Larwood’s Bowling

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 297, 12 September 1934, Page 11

Larwood’s Bowling

Sir, —In your issue or September 4, “Gloucester. inquires if any reader can give the for and against of Larwood’s bowling. 1 can t>peak with some authority on this subject, when 1 say that 1 have played against him, as a sehool chum. Even at school he was a wonderful cowler aud a first rate sportsman, arid I still retain that impression of him. In my opinion, it is ridiculous to assume that Harold would intentionally bowl a ball to cripple his fellowmen, as quite a few critics suggest. "While admitting that the “leg 'theory” is dangerous to the batsman, it is by no means impossible to play against, and I would suggest some practice in this direction might help to solve a problem which is threatening the future of cricket as a sport. Some humourist remarked that Harold Larwood is at present tied up in “Notts” and after all the controversy over his bowling, I do not blame him for turning away in disgust and wending home to fight it out with the chickens. —I am, etc. NOTTS. Masterton, September 7. '

Sir, —When I was at the pictures I saw a game of football between New Zealand and Australia. I saw men being thrown around, brought down with flying tackles and collared around the neck, going down on the ball at the risk of being trampled on. Now Sir, what I want to know is, are these sort of chaps, who take the risks of broken limbs, the same chaps who squealed because a bowler sent down n few balls at cricket, that, at most, gave them a few bruises? My Australian friends have always boasted that .they are afraid of nothing. That boast is surely exploded now. When Bradman is knocking the bowlers all over the fields of England, the Aussies are happy, but they moan when a bowler is able to master him. That Larwood is the master of Bonsford. if not Bradman, is a fact that cannot be disputed.—l am, etc., SCOTTY.

Wellington. Senteinber 10. Sir,—Mr. R. T. Rudd has yet to learn that abuse is not argument. Had he

read more carefully he would have seen that the remarks that have roused his ire were "the expert opinion” (to quote “N.Z.”) of Jack Hobbs.

Mr. Rudd mentions the match at Nottingham, and refers to “hooting and sarcastic remarks hurled at the Australians, above all places from the members’ stand." I was not at Nottingham, and I very much doubt whether Mr. Rudd was either, for the match. But Jack Hobbs was in Australia when the Englishmen played there in 1932-33. What does he say? “But crowds there (Australia), as a whole, look upon it as their right to barrack and raise absolute uproar. They ripfied down pickets round the ground at Sydney, the better to see: they threw orange-peel on the ground and among themselves, and generally carried on; at Brisbane, after one day's play, there was quite a battle with chair cushions. The demonstrations wore worst, most bitter against England, at peaceful, beauti-