The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1933. SPOILING CRICKET

Southland Times, Issue 22010, 9 May 1933, Page 6

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1933. SPOILING CRICKET

A lack of restraint in newspapers ready to exploit almost anything to pander to a public taste for sensationalism will kill cricket quicker than any leg-theory bowling, and it is unfortunate that the dispersal of the victorious English team has given to these papers a chance to “play-up” to the incidents in Australia once more in circumstances that cannot do other than rouse ill-feeling to greater heights than before. Larwood, rightlj 7 resentful of the treatment accorded him in Australia by a section of the crowd and by some of the newspapers, now appears as the author of a statement couched in unfortunate terms. Having had time to calm down, he could have made a quiet and dignified protest against the charges levelled against him, and | lifted the discussion on a much! higher plane than it has hitherto occupied, but the interview in the Sunday Express was most injudicious, and it is to the great, bowler’s credit that, for whatever reason, he tried to prevent the publication of the interview after he had sold it. The attitude of portions of the Australian audiences was unpardonable, but those newspapers which invented the term “body-line bowling” and exploited it must take a large share of the responsibility for the trouble. Cricket is a game, but in recent years the commercialisation of it through the newspapers has given it the character of a j gladiatorial combat in which vic- j tory is too often more important than the game. Larwood’s attack i on Bradman and Woodfull was ; unfortunate, and great bowler though he is, Larwood probably will find cause to regret, in consequence of future play, the language he employed in reference to Bradman, whose figures in the Tests, though not as sensational as those of his earlier efforts, show that Larwood’s accusation is by no means justified. The Australian Board of Control certainly handled an awkward situation badly, and its proposal to the M.C.C. to impose on the umpires the responsibility for saying whether or not a bowler is trying to hit a batsman is the climax of its unfortunate efforts. Bowling which persistently bumps so high that a batsman cannot play the ball is a danger to the game by making it tedious, and it should be possible to amend the rules so’ that a ball pitched less than halfway between the wickets shall be deemed a no-ball and penalized; but it is impossible to ask umpires to read the mind of a bowler and determine his intentions. Fast leg-theory bowling will have to be mastered by the batsmen and there are some shrewd critics who declare that already Bradman has shown that he will be one of the batsmen to accomplish this. But the most disquieting feature is not Larwood’s bowling. It is the development of the cricketer who commercializes his success in the game; not by becoming a professional player, but by writing and broadcasting views on the games in which he takes part. In these days the craze for sensationalism affects all branches of human activity, and those who supply this demand are too ready to use extravagant language and to exploit every incident which may cause a sensation. If this is not checked it will kill the game, which has been accepted for so long as the exemplar of true sport. The English team took its inspiration for the leg-theory from that earlier team which, through Foster and Barnes, used it with success against powerful Australian elevens, and while Larwood’s pace made Jardine’s attack more difficult to cope with, the fact that batsmen could make big scores against it destroys the argument that it is unplayable or unfair. Jardine led a great team, including a great bowler, and the sound critics of the game acknowledge that fact. Sensational journalism was at the root of the trouble, and unfortunately Larwood’s interview is giving the sensationalists another chance.