THE CRICKET BALL

Northern Advocate, 4 January 1927, Page 3

THE CRICKET BALL

SHOULD IT BE MADE SMALLER? 1 ) The cricket world is interested in the suggestion of the County Advisory Committee of England to assist the bowlers by using a smaller ball. A sub-com-mittee consisting of Lord Hai iis and Messrs. Dixon, Higson and Jupp is to consider the whole matter. At the last meeting of the Victorian Cricket Association, Dr. Ramsay Mailer, of the Melbourne Club, and a State representative of the Board of Control, read a copy of a cable he had received from the Marylebonc Club, asking for Victoria’s opinion on the proposed reduction in size.

Mr. Harry Brereton, secretary of the V.C.A., stated -that the matter would probably be explained by Mr. Sydney Smith at the next meeting of the Board of Control in January.

The present law regarding the size of the ball stipulates that it must not be less than 5J ounces or more than 5| ounces in weight, while its circumference should not be less than 9 inches or exceed 9J inches. W. H. Ponsford, the St. Kilda player expressed his view as follows: “I an very much in favour of the reduction of the ball toffielp bovylers. It is too big at the present time. If the ball was smaller a bowler could get his fingers round it better, and as a result spin i more on the wicket.

I “From the point of view of fielding 1 do not think that the size will make any difference.. The ball, even if it is made smaller, will not be like a baseball In the baseball game the ball, when hit in the air, “floats” more through space but a cricket ball is more rapid in its descent.

“No*-! do not think it will affect field ing, but bowlers 1 will have a far better chance to beat the bat. The present ball you can hardly hold in your hand. “WISE MOVE,” SAYS EANSFOKD.

Vernon Hansford, of Melbourne:“I would like to hear more of the pro posal, but it seems to me, so far, to b a wise move. Bowlers need more assist ance, and at the present, unless a bowler has abnormally Jong fingers, like Don Blaekie, of St. Kilda, he cannot spin th ball much on the wicket. - ,

“Hugh Trumble was another player gifted with longer fingers than the ordinary bowler. “I take it the ball will be smaller i. diameter, but remain the same weight It is to be hoped it will not be like a stone. If the ball is smaller, the com petition between bowler and batsman will be keener.

“Every batsman knows that under the present conditions a ball is as big as a football when he is set. Possibly the fielding will have to be more alert, but that remains to be seen.”

H. L. Hendry, of Melbourne: “1 am all in favour of the proposal. A smaller ball will mean a big improvement to the game. Bowlers need every assistance, and a smaller ball will help them to spin the leather to beat the bat more often. I do not think that the ball, by being smaller, will be harder to field. In fact, I think it will be easier, because if it goes intio your hands it will stick there.”

STRONGLY OPPOSED. Arthur Liddicut, the inter-State player, said: “I am very much against the proposal. Cricket laws have been al right in the past, and I do not think the smaller ball will do any good. In fact, the game will suffer. Bowlers can spin the ball all right, now. The whole proposal is based on the idea of curtailing matches. j “I contend that faster wickets are j what is wanted to make the chance of j the ball greater for success against the bat. The wickets are watered too much, and not given enough rolling. The use of the roller continually will accelerate th# pace of the wicket, and you will find a match ending earlier. On the first day o play in a big match the wicket is goner ally fast before lunch, but after two o three days it is as dead as can be. Fas wickets are wanted by all bowlers whether they be slow, medium, or fast Leave the ball alone, but make the wickets fast.

“There are two sides to the covering of the wicket, but I think that covering saps the vitality and life from the pitch.”