STAY AT HOME WIVES

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 2340, 9 January 1926, Page 15

STAY AT HOME WIVES

CANNOT TRAVEL WITH AUSTRALIAN CiUGKETEKS. WOULD THEY “CRUEL THE HITCH?” [By Electric Cable —Copyright.] [Aust. and N.Z. Cable Association. LONDON January 7. Tire general opinion in England la that the Australian Board of Control’s decision not to permit cricketers’ wives to accompany them on the forthcoming English tour is over-dras-tic. Douglas, on being interviewed, said that he could not see how a wife could detrimentally affect a player’s game. His own wife had twice journeyed with him to Australia without affecting him. Hobbs was accom : panied by his wife to Australia on the Englishmen’s last tour and had never played better. There were scores ol similar incidents. The Australians would be absent for eight months, which would entail a long separation . Hobbs said that he was surprised at a decision of this nature coming from a country that prided itself on its democratic outlook, particularly applying the restriction to amateurs His own experience was that players benefited through presence of their wives, although he admitted that transport difficulties were Increased. It was particularly hard luck for those who had been looking forward to taking their wives, because coming to England was a great thing with the Australians. The idea underlying the board’s decision, he said, must be that women might interfere with the harmony of the tour. Hendren, in discussing the question said that wives were best left behind in the interests of the players themselves. If every player were accompanied by his wife, a ladie.a’ committee to select the team would be essential. Moreover, there were many functions to. which wives could not be invited. ;

Mr Toone, manager of the last English team to Australia, declared: “The Board 1 of Control has evidently determined that cricketers shall not be embarrassed by social duties , and there is a good deal to he said for the restriction. The presence of wives must have obvioun, drawbacks Whether England will follow Australia’s lead is a matter for Marylebone to decide."

"Plum” Warner says: “Everything depends on the wife; there are cej> tain women who would upset a cricket team just as they would cause Jfroubie anywhere. Personally, I would not prevent wives accompanying the players, but the Australians know their own business. Cricket, has become something like a battle and the latest order la no women at the front.” The "Westminster Gazette” says: “The ban Is obviously due to the Australian girls', well-known love of amusement and night life.” SACKCLOTH! AM) ASHES. WHAT ARE THE WILD WIVES SAYING? (Received Friday 7 p.m.) LONDON Januafry 7. The “Star”, in a leader entitled "Sackcloth and Ashes”, says: “We must conjecture what the Australian cjricketers think Of the banning of wives, because no man is likely to incriminate himself, but we can well imagine what the wives are thinking and emphatically saying. We sympathise with them, for it is the ambition of every good Australian to come Home at least once in a life time. Women could not have a better excuse than when the partners of their joys and sorrows have business to come to England. The Australian cricket mandarins’ ukase is a harsh interference with the subjects’ liberty and the individual’s natural affections. Cricketers are more likely to be hampered by the uneasy feeling that the Wives are half a world away, than by their presence in England. We cannot believe the wives would hamper the team more abroad than at home. Will the Board of Control next decree that players must deport their wives when England visits Australia, or whether tlj.e Australians’ wives will submit, or compel the Board to reverse its decision. We hope they will begin the movement by demanding the recognition of the theory that ‘when a man embarks on a six months’ picnic, his wife is entitled to accompany him’," The question has developed into a live topic of discussion. Among cricketers and the newspapers there is a feeling that the Australian Board of'Control is perfectly justified in exercising jurisdiction over the players but is not justified-in seeking jurisdiction over others. gome question the legality of the board in endeavouring to restrict the liberty of wives and relatives of the players, whereas the Government does not possess such powers. The prevailing opinion is that the board overstepped the mark, especially in view of the fact that the case is already virtually met by means ol an exsting embargo, which, from the English viewpoint, worked satisfactorily. ADD STAY AT HOME WIVES? ... “STRICTLY BUSINESS.” BUT IT’S ONLY A GAME AFTER ALL. (Received Friday 10 p.m.) LONDON January 8. “Sporting Life” says: The edict has gone forth, not only that the Australians shall not bring t'isir wives, but the ladies, poor things, must not stir off their own doorstep while the men folk are away. If the Australians have so wholesome a fear of petticoat government, they can hardly do otherwise. The “Daily Telegraph” says: “We resist the temptation to speculate on what would happen if some revolting wife defied the control of her husband on board and sallied forth from the Australian shore. Perhaps the Australian wife is tetter disciplined than the English. It is not for us to criticise the Australian rules of training

Wondrous tales are told of prowess in eating and drinking by some past masters of cricket. Your modern first-class player is more likely to keep his eye on a little oatmeal, but there will be no enthusiasm here to follow the Australian example. It is excellent to insist on the rigor of the game, but Englishmen will be inclined to add that cricket, even test cricket, is only a game and there are dangers in taking a game too seriously;-