CRICKET REPORTS.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 November 1932, Page 2

CRICKET REPORTS.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —As a keen follower of cricket wherever it is played, and now that the Stratford-Main Trunk banquet controversy has had a good innings, I wonder how many of your readers have noticed the remarkably “one-sided” view of the Press Association reports of the Austra-lia-England match now in progress. Sutcliffe and other members' of the team were “counted out” on Friday for taking a long time to get rims, but analysing the Australian bowling averages one must come to the conclusion that there was some cause for slowness. The bowling was definitely good—so why not give the poor old trundlers the credit for once, instead of “counting out” the batsmen. After all it is a bowler’s aim to make run-getting as difficult as possible. I have yet to meet the bowler who likes to see one of his deliveries disappear over the pavilion roof. Ironmonger came out with the worst figures of those who actually took wickets, his two costing 90 runs. Yet I venture to predict that could Sutcliffe and Leyland be got rid of every time for 90 runs the Australian test captain would have no objections whatever. I suppose that Bradman and other Australians were also “counted out” on Saturday, as runs were fewer than on the previous day. Only the Press Association reporter forgot to mention the fact. Perhaps he lost his pencil amidst the tremendous excitement which must have prevailed when O’Brien scored a boundary, during a “scratch round” which lasted 158 minutes and produced 36 runs. I am, etc., V. PARKINSON. New Plymouth, November 21. [The correspondent has been quick to lay the blame on • the Press Association agent for what he evidently considers is a somewhat biassed report. To anyone acquainted with the barracking of cricket crowds does it not appear possible that the alleged partiality may lie not with the reporter but with the crowd whose conduct he is reporting?—Ed.]