FAMOUS CRICKETER

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 13 October 1932, Page 7

FAMOUS CRICKETER

BRADMAN AND THE BOARD OF CONTROL THE .PERTH MATCH . : , ' lUnited Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copy right) (Received 13th October, 10.20 a.m.) SYDNEY, This Day. The chairman of the Cricket Board of Control, Mr Robertson, stated that Bradman had told the Board that ho would not write for the press. Bradman emphatically denies this. It is uncertain whether . Bradman will play for the Australian Eleven in' r Berth. Excursion trains are contemplated from as far as Ivalgoorlie for the fixture, but the Railway Department is not advertising its timetables until it is known whether Bradman will be playing. A message from the Orontes at sea says the Englishmen regard Bradman as certain to play. WILL BRADMAN PLAY? SYDNEY, 7th October. Don Bradman has been-asked by the Board of Control to give it an assurance that he ’is solely a professional journalist. He has answered that he cannot give this assurance, for his con- . tracts include engagements that are not " journalistic. He therefore resumes that the board, in terms of its previous edict," refuses to consider him as eligible for the Tests against the Englishmen—and there, for the moment, the • matter stands. But, naturally, there Ls a great deal to be said before the incident can be regarded as closed. The terms of Bradmail’s contract with Associated Newspapers have been published, and they y seem to cover the case in a manner that should be acceptable to the board. In the first place, he contracted not to write 'about or comment on or' criticise* any player “prior to 24th March 1932, ’ when the currency of the board’s lastissued regulation on this question expired: His contract, therefore provided : gainst any defiance of the board’s authority up .to that date. Further, the contract specifies that Bradman “shall not, at any time, be asked to comment upon the prospect!", of selection of any cricketer or cricketers for any first-class match.” . This again may b'e regarded '' as effectually preventing Bradman frpm indulging in journalistic work of the 1 type, that has caused unpleasantness in the past- Finally, the contract binds Bradman to render service throughout-; the year—winter as well as summer—sb that’it may fairly be contended that he is, in regard to this contract, permanently employed in the journalistic profession.

In view of all this, it should not be impossible for the Board of Control to stretch a point in Bradman’s favour, more especially as the board has decided that Fingleton, because lie is a pro- 1 ' Sessional journalist, may make comments in newspapers as much as h e pleases. The hoard must also take into account, the great weight of public., opinion which favours Bradman and would be hostile to the board if it interpreted its own rule Loo rigidly. The Melbourne • “Sun Pictorial” speaks for a great many people when it asks why Bradman alone “should he expected to sacrifice; part of his income to help his country to..victory *; at cricket."’ One of the greatest,; of , Australian cricketers and .cabt&iijM Joe Darling, has stated publicly that-the *» board should make up to Bradmshjßany f loss that he might sustain through sur- - rendering his "-ontracts and that;, .if *.& , refused to do this, and he were in'Bradinan’s place he would not play. Curiously enough, the same plan of guaranteeing Bradman against Moss has ,(■ befcii suggested at Home by the editor of ■'Wisden’s” writing in tlie “Sunday jif Time!,.” Of ■ course, ■ all the British »- sporting papers arc clamorous in ,their demand that a way must be found out?.* of this 'impasse.” for they agree, that.*> j the Tests without Bradman would be •* a fiasco too tragic to contemplate. But;. ' here, again, Bradman’s own views must'* be consulted, and in response to the,., suggestion that he might be released from nis contract he has answered that - as the- acceptance, of this contract en- ; ; a bled him to remain in Australia he - * must abuts* loyally by its conditions. Tlie whole incident is certainly tunate. but it is likely to do good in one direction by reminding people :n general that the days of rigid amateurism in sport are over. Very fey," men can afford to devote sufficient time to •my spoit to reach and retain championship form for long, and .therefore ’the conception of “expenses, now entertained liv most controlling bodies, is both elastic and generous. In these coming Tells the Australians will receive £3O for each of the five matches—£l6o in all—and this is the sum granted to the amateurs playing with the British team. Of course, the English professionals will get more—£4oo each, plus a bonus based on receipts, as well as £1 a week allowance on board ship and 30s a week on shore. Members of the last Australian team that visited Eng- * land received £450 while on tour, and ■ £.LO on their return, as well as 30s a v r eok travelling expenses. So that amateurism in crickei is not what it v r as ■ before Tests and touring teams were invented. • ", i