THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1932 SPOILING A GAME

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21377, 29 December 1932, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1932 SPOILING A GAME

If it be granted that the spirit in which a game is played does much to make it good or bad, then cricket in high places is in danger. Some recent happenings in the tour of the M.0.0. team, together with accumulating comment on these, give reason for the fear. They have been far from pleasant. No matter where the blame should rightly fall, this development is very regrettable. Cricket is in itself so fine a game, and i:ts traditional supremacy as an English pastime is so well established, that it would be a calamity to have its record marred by displays!" of bad taste and bad temper. The second test match begins in Melbourne to-morrow. Ahead of it are three others of the series. With the first won decisively by the Englishmen and the possibility that the shock tactics of their fast bowlers may be effectively repeated, this match may prove a test in behayiour as well as in skill. Cricket-lovers everywhere—they are a great host—will anticipate it with some nervousness, not at all about the iscores but about this risk of a blow at the best traditions of the game. Whoever wins, there will be a cricket triumph if the match concludes without any breach of the spirit in which it should be played, and thereafter all interested will settle down to follow the succeeding tests with unalloyed pleasure, prepared to praise without stint good play on either side and to regard misfortunes as all in the game. If, on tlie other hand, there should be evident ans'thing unworthy, the rest of ; tlie tour will suffer in popular regard and be actually robbed of genuine interest. Perhaps players and onlookers alike will have sensed the peril ,and be eager to make amends in sportsmanship for what has unfortunately happened in Sydney and Hobart. Two things have evoked adverse comment— the shock tactics of the English fast bowlers, already mentioned as a decisive factor in the Sydney test, and the "incidents" circumstantially reported of the match against Tasmania. Of the first,, it seems, too much has been made by the critics. It was known, when the English team was chosen, that reliance would be largely placed on the fast attack to be launched by Larwood, Voce and Allen. That reliance was legitimate, quite apart from the question as to whether events would justify it. The team selected was adequately representative of England's batting strength, even allowing for the disappointing withdrawal of Duleepsinhji for health reasons. Indeed, English comment generally praised the batting as exceptionally strong. Also, "it'is possible to say," asserted one well qualified to speak, "that we have never sent such a good, fielding side abroad," and there was sufficient assurance of a safe pair of hands behind the stumps. So far, well. The prospects of the team needed only excellent bowlers to make them unusually bright, and to the three already nained were added Tate, Verity, Mitchell and Brown. Asa combination it promised well, with due thought of the weather conditions to be met when the side was selected immediately prior to each match ; but pace was deemed a prime essential, coupled with tactics that county matches have lately proved to be worth while. These tactics have frankly made use of the idea of boSvling a bumping ball on the leg stump, with a row of short-legs ready to snap up a forced catch, and with equal frankness it has been acknowledged that bowlers employing this idea have not so much attacked the wicket as the batsman's body.-The point is that this phase of the on-theory was not specially invented for the tour, and even if it had been, as some critics seem to think, there was ample warranf; in the similarly dangerous attack by Gregory and MacdonaLd once upon a time for Australia. Complaint against it is misplaced. What happened at Hobart is another story. There the English captain refrained from ; using his star bowlers, as he had a perfect right- to do, with a desire to rest them in view of the next test match. Allen, Verity, Mitchell and Brown were given some.exercise, with half-a-dozen others, including the captain, not usually seen with the ball, doing quite as much. This was a little uncomplimentary to Tasmania, and if, as reported, it was the English captain's vengeance for being denied his wish that the match should be abandoned because of the state of the pitch—which the umpires had agreed was fit for play —it was worse than uncomplimentary. His suggestion that the Englishmen would prefer to forfeit the match was worse still. To have English press comment refer to Hobart's "mud-ridden pitch"—one far better than some on which" the Australians have had to play tests in England—is adding ingult to insult. It is understood that more will be heard officially of all this. Perhaps it should. But it would be better if Jardine set out at once to make amends, and, even if he does not, for-the Australian players, officials and public to try to forget the breach of cricket manners and add nothing that would assist to spoil the game.