THE CONTROVERSIAL TESTS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21952, 13 May 1933, Page 4

THE CONTROVERSIAL TESTS

A CRICKET EXPERT’S IMPRESSIONS " Defending the Ashes, 1932-33." By R. \V. E. Wilmot. Illustrated. Melbourne: Robertson and Mullens. (6s net.) Mr R. W. E. Wilmot’s “ Defending the Ashes ” is published at the psychological moment. He should be grateful to Harold Larwood, if no other Australians are, for timing his sensational statement so aptly. And the English and Australian supporters both should be grateful to Mr Wilmot for writing of the controversial test matches with such restraint and sweet reasonableness. Mr Wilmot naturally deals fully with the “ bodyline ” controversy, prefacing his observations with a brief historical survey which shows that “ every reform in cricket, since the first code of laws was accepted, in 1744, has been induced by the superiority, temporary though it may have been, of the bat.” When a John Miller introduced round-arm bowling in 1906 he played sometimes “amid much uproar and confusion,” but persevered for 15 years until, when “ no-balled ” while bowling tor Kent against the M.C.C., he “ threw down the ball with. disgust, jumped on his horse, and rode away out of Lords and out of cricket history.” Eventually the M.C.C. accepted and regulated roundarm bowling, and in the controversy which centred about it the arguments used were similar almost word for word with those heard during the recent teste. ihe elegant and scientific game of cricket, a critic wrote a century ago, ‘ will degenerate into a mere exhibition of rough, coarse, horse play.” In 1862 all restrictions were removed, so_ long as the ball was not thrown. Again the experts expressed grave apprehension. New bowling theories were developed. Armstrong ■was one of the foremost leg theory exponents of his day, and the left-hander, F R. Foster, of Warwickshire, when bowling in Australia in 1912, had the field placed for his “ death trap just as it was placed for Larwood during the last tour.

“ Bodyline.” Bowling Mr Wilmot describes "bodyline” bowling as an antidote introduced by the Engllshmen to combat “ the Bradman menace. Larwood, Voce, and Bowes, he says, were included in the team to administer this medicine, though Bowes’s stylo had previously been denounced by P. F. Warner. Thus the trouble arose. Mr Wilmot says: There can be no doubt that a bowler is justified in attacking the leg stump, in bowling outside it, either to force the batsman to stand back, or to conquer him by having him caught on the leg side. But is he playing the game when he bangs the ball down less than halfway, directed straight at the batsman’s body, or “ catapulted, as Voce does it? I have no hesitation in saying that this style of bowling is not cricket, and, having watched Larwood and Voce carefully, I have not the slightest doubt that on many occasions their bowling was directed at the batsman and not at the wicket. Examining the pitch at Sydney, he found “ unmistakable evidence ” than many balls delivered by Voce had pitched within 24 feet of the bowling crease, and thus 24 feet from the opposite wicket, and could not possibly have hit it. He considers Larwood’s actual delivery was absolutely fair, but says he undoubtedly bowled at the batsman, “ That, this form of attack was designed to intimidate batsmen is beyond dispute”:, he adds, “that it was effective i s . equally so. That it was not cricket, although it was within the law, is, I think, agreed.’’ The “ friendly game” to which Mr Warner had So often alluded, became “ a bitter fight, in which spite, menace, and intent were rampant, and roused a degree of hostile antagonism such as I have never seen displayed on a cricket field before.” Mr Wilmot is satisfied that the “ bodyline attack is a perversion, not a development, of bowling, but he regards it as a phase which has served its purpose and will not last. The Hecklers Regarding the “ barracking ” to which the Englishmen were subjected, Mr Wilmot is outspoken. “ A section of the crowd ‘in the outer ’ and, it must be admitted with shame, occasionally in the reserves, has come to regard it as its inherent right to criticise freely, forcibly, and in the loudest possible manner; to deride an opponent, to be personal, to. be rude, to hurl insulting epithets across the boundary fence, and generally to become a public nuisance.” He adds: “Australia is not a nation of hooligans. There _is not one per cent, of the crowd which descends to this form of criticism; but, unfortunately, that one per cent, makes ’99 per cent, of noise.” Mr Wilmot considers, however, that the Englishmen have often taken this vocal criticism too seriously. The crowds have_ a keen sense of the ridiculous and distribute their noisy favours on Australian players also. He instances one or two occasions when English players won the spectators to their side immediately by responding in good part to heckling. The Nawab of Pataudi became a gallery favourite when he made good-natured replies to one or two sallies that were distinctly in the worst of taste. “There is much to be said for the barracker in much that ho does”; Mr Wilmot suras up, “ there is nothing but condemnation for' him when he becomes rude and personal and .vhen he interferes with the play. It is easy to say that the authorities should interfere, but it is not so easy to act. The solution of the problem seems to lie in ths bands of the spectators themselves, who, by their condemnation of the practice at the moment, can affect an immediate improvement.” In spite of the numerous _ causes of controversy and ill-feeling which characterised the 1932-33 matches, and ranged from the “bodyline” dispute to the wearing by sonie of the English players of Harlequin caps, of which the Australian crowds disapproved, the tour had its lighter side; Mr Wilmot quotes several amusing incidents. When Jardine had been in 67 minutes at Brisbane without scoring, a “barracker ” shouted: “ Here, Mr Jardine, you’re wanted on the telephone,” thus expressing a. boredom that had to be relieved somehow. At Melbourne Bradman was advised by a spectator: “Go in you, Don! Everyone in Australia is behind you except me. and I’m a ‘Pommy.’” There will be some sympathy with Bowes who, asked on shipboard whether he was tired of travel, replied: “Not a bit—not while the sunshine and the beer last.” Mr Wilmot’s book gives a full record of the play, the scores, and the other outstanding features of the Test matches. He is a distinguished cricket commentator, and has edited the athletic section of the Argus, Melbourne, for many years, as well as contributing cricket articles to The Times and other overseas papers, and his statistical records are described as unique. There are 28 illustrations, some of them of particular interest. A. L. F.