board of Control’s original cable referred to the possibility of endangering Anglo-Aus-tralian relations and Mr. Thomas succeeded only, insuggesting that this unthinkable notion might be taken seriously. The Australian Press Association learns that there was no question of Governmental intervention in the dispute, which is the last thing official quarters, both English and Australian, desire, nor has the Downing Street, visit any connection with the English team’s representations to Mr. Crutchley at Canberra. BODY-LINE INCIDENT West Australian Bowler Perth. Feb. 3. The Western Australian Cricket Association Committee considered a complaint that Halcombe’s bowling in a match between Port and Central Provinces played on January 21 was dangerous to batsmen. The committee decided to take no notice of the umpire’s reference to body-line bowling.