BOWLING TACTICS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 42, 17 January 1935, Page 7

BOWLING TACTICS

MASS MEETING AT NOTTINGHAM. NO-CONFIDENCE VOTE. UMPIRES’ REPORT DlSllEN GABDED. (United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) Received January 17, 12.40 p.m. LONDON, Jan. 16. “They were two dreadful overs. They constituted a direct attack aaginst the batsman.” Thus the umpires in the Australia-Nottingham match reported on Voce's two overs on Monday evening, but despite this a bitter meeting of the Notts Club, by a show of hands, overwhelmingly carried a vote of noconfidence in the committee. At least 2000 out of the 3000 members packed the Albert Hall, Nottingham’s largest public building. A special staff of doorkeepers kept the queues and scrutinised admission cards. The committee’s report stated that three formal complains of “direct attack” bowling were reecived, the first from Lancashire (with whom tho umpires disagreed), then from Australia and Middlesex. Both the latter complaints the umpires declared were justified, but apart from these formal protests tlie committee knew that gyeat dissatisfaction with some of the Notts bowling existed in several counties. The Nottinghamshire public, which apparently believed the controversy was with Australia alone, had no idea of the widespread nature of the complaints. Leading cricketers throughout England during the Test at Trent Bridge, freely stated that action against Notts was contemplated by many counties.

The committee refused to act on Lancashire’s complaint because the umpires had not upheld it. Then came the Australian match. Voce bowled magnificently the first day, but two entirely different overs before the stoppage owing to bad light on the Monday mostly consisted of short, bumpy balls flying past the batsmen’s beads and shoulders. Mr C. A. Buslibv and Mr Bull immediately after stumps were drawn protested against these two overs. Ibe umpires were interviewed and the3' reported as above. Later Marylebone forwarded a copy of a letter from Mr Bushby stating that Voce in several instances bad adopted tactics similar to those employed in Australia “to which we took exception.” The letter added: “I understood you were a party, to the agreement under which we came to England. Voce’s howling was certainly intimidatory and a direct attack on our batsmen.” The Notts Committee decided that the only course was to apologise. Then, on October 6, Middlesex wrote declaring that “Voce’s bowling ill the Lord’s match was sometimes obviously a direct attack on the batsman.” One umpire in this match, in a written report, declared: “My opinion, without fear or favour, is that Voce’s bowling was unfair.” The committee again had no option bub to apologise. The report, dealing with the captaincy; said the Notts Club at the end of the 1934 season was on the brink of disaster. “Something had to l>e done. Lancashire refused to renew the fixtures and Middlesex had a legitimate grievance, while our friendly relations with some of the other counties hung on a slender thread. It was clear that unless an entirely new spirit was created there might be a general refusal by the other counties to renew the fixtures,” the report said. The report added the key to the situation as to the captaincy, and said the decision to drop Carr was justified by Carr’s recent statement to the - Press. His statement that Voce’s bowling was not unfair showed that the trouble was practically certain to recur under a captain whose view of fair bowling so far differed from that of first-class umpires and many leading cricketers, while the statement that he would “never restrain my bowlers from howling as they think fit” proved that Carr failed to appreciate one of the chief responsibilities of a captain, namely, the team's conduct on the field. The chairman (Alderman Huntsman) ruled out of order a motion demanding the committee’s resignation and expunging the Notts apology from the club minutes, after which Cr. Whitby moved a vote of no confidence. Mr A. C. Adams, seconding the motion, said Voce’s bowling against Australia and Middlesex was above suspicion. Carr, the former captain, declared : I die not mind being dropped. If the committee want me at any time next year 1 will be at their disposal, but I am here to support Bill Voce. I swear that neither Larwood nor Voce would ever bowl at the man. After Voce took eight wickets in the Australian match Mr Bushby asked a Notts committeeman ‘Haven’t voa any control over your bowlers?’ The Australians were determined to get Voce by fair or foul means. They succeeded. Those two overs were bowled according to the Marylebone rules. , Another speaker said that when Lilley was in the pavilion he wished Fleet wcod-Smith “Good morning.” He did not reply. “I told Lilley I did not think anybody could be so ungentlemanly. ' Lilley replied: They are all like that.” The .speaker added: I heal’d Kippax say to Voce, “How many are you going to lame to-day?” The show of hands demonstrated a majority of over two to one in favour of the motion.