CRICKET EXPERT’S IMPREBSIONS

Waikato Times, Volume 113, Issue 18947, 17 May 1933, Page 10

CRICKET EXPERT’S IMPREBSIONS

THE CONTROVERSIAL tEBTB. DEFENDING THE “ASHES.” Mr R. W. E. Wilmot’s “ Defending the Ashes ” is published at the psychological moment, writes A.L.F. in the Otago Daily Times. He should be grateful to Harold Larwood, if no other Australians are, for timing his sensational statement so aptly. Mr Wilmot deals fully with the “bodyline ” controversy', prefacing his observations with a brief historical survey which shows that “ every reform in Cricket, since the first code of laws was accepted, in 1744, has been induced by the superiority, temporary though it may hove been, of the bat.” When g John Miller introduced roundarm bowling in 1806 he played sometimes “ amid much uproar and confusion,” but persevered for 15 years until, when “ no-balled ” while bowling for Kent against the M.C.C., he “threw down the ball with disgust, jumped on his horse, and rode away out of Lord’s and out of cricket history.” Eventually the M.C.C. accepted and regulated round-arm bowling, and in the controversy' which centred about it the arguments used were similar almost word for word with those heard during the recent tests. Armstrong was one of the foremost leg theory exponents of his day, and the lefthander, F. R. Foster, of Warwickshire, when bowling in Australia in 1912, had the field placed for his “ death trap ” just as it was placed for Larwood during the last tour.

“ Bodyline " Bowling.

Mr Wilmot describes “ bodyline ” bowling as an antidote introduced by the Englishmen to combat “the Bradman menace.” Larwood, Voce, and Bowes, he says, were included in the team tc j administer this medicine, though Bowes’ style had previously been denounced by P. F. Warner. Thus the trouble arose. Mr Wilmot says:— “There can be no doubt that a bowler is justified in attacking the leg stump, in bowling outside it, either to force the batsman to stand back, or to conquer him by having him caught on the leg side. But is he playing the game when he bangs the ball down less than halfway, directed straight at the batsman’s body, or “catapulted,” as Voce does it? I have

no hesitation in saying that this style of bowling is not cricket, and, having i watched Larwood and Voce carefully, I have not the slightest doubt that on many occasions their bowling was directed at the batsman and not at the v wicket.” Examining the pitch at Sydney, Tfe found “unmistakable evidence” that many balls delivered by Voce had pitched within 24 feet of the bowling crease, and thus 24 feet from the opposite wicket, and 'C-ould not possibly have hit it. He considers Larwood’s actual delivery was absolutely fair, but says he undoubtedly bowled at the batsman. “That this form of attack was designed to Intimidate batsmen is beyond dispute”; he adds, “that it was effective is equally »so. That it was not cricket, although it was within the law, is, I think agreed.” The “friendi lv game” to which Mr Warner had so often alluded, became “a bitter fight, In which spite, menace, and intent were rampant, and roused a degree of hostile antagonism such as I have ,■ never seen displayed on a cricket field before." Mr Wilmot is satisfied that the “bodyline” atlack is a perversion, not a development, of bowling, but he regards It as a phase which has served its purpose and will not last.

The Hecklers.

Regarding the "barracking" to ■whloh the Englishmen were subjected, Mr Wllmot says:—“A section of the crowd ‘in the outer’ and, it must be admitted with shame, occasionally in the reserves, has come to regard it as its inherent right to> criticise freely, forcibly, and in the loudest possible manner; to deride an opponent, to be personal, to be rude, to hurl insulting epithets across the 'boundary fence, and generally to become a public nuisance.”

He adds: “Australia is not a nation of hooligans. There Is not one percent of the crowd which descends tu this form of criticism; but, unfortunately, that one per cent make% 99 per cent of noise.” Mr Wllmot considers, however, that the. Englishmen have often taken this vocal criticism too seriously. The crowds have a keen .sense of the ridiculous and distribute their noisy favours pn Australian players also. He instances one or two occasions when English players won the spectators to their side immediately hy responding in good part to heckling. The Nawab of Pataudi became a gallery favourite when he made good-naturecl replies •t<. J one or two sallies that were distinctly in the worst taste. “There is much to be said for the harracker in much that he does”; Mr Wllmot sums up, “there is nothing but condemnation for him when he becomes rude and personal and when he interferes with the play. It is easy to’ say that the authorities should interfere, but it is not so easy lo act. The solution of the problem .seems lo lie in the hands of the spectators themselves, who, by their condemnation of the practice at the moment, can effect an immediate improvement." In spite -of the numerous causes of -controversy and .ill-feeling which characterised the 1932-33 matches, and ranged from the “bodyline” dispute to the wearing by some of the English players of Harlequin caps, of which the Australian crowds disapproved, the lour had its lighter side. Mr Wllmot quotes several amusing incidents,. When Javdine had been in 67 minutes at Brisbane without scoring, a “harracker" shouted: “Here, Mr Jardine. you're wanted on the telephone,” thus expressing a boredom that had to be relieved somehow. At Melbourne Bradman was advised by a spectator: “Go in you, Don! Everyone in Australia is behind you except me, and I’m a ‘Pommy.’ ’’ There will bo some sympathy wilh Bowes who, asked on shipboard whether he was tired of travel, replied: “Not a bit—not. while the sunshine and the beer last.”