BITTER FEELING.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 663, 17 January 1933, Page 1

BITTER FEELING.

Fast Leg Theory Beginning j to Take Toll. INCENSED AUSTRALIANS. There has never been a Test series in which feeling has run as high, and so great a stir has been caused by the results of the Englishmen’s fast leg theory attack, that many people are fearing its effect upon the impressionable Australian cricket crowds. Most significant of all is the com- i ment by Clem Hill, who writes: “The j venomous leg theory, or, rather, ‘ head : theory ’, is sounding the death knell of ! scientific cricket. . . . Woodfull’s ; blow was all in the game. The ball j flew sharply and beat the defence.” j Then he says: “ Larwood immediately resorted to leg tactics. It is not cricket. Woodfull does not squeal un- i less something is wrong.” If Hill is right, it would seem that England’s leading express merchant deliberately took advantage of Woodfull’s injury, and with that to work on adopted tactics that might almost be described as terrorism. If that is so, then it is easy to understand Woodfull’s peevishness and the frank and threatening hostility of the crowd. English Opinions. The comments of Englishmen themselves on high bumpers, before the team left for Australia are interesting at this stage. In the “ Morning Post ” of August 22 the manager of the present team, Mr P. F. Warner, wrote: —“. . . Bowes must alter his tactics. Bowes bowled with five men on the on-side and sent down several very short-pitched balls which repeatedly bounced head-high and no more. Now, that is not bowling indeed, it is not cricket. . . . Yorkshire will find themselves a very unpopular side if there is a repetition of Saturday’s methods. Moreover, these things lead to reprisals—and when they begin, goodness knows where they will end. . . . Yorkshire fell from her pedestal and her great reputation was tarnished.” An Australian Critic. Dr Eric Barbour, writing in the “Sydney Mail”, said: “These tactics may or may not be successful in winning the ‘ Ashes ’ back for England. But even if they succeed, is it worth the price? “ The tactics exploited in England by Bowes, and in Australia by Larwood and Voce, make it impossible for a batsman to use his bat in defence of his body except at the risk, one may say almost the certainty, of playing the ball into the gir on the leg side. It is physically, impossible to * play a stroke that will bring a fast leg ball quickly to earth from a height of five feet. The batsman, therefore, is presented with the delectable choice of three evils:— “‘(1) He can put his bat to the ball, either offensively or defensively. In either case there is about an evenmoney chance of being caught in the short-leg or deep-leg trap. “ (2) He can move away from the ball, and sooner or later be bowled behind his legs, as were Ponsford and Kippax. “ (3) He can stand his ground and let the ball hit him.” Not Impossible. Of course, with regard to Dr Barbour’s three alternatives, it must be remembered that Bradman, M’Cabe, Fingleton and Ponsford have all shown that to make runs is not impossible. At this distance it is hard to determine the full rights and wrongs of the matter. But it looks as though the leg theory discussion may result in a strain that may foreshadow an end to the Test series. Such bickering and bitterness is not doing any good for cricket. LONG ON.