DEPLORABLE QUARREL

Waikato Times, Volume 114, Issue 18986, 1 July 1933, Page 20 (Supplement)

DEPLORABLE QUARREL

CRIME AGAINST CRICKET*

AGGRAVATED BY PREBB CAMPAIGN

In an article In Sporting' Ufa on May 9 the editor of that Journal eays:— The time has come when a protest should he made against the sedulous attempts that are being made by a section of the press to cause permanent friction between the cricket authorities of England and Australia. It is deplorable that newspapers claiming to be national should be prepared to sacrifice dignity and the welfare of the greatest game the wit'of man has devised to mere sensationmongering.

The Sporting Life has deliberately refrained from commenting on the body-line controversy. It took the view, when the matter was first raised in Australia, that It could best be settled by the M.C.G. and the Australian Cricket Board.

The stunt press Is responsible for the dimensions to which the quarrel has grown, and It is to be feared the dispute is likely to develop .into something far beyond a difference of opinion as to the sportsmanship of a particular kind of bowling. Inexcusable. How much better it would 'have been if less ink had been spilt. The worst and most regrettable example of injudicious fulmination against the Australian onlookers and the Australian players has come from Larwood. We can to some extent sympathise with the Notts bowler because of the annoyance he had to submit to in Australia, but that does not excuse his ill-timed, ill-natured, and unfortunate animadversions on those he met on the field. He has poured contempt and ridicule on Bradman and Woodfull. He has gone out of his way to charge unsportsmanlike conduct against players who are held in esteem in the world of cricket. Larwood is entitled bo bis personal views on whether Bradman and Wcodfull have a yellow streak, but he ha* not a scintilla of right to publish those views to the world.

It is unlikely that any advice that may be given In this country to the Australian players, or to those who control cricket " down under," will be followed.

Highly-coloured.

Even so, we would say to them: “ Do not attach undue importance to Larwood’s outburst. He did not appreciate the possible far-reaching consequences of his highly-coloured and injudicious utterances. When he realised to some extent the blunder he had committed he tried to prevent the publication of his uncensored censure."

There is no suggestion that Larwood should not be held responsible for every word to which he has appended his signature. He must be. His remarks were unwise, provocative, and they were not cricket. Tho M.C-C. was confronted with a difficult task before his interview appeared. Their task is now much more difficult and unpleasant. We do not excuse in the slightest degree the unseemly “ barraoklng" to which the English ' players were subjected in Australia. The hooligan element there gave vent to their feelings in a manner which outrages the conventions of cricket. But two blacks do not make a white. The fact that the Australian crowds, or rather a small section of them, forgot their manners in their annoyance at Larwood and Voce does not absolve those who represented England from behaving as gentlemen and setting an to xvhich an appeal could be made to devotees of the game in Australia 'to copy. Infinite Harm.

The indiscreet observations of Larwood have done an infinite amount of harm. Our Australian friends should understand that they are deplored by all in this country who are sincere lovers of the game.

More than this it is not necessary to say. To say less would lead to the misunderstanding that Larwood has the support in this country or those who have followed with regret and with some dismay the controversy over body-line bowling. We are content to leave the merits of the matter in the hands of the cricketing authorities. If those who dipped their pens in gall would forbear for a time, it would be a good thing. Constantly to be stirring up strife merely for the sake of titillating the appetite of those who delight in newspaper sensations is not, or should not be, the function of great newspapers.