CRICKETERS’ WIVES

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVI, Issue 45, 22 January 1926, Page 4

CRICKETERS’ WIVES

AUSTRALIAN BAN. “ALL A MATTER OF MONEY.” LONDON, Jan. 7. “At the bottom Australia’s ban on cricketers’ wdves accompanying the team to England is all a matter of money,” declares the Daily Graphic. “The ‘gate’ means little to the Australians at home, but they have discovered that if they devote themselves mind, body and soul to cricket for four months in England it will' reward them very handsomely in coin of the realm.”

Tho Evening News, emphasising the fact that Australia’s ban on cricketers’ wives is a counterpart of an old theatrical custom, points out that the Into George Edwardes, who was an export at organising successful prolincial tours, never permitted husband and wife in the same company. A small company might engage husband and wife, who earned £lO and £8 a woek respectively, w r lien apart, for a joint salary of £ls, but that was considered an expensive way of saving £3. Actors and actresses were thrown largely into each other’s society, and tho presence of waves led to social friction, weakening the team spirit essential to success. Various London orchestras do not permit wives to accompany members on tour, “because,” said the leader of one orchestra, “where there are womon there is quarrelling.” ' IN OTHER SPORTS. Tho Daily Mail points out that there is no restriction on wdves accompanying tho Walker Cup golf tourists. They also accompany their husbands to tho championships, although they ocoupy only ton days. Hagen and Hutchinson's wdves accompanied them to Great Britain in 1924. “lvingscoto, the tennis player, took his wdfe to Australia when competing in the Davis Cup. Wives also accompanied the Australian Davis Cup players, one player bargaining for part of his wife’s expenses. “Wives also accompanied many boxers, including George Cook. Dempsey’s wdfe went with him everywhere, even watching the fights.” “LET THEM KEEP ASHES.” The Daily News, in a leading article, says: “If tho Government permits wdves oh frontier stations, surely they, are not unwelcome in the cricket pavilion. The teste are delightful national spectacles, full of social amenities. They should not be struggles between selfless automatons. If they can only wdn tho tests by stripping cricket of its charm, let the Australians keep tho ashes as a worthless reward of ruthless professionalism, and no longer tho symbol of a great game.” THE WIFE’S VIEWPOINT. AN ABSURD BAN. SYDNEY, Jan 8. The decision of the Board of Control that the wdves of members of the Australian XI shall not be allowed to go to England at the same time as the team has created much difference of opinion. Only two of the NewSouth Wales members of the team are married —C. G. Macartney and A. A. Mailey. Of tho Victorian representatives W. H. Ponsford and J. Ryder are married. “I see no earthly reason why an embargo should bo laid on the wives of cricketers,” said Mrs Macartney to-day. “It may be quite right to provide that the wives should not actually travel with the team, but it seems to mo unjust and absurd to lay down such a sweeping rule against their going to England wdiile the team is there. “It all depends on the wife,” added Mrs Macartney. “I think most of the cricketers’ wives get on well together. Surely a good wife is a help, not a hindrance to her husband, whether he is on a cricket trip or any. other kind of trip. Not all the wives, of course, would want to go, but 1 do not see why those who do want to go should be barred if tho conditions are suitable. “It has been suggested that the rule was made because the wives might quarrel, and so lead to all sorts of trouble. I do not think the wives would cause nearly as much trouble as some cricketers might possibly do. “The Board of Control ought really to decide each case on its merits, but I suppose their motto is Safety First. If they refused, thiugs might be made a little warm for them. All tho same, this total exclusion seems to me unreasonable and unjust.” MELBOURNE, Jan. 8. Discussing Board of Control’s decision that the wives of members of the Australian eloven must not accompany their husbands, Mr Harry Musgrove, who went to Britain in 1896 as manager of tho Australian team, says that men cannot play cricket six days a week if they patronise parties every night, and tho presence of wives means that the men attend many more functions than they would if ladies were not with them. Mrs Jack Ryder is indignant. She says: “No one has the right to say that wives shall not accompany their husbands on the tour. If being married prejudices the players’ performances in England, why doesn’t it do so in Australia. Although I will not be able to go, because I am a bad sailor and niv children will keep me at home, I think it unfair to ask two happily married people to be separated for such a long time.” Airs Hugh Trumble said: “Probably it is better not to send the wives. Little differences arise among the wives which may interfere with complete harmony. Men, too, are freer when by themselves, and haven’t to worry about so many social engagements.”