BAN ON PLAYERS' WIVES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19221, 9 January 1926, Page 9

BAN ON PLAYERS' WIVES.

AUSTRALIAN CRICKET TOUR. WOMENFOI K TO STAY BEHIND ADVERSE COMMENT AT HOME. C By Telegraph—Press Association —Copyright. B A. and N.Z.-Reuter-Sun. LONDON, Jan. 7. The decision of the Australian Board A of Control that the wives of the members of the cricket team that is to visit C( England this year may not accompany h tiiem, lias aroused considerable comment 11 in cricket circles in England. Tho j criticism, for the most part, is of an ad- n verse character. The Daily Telegraph says:—"We resist the temptation to speculate what might happen if some revolting wives defy the control of husbands and board f c and sally forth from • tho Australian di shores. Perhaps an Australian wife is better disciplined than an English wife. w w It is not for us to criticise Australian rules and training. d; "Wondrous tales are told of prowess t\ in eating and drinking by soma past masters of cricket. Your modern first- " u class player is more likely to keep his a; eye on a little oatmeal, but there will be p, no enthusiasm hero to follow the Aus- w tralian example. It is excellent to insist upon the rigour of tho game, but Englishmen will be inclined to add that r cricket, even test cricket, is only a game, and that there are dangers in taking C games too seriously." j The Daily News remarks: —"Our test matches now are delightful spectacles j: like the Derby or the University boat t race. Are wo to turn them into grim struggles between selfless automatons ? If the winning of the tests is only possible by clipping cricket of its charm, then let tho Australians keep 'tho ashes'!" v, The Westminster Gazette says: "Tho q ban is obviously due to Australian girls' well-known love of amusement and night life." " Sackcloth and Ashes." 13 ' . V The Star in a leading article, headed "Sackcloth and Ashes," says:—"We j; must conjecture what the Australian L cricketers think of banning their wives, because no man is likely to incriminate himself. We can imagine what the wives are thinking and saying. We sympathise with them. It is the ambition of every good to come Homo at least once in a lifetime. Women could not q have a better excuse to come than when the partners of their joys and sorrows a have business to come to England. " The - Australian cricket mandarins' ii ukase is a harsh interference with the sub- s ject's liberty and individual's natural affection. Cricketers are most likely to E be hampered by an uneasy feeling that r their wives are half a world away than t by their presence in England. We cannot c belifeve that the presence of wives would a hamper a team more abroad than at a home. f " Will tho Board of Control next decree that players must deport their t wives when England visits Australia ? Whether the Australians' wives submit t or compel the. board to reverse their i decision we hope that they will begin a t movement demanding recognition of the i theory that when a man embarks on a 1 six months' picnic his wifo is entitled to accompany him." Live Topic of Discussion. The question has developed into a live topic of discussion among cricketers and newspapers. Thero is a feeling that the Board of Control is perfectly justified in exercising jurisdiction over the players, hut that it is not- justified in seeking jurisdiction over others. ' ' i There is some question of the legality of the action of the board in endeavour- j ing to restrict the liberty of tho vives . and relatives of players. . Whereas tho Government does not possess such powers, j the prevailing, opinion is that tho board £ has ovorstepped, the mark, especially in view of the fact that the case is already virtually met by means of the existing embargo, which, from the English viewpoint, worked satisfactorily. ] * Pelham Warner ays: "Everything depends on tho wifo. There are certain women who would upset a cricket team just as they would causo trouble anywhere. Personally, I would not prevent wives accompanying; players, but Australians know their own business. Cricket has become* something like a battle, and the latest order is, 'No women at the front."' n What Douglas and Hobbs Think. a J. W. H. T. Douglaß, in an interview, I said that he could i-ot see how a wife could detrimentally affect a player's game. r His own wife had twico journeyed with him to Australia without affecting him. Jack Hobbs, it was remarked, was accompanied by his wife to Australia on the last tour, and he never played better. There were scores of similar incidents. The Australians would be absent eight, months, which l was a long separation. Hobbs, in expressing his opinion, said that he was surprised at this decision, I coming from a country priding itself on its democratic outlook, particularly * as it involved a restriction of the rights of amateurs. His own experience was that players benefited through the presence of their wives, although he ad- | mits that transportation difficulties were increased. It was particularly hard luck for those who had been looking to taking their wives, Hobbs continued, because coming to England was a great thing with Ausi tralians. The idea, he said, must be that women might interfere with tho harmony'•of the tour. The Other Side of the Question. Hendren said that wives were best left j behind in the interests of the players themselves. If every player were accompanied by his wife a ladies' committee to select a team would be essential. Moreover, there were many functions to which the wives could not be invited. Mr. A. Toone, manager of the last English team which toured Australia, declared: " The Australian Board of Control has evidently determined that cricketers shall not bi! embarrassed by social duties. There is a good deal to be said for the restriction. The presence of wives must have obvious drawbacks, (j Whether England will follow Australia's lead is a matter for Marylebone to de- ki cido." th