THIRD CRICKET TEST.

Evening Star, Issue 21315, 20 January 1933, Page 8

THIRD CRICKET TEST.

Now that the fury of the battle is over and the Australians have been decisively beaten in the third test, those who have the interests of the game at heart will try, to get a dispassionate view of tho position. There has been a perfect tornado, of criticism from the Australian side' expressing resentment at the method of attack developed by the English bowlers. Since the Australians first burst into the cricket world in the late ’seventies tbefo has been no development with which the present dispute can be compared. The test games in England and Australia have been played with varying fortune, hard knocks given and taken without resentment, and minor incidents forgotten after a momentary display of irritation by players and spectators. In the present case, however, the feelings of the Australian critics have'got out of control. They have been stampeded .by popular clamour into denunciations that savour of the ridiculous when it was suggested by the secretary of the Australian Board of Control, in a cable to the M.C.C. at Loudon, that unless the body-line bowling was stopped V it is likely to upset the friendly relations between England and Australia.” Most of the extracts from the English Press have been studiously moderate in tone. The ‘ NewsOhroniole,’ in commenting on the cable above referred to, made this apt reply: “It is perfectly monstrous, and shows a lack of perspective, to suggest that Anglo-Australian relations will be disturbed unless a certain form of bowling is immediately made illegal. If that is even distantly possible a,s the result of the tests they should be stopped, but such a possibility is absurd and unintelligible.” Without doubt the Australians—players and people—have taken the matter too seriously. It looks as if they are suffering from an inferiority complex. The smouldering .fires of re-, sentment have been fanned by the comparative failure of the leading batsmen, in whose prowess extravagant hopes had been reposed. That the bowling of the Englishmen could be mastered by. batsmen with sufficient ability is proved by M'Cabe’s great performance in the first test, and by the splendid batting of Bradman in the second and third games, and by Woodfull in the match just concluded. Mr R. M. Crockett, known as the “ Prince of Australian umpires,” who is not likely to have any bias in favour of the Englishmen, lias very definite views on the tpiestion. He blames the batsman, and not the bowler. “ 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,” .he remarked. “There is nothing like batting enterprise to unsettle a strong attack.” Much shrewd sense is contained in those comments. It has been demonstrated that the Au;>

tralian batsmen of to-day will have to Icani to master fast bowling.

Yet when all is said there is justification for the Australian complaints. The fault is that they have been too loud, not so much from the players themselves as from the critics and the crowds. If, as is claimed, this method of bowling attack is deliberately intended to intimidate the batsmen by the thought of serious personal injury it is altogether foreign to the spirit of cricket. Such an unsportsmanlike attitude, which would tend to provoke reprisals of a similar nature, would do much harm to the game generally, would destroy the sporting interest of these test matches, and would provoke feelings of resentment that should at all costs be avoided. There is surely no need for ponderous discussions on the matter between the M.C.C. and the Australian Board of Control. The exercise of a little common sense could adjust the whole matter. The difficulty of doing so by fixed rule is clear enough. Obviously the batsman cannot stand at. the crease and say what kind of bowling he' is going to take. E. A. M‘Donald, who is entitled to speak with authority, declares that “a set of rules can never be effective against body-line bowling.” With this declaration there will probably be general agreement. For a solution of the present problem we must look to good sportsmanship and a friendly adjustment of the points in dispute.