Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

HOBBS SPEAKS

AGAINST BODY-LINE

NOT GOOD FOR CRICKET

RISK OF LIFE-LONG INJURY

PAST SILENCE EXPLAINED

United Press Association—By Blectrlc Tel«graph—Copyrleht (Received May, 11, 11 a.m.) LONDON, May 10. Li a copyright article, in th« "Star," J. B. Hobbs.says: "I think it better to say. at once that I am not in favour of body-line bowling, which seems to me contrary totha spirit of cricket Its adoption generally, or even by one or two men f would not be in the best interests of the game. "I may well be asked why I. did not say this in my cables from Australia. The answer is that I did not wish to embarrass Jardine or the team during the Tests. They had quite enough anxiety. Had I expressed an opinion for or against it would have given the Australian critics a lever to further harass the team and stir up strife. "I consider body-line bowling not good for cricket, as there are certain elements of danger in it A batsman facing a fast bowler is asked to play strokes more for the protection of his body than with the idea of defending his wicket or scoring. "Looking at the question from a broader viewpoint, I would ask: What man with his son showing promise as a batsman would care for lys boy to go to the .parks and face body-line bowling with the risk of receiving a blow calculated to inflict a lifelong injury? So I say that body-line bowling is not in the tru« spirit of the game and, furthermore* spoils its attractiveness."

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19330511.2.81

Bibliographic details

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 109, 11 May 1933, Page 11

Word Count
262

HOBBS SPEAKS Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 109, 11 May 1933, Page 11

HOBBS SPEAKS Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 109, 11 May 1933, Page 11