EIGHTY-SIX WICKETS LOST L.B.W.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23332, 26 October 1937, Page 4

EIGHTY-SIX WICKETS LOST L.B.W.

NEW ZEALAND CRICKETERS WILY PROFESSIONAL BOWLERS (From the Special Correspondent with the Team) LOI'FDON, Oct. 1. Now on their way to Australia, the New Zealand cricketers aboard the Orontes will have time to reflect upon one of their bothersome problems on the tour of England, that which almost justified the term “ the great l.b.w. epidemic.” Eighty-six l.b.w. decisions were given against the tourists in their games. No other first-class side had a record approaching this one. The 1931 team, it is interesting to recall, lost only 45 wickets through batismen getting their legs in front of straight balls, and the 1927 side had an even better record in first-class games, in which it had only 30 l.b.w. decisions. It is important to emphasise, when considering a trouble which cost the side dearly, that very few of the l.b.w. decisions were given under the new rule, which permits an umpire to give out a batsman struck on the pads by a ball pitching outside the off stump, but which would in his opinion have hit the wickets. Only nine new-rule decisions were given in first-class matches throughout the tour. The batsmen were dismissed in the good old-fashioned way under the'good old-fashioned rule—simply by missing balls pitching in the line of the wickets which would, in the opinion of the umpire, have hit the Wickets. English umpires are renowned the world over for competence and fairness. It is generally considered that a batsman can rest content that he really was out if he is given out l.b.w. < in England. Happenings on the recent tour, however, did little if anything to enhance the high reputation earned by the first-class umpires of England. More than once on the tour it was a little difficult to see how an official could have come to the conclusion he did —that the ball off which an appeal was made would have hit the stumps. Umpires are not infallible, and no doubt mistakes were made in some matches. It must be emphasised, however, that the players took these decisions as final on every occasion, never once suggesting on the field of play, by either word or gesture, that they doubted the correctness of any decision. BATSMEN STAND .AWAY FROM . WICKETS It certainly seemed from the observations made on the tour that; there was a readiness on the part of umpires to answer appeals in the affirmative. Perhaps it is partly because of this that there has been a change in style in much of the batting in England. Many professional' . batsmen., now play well away from their 1 stumps, taking middle and leg or even; leg stump when asking, for guard, instead of the old-fashioned centre, and the maligned practice of'" coverings” with the . pads is now seldom seen. The New Zealand bowlers quickly found, rather to, their surprise, that when they Were bowling they could see all three .stumps at which they, were aiming, so far away from the wickets did the batsmen stand. The;New Zealanders, by contrast, obscured their leg stump, and' often the middle and leg with their pads, having their feet close to, the bat and the bat rpp ( .or iae?ir the line of the middle stump, / Late in the tour several ■ ■ adopted the “ standroff” stance with success j finding that they could play, their strokes just as well and that the risk ofjanT.biw. decision was much less." Several Eng-, lish bowlers,, tqld the tourists that they were hevet ■ hit' off the leg stump by.county batsmen in the way they were, by the New Zealanders. Some, in .fact, had to change their normal field placement when playing against the tourists, because so many of their deliveries were hit on the leg side instead of being played down the wicket or to the off-side. When New Zealand batsmen began to ask for middle • and leg or leg stump when taking guard, they made just as many runs and were dismissed l.b.w.' much less frequently. Few reliable conclusions, however, can be drawn from the long record of l.b.w. fatalities the team, had in England. Perhaps the only one which can be maintained with certainty is that the average professional bowler is lightning quick in taking advantage of weakness. In that respect he is much more like a professional boxer. He does not mind how long he lias to manoeuvre to catch his adversary off guard, but once he has an opponent in the position he desires, he wastes no time in accomplishing his downfall. Noticing how fond the tourists were of leg-side forcing strokes off balls pitching on the middle or leg stumps, many of the shrewd bowlers met on the tour fed this passion, conceding the batsmen runs until a ball seemingly the same as those before it, but actually a little quicker or slower through the air and off the pitch, trapped the eager | batsman into a mistake and left him with his pads in front of the ; wicket, and the umpire pointing to ; the sky. | The New Zealand batsmen will' probably be able to revert to their! old style, if they desire to do so, when they return to New Zealand. ! There they will not; have to contend with bowlers so clever in making the most of slender opportunity. Several, however, have become so converted to the effectiveness of the new style of batting that they will adhere to it on their return. Another trouble which bothered the tourists for a time was an unhappy weakness for run-outs. There were six of these in the first four games, when, it must be remembered, the players were struggling to find their form and when the depressing effect of unsatisfactory dismissal was thus greater than later in the tour.'! Eleven run-outs were recorded against the team on the tour, but after the first six weeks such methods of batting suicide were lew and far between. ACCURATE THROWING-IN Over the whole tour, the team more than balanced the account of run-outs, but this was mainly due to the exceptionally fast picking-up and throwing of V/. M. Wallace and M. P. Donnelly. The former soon made a speciality of “ bluffing ” batsmen into a fatal attempt to run for a stroke toward cover-point, developing an excellent understanding with E. W. Tindill. Donnelly' caught several batsmen unawares because he picked up and threw left-handed. Generally he did not return the ball to the wicket-keeper or the bowler, but threw straight at the stumps, which he had an uncanny knack of hitting, no matter what the distance or the angle. , . . ... Hit-wicket decisions against the batsmen were rare, but as it was a fine summer with fast wickets the conditions were for forward amhnot back strokes. W. A. Hadlee trod on

his wickets in the second test at Manchester when seven short of a century, and M. L. Page hit the stumps so forcibly in Scotland that he broke a bail. N. Gallichan also dismissed himself in this way in one match. J. L. Kerr had an unusual distinction, as he played a ball on to his stumps at Swansea, but the bails did not fall and the ball went to the fence for four. The team s luck on this occasion was more than cancelled at Canterbury, when Kent won after the last man in had played on a ball, without disturbing the bails, from J. Cowie.