FAST BOWLING

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19374, 24 December 1932, Page 16

FAST BOWLING

LEG STUMP THEORY The leg theory of 40 years ago was displaced by the off theory until 1921, when the Australians, J. Gregory and M'Donald, revived it in their English tour, and annihilated England. Commenting on England’s failure at that time, Mr. Sydney H. Pardon wrote in Wisden’s:—“lt was the fast bowling more than anything else that brought about our undoing. Never before have English batsmen been so demoralised by great pace. The test matches at Nottingham and Lord's were both practically lost in the first half-hour. Gregory in one and M’Donald in the other neutralising all the advantage we had gained by winning the toss. lam sure that some of our batsmen, knowing they would have to face Gregory, were out before they went in. Since Knox bowled his fastest in 1906 I have never seen batsmen so obviously intimidated. . . . Gregory was apt, when he pitched at all short, to get up dangerously high, but old cricketers were inclined to be sarcastic when they saw batsmen frightened by long hops. They, perhaps, remembered Mr. R. D. Walker’s dictum years ago

that the batsman who could not take care of himself ought not to play cricket.”

Writing recently on test prospects, A. A. Ma ley, of the 1921 Australian team, declared:— "This is the form of attack that Australian batsmen have to face, and if we had a bowler whose pace was equal to that of Larwood we would be compelled to adopt similar tactics. “Some people say that Wall, the South Australian fast bowler, is too much of a gentleman to bowl at the batsman. In my opinion it is not a case of manners. I have said a dozen times that a fast bowler has been compelled (owing to the tactics of batsmen) to bowl on the wicket, and they have a perfect right to do so.

“Although the leg stump theory rattled the Australian batsmen in Melbourne, neither Woodfull nor Bradman lost their wickets to it.

“However, should the English fast bowlers adopt the leg field in the first test match, we must not object an the grounds of sportsmanship. It is a legitimate theory, and I have sufficient faith in Australian batsmen that they will combat this menace in their own particular way. “In the first place, the Sydney wicket is almost as unsympathetic to a fast bowler as the one at Adelaide, consequently the Australian batsmen in the first test will have less to fear than Woodful and Bradman had at Melbourne. In addition, although the list of following batsmen is not long, it comprises the cream of Australian batting. “If Australia puts up a respectable score in it will engender faith in the following matches, even though the Brisbane wicket shows a little of the devil occasionally. “By the time the third test is played the problem of combating the English express attack should be solved. “It is a serious problem for the Australian selectors, each of whom, I hope, will not be stampeded or even | influenced by the results of one ! match.”

Mr. Cecil Douglas, whose family has held a prominent place in English sport for more than 50 years, is feeling very hot round 'the collar over a ruling by the English Amateur Boxing Association which prohibits amai teur referees officiating at professional fights. Mr. Douglas feels that this rule, which came into being only recently, was framed for his especial benefit, which may not be wide of the mark. He is the only unpaid referee who is in conrtant demand for professional matches. His father, Mr. J. H. Douglau was a champion under the old Queensberry rules; his brother, “J.W.H.T.” of cricketing fame, was a champion middle-weight. Cecil Douglas is threatened with suspen~ion if he continues to operate. He has never j so much rrs received a rail fare towards his expenses, and he acts entirely without payment. The Duke of Glouster recently paid a visit to the Standard works at Coventry (England), where a luncheon was held in his honour. After inspecting the works he opened the nev/ taff pavilion, and later took del very of a 1933 model Standard “Sixteen” naioon.