NINE FOR 38

Southland Times, Issue 22362, 29 June 1934, Page 7

NINE FOR 38

O’REILLY’S AVERAGE SOMERSET DISMISSED FOR 116 AUSTRALIA 236 FOR 7 (United Press Assn. —Telegraph Copyright.) London, June 27. J. W. Lee and F. S. Lee, who opened for Somerset against the Australians, played confidently and soundly on a pitch that was rapidly becoming a mud-heap. The total was 37 after two hours, when Jack Lee played Ebeling on to the wicket. O’Reilly, in his first over after lunch, captured the wickets of Bennet, White and Case. The total was then 58 for four. O’Reilly, making good use of the wicket, then went through the side. In another over he got the wickets of Ingle, Burrogh, and Wellard. With the total at seven for 92, O’Reilly’s figures since lunch were: Seven overs, two maidens, 11 runs, six wickets. Frank-Lee, meanwhile, was playing an excellent lone-hand innings. O’Reilly finished off Somerset by dismissing Davey and Luckes with successive balls. Somerset batted for 155 minutes. Frank Lee carried his bat through the innings. O’Reilly’s figures since lunch were: Thirteen overs, five maidens, 16 runs, nine wickets, and were the best Australian bowling figures of the tour. Woodfull and Ponsford opened soundly, but when the total was 38 the latter jumped out to drive White, missed, and was stumped. Bradman shaped confidently until he tried to cut a ball and was caught by the wicketkeeper. Two for 62. Woodfull was scoring freely, except from White, and Darling was hitting in fine style. A hundred went up in 90 minutes. Darling reached a brilliant and risky 50 in 35 minutes. When slumps were drawn Woodfull had made 50 in 125 minutes and Darling 62 in 60 minutes, including a six and eight fours.

PLAY RESUMED WOODFULL MAKES 84. (United Press Assn.—Telegraph Copyright.) (Rec. 1.10 a.m.) London, June 28. Tile weather was overcast and the wicket easy when the match between Australia and Somerset was resumed to-day. Scores at lunch:— SOMERSET. First Innings. J. Lee b Ebeling 20 F. Lee not out 59 Bennett b O’Reilly 3 White lbw b O’Reilly 5 Case lbw b O’Reilly 0 Ingle c Darling b O’Reilly 13 Burrough lbw b O’Reilly 0 Wellard c Bromley b O’Reilly 0 Cameron lbw b O’Reilly 2 Davey lbw b O'Reilly 4 Luckes c Barnett b O’Reilly 0 Extras 10 Total 116 Bowling analysis: Ebeling took one wicket for 22 runs. O’Reilly nine for 38, Darling none for 11, FleetwoodSmith none for 33, Bromley none for two, AUSTRALIA. First Innings. Woodfull run out 84 Ponsford st Luckes b White 17 Bradman c Luckes b White 17 Darling c Davey b Wellard 79 Kippax c Luckes b Wellard 1 Chipperfield hit wicket b Wellard 12 Bromley lbw b Lee 1 Barnett not out 22 Ebeling not out 1 Extras 2 Total for seven wickets 236 LARWOOD’S OUTBURST “M.C.C. LET HIM DOWN BADLY.” ALWAYS PLAYED THE GAME. London, June 17. In an exclusive article in the Sunday Despatch, Larwood says, “I have made up my mind that I will not play against the Australians in the second or any other Test.” He complains that justice has been subordinated to “cricket diplomacy,” and that he has been “badly let down” by the authorities. “Why don’t they come out into the open and ban leg theory ?” he asks. Although some people in high places have short memories (Larwood says), I have not forgotten Woodfull’s saying, “There are two teams playing, and one of them is not playing cricket” (a reference during the Adelaide Test after Woodfull had been hit by Larwood). Woodfull never retracted that statement, which was a direct thrust at Jardine and myself. I am unrepentant about leg-thcoi-y. There is a big hush-hush conspiracy to bury leg-theory, and brand me as dangerous and unfair. Marylebone has surrendered to political and other interests, which are determined at all costs to placate Australia, and conveniently forget how we won the last series of Tests. Unfitness an Excuse.

The selectors, before the Trent Bridge Test, asked me whether I were fit. . I was determined not to play, but in order to make their position easy, I answered that I was unfit. Then I went off and skittled Sussex. (Larwood took five wickets for 66 runs.) If I had said I was fit, and wanted to play, would they have played me? I have heard I was not to be played in the first Test in any case. If England could win without me I would not be played at all, which would placate the people who feared that cricket was going to burst up the Empire; but England did not win. I have been badly let down by those in authority. Why don’t they come out into the open and ban leg-theory ? While in Australia I received shoals of cables of congratulations; now many of the people who sent them have turned against me. Marylebone backed up Jardine in the famous cablegram controversy. Now it has swung completely round. Sir Francis Jackson (a selector) is reported to have said tfflt if I were asked to play it - would be unconditionally. This is a mere quibble. Sir Stanley Jackson carefully added that all players would be under the captain’s instructions. In my whole career I have not beard before of a Test captain dictating to a bowler that he must bowl only a certain way. “Only a Ruse.” That was only a ruse to prevent me from bowling leg-theory; but in view of the newspaper and public outcry I am to be invited to play. Marylebone won’t say: “You must not bowl leg-theory,” but privately it will give the captain a hint to tell me not to bowl leg-theory. Even if I tried he wouldn’t place the field in a legtheory position. I will now reveal that from the first I had no intention, of playing against an Australian captain who regards me

as unfair. If I did intend to play I should certainly bowl leg-theory. If .the captain interfered with the disposition of the field I would refuse to bowl, and would walk from the wicket. It is perhaps well that did not happen. Marylebone is willing to wound, but is afraid to strike. It never admitted that my bowling was directed against the batsman’s body. It has not discovered anything in the rules to prevent it. It had not the courage to alter the rules.

If I were right in Australia I must be right now. If Marylebone admits we won the last series of Tests under false pretences, well and good, but does it? No! In the usual shilly-shally manner it tries to be for and against leg-theory simultaneously. Bowled at Stumps.

I am with Jardine to the last ditch on leg-side bowling. He has been treated most disgracefully owing to the misguided desire of politicians not to offend the Australians who are squealers, not because they were hurt but because they couldn’t make runs against leg-theory. Records showing how often I hit'the stumps in Australia prove the ridiculousness of the charge that I bowled at the batsmen’s heads.

Conspirators are spreading poison everywhere. Leg-theory is going to be killed if some people have their way, and they will hound me from the game by exerting pressure inspired by influential leaders upon Notts through a threat to cancel fixtures.

The climax came recently when, I believe, Carr was informed that the position was serious and that leg-theory would have to cease. Apparently a prominent member of Middlesex threatened to lead his team from the field if Voce and I adopted a leg-field. Lancashire, who used legtheory before I was born, threatened to cancel the fixture with Notts. I was amazed to learn that Mr Higson’s name was associated with the Lancashire protest, as Mr Higson is one of the selectors who are so wary about committing themselves about legtheory. Yorkshire also is reported to be against Notts’ methods. I cannot help smiling at the threat as they have a bowler whose short bumpers are infinitely more dangerous to life and limb than anything I send down (presumably Larwood refers to Bowes). Soon we poor bowlers will have to use a tennis ball or bowl lobs. Carr Upset.

Naturally, this bombshell has upset Carr terribly. Even now he may have to resign as other captains are questioning his sportsmanship in breaking a gentleman’s agreement not to use “body-line” in county cricket (the county captains’ agreement). Carr is always behind me on leg-theory and he knows I do not deliberately aim at the body. He told me and, I believe, other captains, that if I started bowling head high four or five times in an over it would be stopped, but things have come to a sorry pass when others are instructing Carr how to place his field.

Voce, as a left-hander, requires fieldsmen on the leg-side, yet squealers also want that stopped. I bowled leg-theory three times against Glamorgan, Lancashire and Essex in 1932. Turnbull scored more than 205 and Davies 106—so much for the alleged terrors of bowling on the leg stump. There is wide determination to stop leg-theory. It is alleged my pace is dangerous, especially to slow-footed batsmen. Now the cat is completely out of the bag. All those unable to time my bowling are combining to stop it by hook or by crook. If a batsman is so slow-footed that he is always being hit, it is time he retired from international cricket. The success of Fames at Trent Bridge showed that the Australians are not used to speed, whether leg-theory or otherwise. “Namby-Pamby” Cricketers. I am still loyal to Notts. Moreover, I must earn a living, so I shall drop leg-theory in county matches, but that docs not make me less bitter against the mandarins in high places who have made it their business to eliminate a perfectly fair method of bowling. I am disgusted that so many of my countrymen are turning yellow like certain Australians. Cricket is not a nursery game. Oldtimers took more knocks than the majority of moderns who play on wickets of glass. We are breeding a race of namby-pamby cricketers, afraid of their own shadows. I do not want to leave Notts, but if goaded further I shall have to consider my position as my contract ends this year; but I hope the position will be clarified, otherwise I may be forced into league cricket. I have received no definite offers, although one or two Lancashire clubs have made inquiries. My future in county cricket is indefinite, but I am afraid my days have ended as a Test player. For one thing I am burning my boats in telling the public what I believe to be the truth.

People in high places at Lord’s and elsewhere probably will wash their hands of me. Do I care ? VZell, lam a littl: disappointed. I always tried to play the game in every sense of the word.—From the Melbourne Herald.