U.S.A. AND CRICKET

Northern Advocate, 12 August 1932, Page 3

U.S.A. AND CRICKET

HOSTILE CROWDS.

TREATMENT OF AUSTRALIANS. A sweeping indictment of American sportsmanship is contained in the following cablegram received by the Sydney “Referee,” and dated Winnipeg, July 30:—

The treatment of Arthur Mailey’s cricket team in Montreal was most unsportsmanlike. The players received no consideration, -oven providing their own transport to and from the ground. The lunch provided was inadequate, the players leaving the table hungry and disgusted.

After the excellent treatment at Ottawa and the enthusiastic reception by the Prime Minister, Mr Bennett, the Montreal experiences wore astounding. The team travelled day and night to New York, where they were received at the station by a large mixed crowd. The first three days’play at Innisfail Park was against the West Indies. These matches were before approximately four thousand spectators, mostly coloured.

On the first day the dressing room accommodation was disgraceful, but through the players complaining it was thereafter improved. The fielding ground resembled a ploughed field and the matting on dirt wicket was extremely dangerous. Several players were injured. The Australians were certainly disturbed by the primitive conditions.

The barracking was wild, vociferous, and one-sided. Bradman justifiably indulged in wild slogging and his dismissal on the last day caused a pandemonium. The game wss held up wdiile the bowler collected dollars over the fence from excited spectators. The West Indies previously arranged for a one-day and two-day match, respectively,. but as they were behind at the end of the first day of the second match, they protested and arranged another one-day match in the hope of a victory on the third day. On the final day the local captain requested the Australians to bat first. Y. Y. Richardson declined to do so, but on losing the toss they were ordered to bat. Australia did so and remained at the wickets until 5.30 before applying the closure. This caused much adverse comment from enthusiastic negroes.

When the West Indians batteef McCabe took a beautiful slip catch off Ives in the first over. The umpire said “Not out,” and the batsman on being questioned, stated that the ball hit the handle of the bat and not his glove. Apparently that is not out there.

Immediately following the batsman trod on his wicket and, on walking away, the umpire at the bowler’s end, wildly ordered him to return.

Disapproval by the Australian captain, V. Y. Richardson, was unavailing. The umpiring was disgraceful. One dusky gentleman freely conversed with the spectators while officiating at square leg. The log before wicket decisions against the Australians wore atrocious. H. Carter was badly hit on the eye while keeping and as he was being carried from the ground to the ambulance the batsmen merrily ran, scoring three runs to the great delight of barvackers. The Australian players looking on were disgusted. Arrangements were made for drawing stumps at C. 30, but as the West Indians were batting the game went on. The umpires made no move until .Richardson led his team off the field. The Australians throughout six days’ consecutive play in New York , (including Sunday), 'again provided and paid for their own travelling facilities.

Since arriving, the team has given almost daily exhibitions. They have, played 20 matches in one month against teams containing from fifteen to eighteen men.

Despite the appalling conditions for cricket the members ‘have performed magnificently. Bradman has made 2000 runs and McCabe over 1000. Fleet-wood-Smith and Mailer have .each taken over one hundred wickets.

The local newspapers deplore the tea adjournment. They call it the “God Save the King” interval. They refer to the players as big salaried professionals. Arthur Mailey and Dr. Dean are not correcting these misstatements. Don Bradman and W. Ives endeavoured to correct these reports during speeches at the New York Athletic Club’s dinner, but the American Press politely declined . to contradict their own erroneous statements.

Arrangements for the players gcnorally are inadequate, involving greatpersonal expenses and casting a slur on American sportsmanship.