THE M.C.C. TOUR

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIII, Issue 135, 8 May 1933, Page 7

THE M.C.C. TOUR

LARWOOD SPEAKS OUT. CRITICISM OF AUSTRALIA. AN UNFETTERED STATEMENT. (United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) LONDON, May 7.

The Sunday Express, under headlines across its whole front page, prints an interview which the English bowler, Larwood, gave to Mr Charles Eade, its sporting editor, with a facsimile of Larwood’s letter approving the same after some alteration, ana expressing thanks for a cheque received, the amount of which is not stated.

“Now I can speak,” says Larwood at the outset of his statement. “For months I have been muzzled because my agreement with the Mnrylebone C.C. made it impossible for mo to write or talk about what happened to me and the rest of the English team in Australia, particularly to me, because most of the temper and venom of the cricket crowds there were directed at my mifortunate head. Yesterday the M.C.C. tour ended, and I was released from the obligation not to let the English public know just what we had to put up with. “Until now I have had to suffer in silence the taunts and abuse of the crowds in Australia,” Larwood continues. “Not only the crowds either; the newspapers there joined the campaign to wreck us. “But let me start at the beginning. On the way out we talked over the plans we should adopt to win back the Ashes. We knew we were up against a stiff task and that only by a definite scheme could we hope for victory. We decided to adopt the leg theory ; that is, concentrate our bowling on the leg stump. It was Jardine who originally had the idea of building for victory with this plan of attack. Though all the members of the side took part in the discussions which finally' led to its adoption, Voce and I were chosen as the two bowlers likely to bring it success. So in bowling as I did I was merely carrying out a pre-arranged plan. In other words, I was playing for my side, which every cricketer is supposed to do. “For doing that we had to endure four months of the anger of crowds and ban-ackers who knew nothing about the finer points of cricket,” Larwood continues. “Leg-theory bowling probably requires more accuracy than any other form. • We were able to exploit it with complete success. That’s where the trouble started. Barrackers on the famous Hill at Sydney and in the cheaper parts of most other grounds, particularly at Adelaide, were not there to see cricket; they were there to see Australia win. That was what they wanted; that was all they wanted. Above all, they were there to see Bradman score runs. All the excitement there had been about Bradman’s writings had stirred the Australian crowds into believing in Bradman a superbatsman. We showed that lie wasn’t, and the mob didn’t like their idol treated that way. Then there was Woodfull ; he was expected to stay at the wicket all day while the others got runs and he was a failure, too. “You ask why Woodfull and Bradman couldn’t stand up to my fast legtheory bowling,” said Larwood. “These are the true reasons: Woodfull was too sloV and Bradman was too frightened. Yes, frightened is the word. “Bradman just wouldn’t have it. He was scared of wy bowling. I knew it*, as everybody else did. “Time after time lie drew away from the ball. If I wasn’t bowling when he came in Jardine put me on at once. “It might have been supposed that Woodfull would have tried to quieten the crowd or indicate in some way that he was not in sympathy with those noisy demonstrators, but he didn’t do so. He was too slow, and he didn’t like to face me either. Time after time he would duck when the ball didn’t get up at mil; sometimes the ball struck his pads, and Ames and 1 appealed for leg-before. These antics were silly and undignified, but coming from the captain, a man ol Woodfull’s long record, they only encouraged the crowd to shout all the more loudlv at me. “Woodfull and Bradman were failures against the fast leg-theory bowling and were upset, and the crowds were upset to see their idols fall,” said Larwood.

“Richardson and McCabe played me all right, and the wonderful Bradman could not. Australia were being beaten, so the crowd, not knowing what sportsmanship means, shouted abuse at the men who were winning.

“Can you imagine my feelings when fifty thousand people booed my every step as I ran at the wicket?” asked Larwood. “Do you realise what a bowler thinks about when he realises he is not only playing the batsmen but the crowd as well? On the previous tour I was treated the same way. I was only 24 then. I must say the barracking shouts upset me. I was so distressed, in fact, that I could not do justice to myself and my side. I could not bowl properly. It was not the conditions or the ground or the batsmen that beat me four years ago; it was the crowd. They tried to put me off and wanted to see me fail. They tried to upset roe and succeeded. The barrackers beat me in 192829.

“This time I was four years older and more experienced and tougher. The crowd couldn’t upset me by their unfairness and hostility. When they jeered and booed it merely made me grit my teeth and bowl harder than ever. Of course I said a few things about them under my breath, but I took care not to let them see that I was affected. On the first tour I was upset, but this time I was inspired. The next time I shall probably enjoy it.

•“If I am selected I shall be ready and willing to go again. I know I have been reported to have said that I would never make another tour. It’s a lie. I never said it.

“Many newspapers tried to put words into my mouth, but I have been loyal to my agreement with the M.C.C., and have not spoken out till now. A group of journalists came to interview me at Suez and offered to pay. Therefore I could have had £IOOO that day, but I would not tell them anything. You are the first newspaper man I have given an interview to, and I arrf telling you my. own story just as I would tell it to friends. “The newspapers in Australia were up against me just as much as the barrackers. They spread stories of quarrels in the English tenm even before we arrived. They were all lies. There jvas no trouble at all in the team.'This campaign only caused the English players to stick together nil the more'. “I take off my hat to Jardine for the way. he stuck to it with the abuse hurled at him by the crowd. And what abuse 1 And what a crowd!

“People who have only watched cricket in England cannot imagine the bitterness of the disappointed mob of cricket fans in Australia. Yet they axe allowed to dominate the game in

Australia to such an extent that the Board of Control protested at our methods. The Board of Control! What a title! They cannot even control their own crowds if they want tol Half the members could not tell you the weight of a cricket ball 1 “When the Australians come here they are treated as gentlemen. When we go to Australia we have to suffer cheap wit and abuse from an unsportsmanlike gang which would not be tolerated for a moment here. The Australian people seemed to be out to throw us off our game, but they failed. 'They shouted insults and hoped to win that way. “They, made a lot of hot air about body-line bowling. That is rubbish, if you like. If I bowled at the body how was it I kept getting the wickets and getting men leg-before? “The fact is the Australians were fairly and squarely beaten. Their favourite players failed. The crowds were not interested in the play, but in the results. They tried to get back at me because my bowling—to my captain’s orders —had had a lot to do with our success. The Australians may not like my ltowling. Well, I do not like their howling. It is not cricket 1” A TUMULTUOUS WELCOME. LONDON, May 6. The Marylebone cricket team was tumultuously welcomed on its arrival at Glasgow from Canada. The team was accorded a civic welcome and then dashed to the train for London amid the cheers of 10,000 admirers. LARWOOD'S POSITION. ARTICLE WAS WITHDRAWN. REGRET FOR APPEARANCE. Received Mav 8, 10.20 a.m. LONDON, May 7. Mr A. W. Shelton, the president of the Notts County Cricket Club, has issued a statement on behalf of Larwood regarding the Sunday Express interview.

He says: “The interview with Larwood was written up by another person from statements made by him, believing that Ire was at liberty to publish a statement the day after the return of the Marylebone team. He signed the proof of the article without sufficient ' thought. “Upon certain facts being brought to his notice since signing the proof he decided to withdraw it in order not to* cause trouble between himself and Marylebone.

“Accordingly he sent two telegrams to the editor of the Sunday Express on May 4 and o, the first of which was acknowledged in writing, withdrawing the interview, as well as permission to publish it. At the same time he returned the cheque he had received in payment. i “Larwood wishes to express regret for the appearance of the article, the publication of which he did all in his power to stop.” DISCUSSION AT HOME. SUSPENSION. OF TESTS. “A LURID ATMOSPHERE.” Received May 8, 11.5 a.m. London, May 7. Duckworth, in an interview, says that the whole thing can be boiled down to the simple tact that some of the Australian “wizards” are frightened to death of Larwood.

The Dispatch says: —“None of the team expects Larwood to use the bodyline tactics, except on occasions. The ball here swings far longer in the air and the wickets are livelier. Also, there is a time limit to the matches. Every member of the team backs the captain wherefore there can be only one answer to the Australian cable, namely a polite refusal.” The Daily Herald, in an editorial, says: “There will be many supporters of the idea of a suspension of the Tests ns the simplest solution of the difficulties arising out of the legtheory bowling. Certainly nobody would care to carry on if all the Tests are to be played in the lurid atmosphere which surrounded the last series, but surely such an atmosphere and spirit are not inherent in cricket. The abandonment and rupture of cricket relations reflect credit on nobody and do not serve as a good advertisement for what are supposed to be traditional sporting qualities of Britons.” . AUSTRALIA INDIGNANT. “WIDENING OF BREACH.” “A PREPOSTEROUS OUTBURST.” Received Mav 8, 10.30 a.m. SYDNEY, May 8. The Sydney Morning Herald, commenting on Larwood’s article says:— “Larwood’s outburst concerning the Australian players and crowds will further widen the breach existing between the two countries and will cause embarrassment to the Australian Board of Control and Marylebone.” Mr Dwyer, one of the Australian Test selectors, says: “Having seen all the Tests, I am filled with indignation at such a preposterous outburst. It is utter nonsense to speak of our players as-cowards. The bruised bodies of Woodfull and the other batsmen provided rather a sad answer to Larwood and the team’s ‘win at any price’ tactics.”

LARWOOD TOO PRESUMPTUOUS. SOUTH AUSTRALIAN COMMENTS. Receired May 8, 10.30 a.m. ADELAIDE, May 8. Richardson, Australia’s vice-captain, says there is no doubt that England won because of the body-line bowling. It was clever of Larwood to suggest that because he got leg before decisions he was not bowling at the man. YVlien certain players were out he played cricket as it should be played. He bowled at the wicket, but the damage had been done by then. Mr Dolling, a Test selector,, said: “It is a great pity to see such a magnificent bowler as Larwood sink to such depths as -to speak in this manner. Larwood would be well advised to use less presumption and refrain from criticising -such fine sportsmen as Woodfull and Bradman.” AUSTRALIAN RULE. CONDEMNED BY CARR. LONDON, May 7. “It is the most preposterous rule ever suggested. lam certain Marylebone will reject it,” says Carr, captain of the Notts team for which Larwood plays, in an article in the Sketch condemning the Australian proposal in reference to bodyline bowling.