THIRD TEST MATCH

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21399, 25 January 1933, Page 12

THIRD TEST MATCH

, FAILURE OF AUSTRALIA

SUPERIOR FAST BOWLING

'• OLDFIELD'S ABSENCE. FELT GILBERT MAY MEET VISITORS By Arthur Miiiley— Copyright ADELAIDE, Jan. 19 The Australians were beaten in the third test because of their failure to play fast bowling. For the time being we will treat leg theory as fast bowling and forget the influence of methods which are being described as intimidatory. Whether leg-side bowling, or, as the Board of Control desires to call it, body-line bowling, is fair.or unfair, or whether this type of bowling is against the true spirit of cricket, I do not. intend to discuss in this article. • ,

What I "intend to do is to hold a postmortem on the prostrate form of Australia, and try to diagnose its somewhat undignified demise, and review the match generally. The match was marred, unfortunately by a good deal of unpleasantness, and this was intensified by the fact that- Woodfull and Oldfi'eld received rather nasty knocks. In spite, of, that, however, the match had many thrills. The great partnership of Lwland and Wyatt, followed by the jYorksnire-Lancashire coalition, when Verity and Paynter batted so bravely, were features in England's first innings, and intensely interesting in view of England losing four wickets for 30 runs. Everybody thought, to use a racing expression, " it was all over bar shouting," when those four men were dismissed for such a riiiserable score. England, however, fought back pluckily, and amassed a respectable total of 341. Australians Demoralised Even this, we.thought, was not beyond Australia on the perfect Adelaide wicket, especially/' whdn .it was remembered that Australia had just beaten England on the Melbourne wicket. Australia, however, fell to England's fast bowlers, Allen, who bowled splendidly, taking four, and Larwood three. It ,was sufficient proof that Australia was in the first innings demoralised by England's fast bowlers.i Ponsford, played a magnificent innings,; played leg theory and off theory alike with great judgment, and Oldfield, until he was hit, played the innings of his life. /Oldfield's injury was a great handicap/to Australia, I doubt whether any man/in the Australian team would have been more valuable. While this incident might not have been one of the' main reasons for Australia's defeat, it certainly affected Australia's morale. Richardson did remarkably ..well for a man who seldom keeps wickets. In the second innings the Australians again crashed before England's fast attack. This should be sufficient proof that the Australian batsmen" have yet to conquer Larwood,"'Allen and company before they can expect to retain the ashes. Woodfull again proved his fighting spirit, especially in the second innings, when'he played almost a lone hand. Larwood's Pace a Menace' * Whatever one thinks of leg theory, it must be Admitted that Larwood's pace is a menace, even when he bowls at. the •wicket. Larwood, unlike most right-hand fast bowlers, swings the ball into the batsman, and consequently his flight deceives the batsman; rather than the bump of the tall. Even if Larwood bowled straight at! the wicket, it is .almost essential that he should have his leg field well fortified.- • . ■ Leg theory is certainly threatening; but I feel that any type of fast bowling would have this effect on Australian batsmen at present. ■ ' - It will be interesting to see if the Queensland selectors will play Gilbert and Thurlow, and if the local captain will try out a leg theory attack. What would be more interesting, in view of the fact that the'test is played in Brisbane the following week, would be to see how Messrs. Sutcliffe, Jardine and Co. would combat it- • • v. . • •-'• •< « ; This is not suggested in the nature of a reprisal or .a retaliatory precaution, but just a thought that, after all, a little more contrast ,is needed in Australia s attack. Fast leg theory is' dangerous and a menace, but there appears to be no artificial remedy. I think we must, grin and bear, it. If we think it is mpre hostile than slow bowling, then let us adopt it. The consensus of opinion, among people closely connected with cricket favours overtures by .the Board ,of Control to the M.C.C., but first an appeal should be made to Jardine to modify the. leg theory attack. This difficult and delicate ques-. tion requites careful handling. My opinion is that it cannot be decided by. legislation, and! the remedy therefore lies with the playep themselves.