IS THIS CRICKET?

Evening Star, Issue 21319, 25 January 1933, Page 4

IS THIS CRICKET?

THE LATEST COMEDY “ DOPING WICKETS.” Considerable amusement has been created in Melbourne cricketing circles by suggestions that the wickets in Australia have been “ doped ” with the idea of nullifying the effect of Larwood and other English fast bowlex-s. comments “ Mid-off,” in the ‘ Age. The matter has been revived by the arrival in Australia of English papers in which there have been some comments on this subject, some of them written by the well-known cricketer J. B. Hobbs, who is travelling with the English team as a Press representative. In referring to the Sydney test, he wrote, inter alia, in the ‘ News Chronicle ’ of December 3: —“ It struck me the pitch had been doped a bit, although I am not certain, to cope with the new method's of our fast bowlers.” Hobbs, however, is not by any means the first to refer to the doping of Australian wickets. Eax'ly last year Sir Home Gordon, a well-known English cricketing enthusiast, wrote as' follows: —“ Here let me emphasise a fact never stated in print, but testified to by those who have latterly visited Australia. Ever since the retirement of Jack Gregory, as Australia possesses no great fast bowlers, the careful preparation of the test match wickets out there has, of intent, rendered them about 20 per cent, slower than was formerly the case. This means that Larwood, who is bowling faster and better than ever—this season has been almost as meritorious for him as for Sutcliffe —is not likely to get his deliveries stump high. This local condition is of groat importance, and should be homo in mind when our attack is officially selected.” Now, there was the plain, straightforward, “ fresh from the stable ” tip for the English selectors. They, however, ignored it, and chose a battery of fast bowlers. Were these rendered ineffective by the doped Sydney weikot? Was Larwood iniablo to get his deliveries stump high? Those who saw the Sydney game will remember that Larwood sent down many balls which flew head high, and plenty more which struck the batsmen near the shoulder. And even those who were not at the match may remember that in the first innings he captured five for 96, and in the second five for 28. Evidently the dope did not do its job. In any case, arc not the English supporters satisfied with the results of their bowling in the first two test .matches? Look at the Australian scores:—36o, 164, 228, 101. In their wildest dreams could the Englishmen have expected to dismiss Australia for less than those totals, and not on a rain-affected wicket? Compare those scores with the test scores made in England in 1930 by Australia on wickets which presumably were not doped:—l44 (on a stickey wicket), 335, six for 729, three for 72, 566, 345, 695. If the Sydney and Melbourne curators had been guilty of “ doping ” it is obvious it has not been in the interest of Australia. But the whole suggestion is so ridiculous that it leaves one wondering what is boing to turn up next. In referring to the suggestion of “ doping,” P. Fender has also made a remai'kable suggestion, and that is that if it were known how the Australian wickets would have played'the English selectors would have chosen the team accordingly. Then, he adds, Freeman would have been included. Has he forgotten that Freeman was here four years ago, before the doping era. and that the Englishmen were too scared to play him in even one tost? Is this cricket?