HOPELESS POSITION

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 15, 19 January 1933, Page 9

HOPELESS POSITION

AUSTRALIA IN THE TEST

"LEG-THEORY"—"BODY ATTACK" (By "Not Out.") Actual play in the present cricket Test at Adelaide has been overshadowed to an extent by the controversy of the so-called "leg-theory." In. spite of all the discussion, however, the combatants have been, pegging on. England's batsmen strove hard and successfully to consolidate their position against an attack which at times commanded great respect. Much of England's batting was disappointing, and it is doubtful whether the Australian bowling was so strong on Tuesday as to compel England's leading batsmen that day to Tesort to rock-like defensive,taetics. A whole day's batting—six hours —yielded only 211 runs. The play must have been almost as, painful as the unfortunate incidents.leading up to a protest to the M.G.C. England commenced the fourth day with 204 runs •to the good and' nine wickets in hand, and there was reason to expect something infinitely better from the batsmen than the dour defensive policy which was adopted. However, the business on hand is the winning of the Ashes, and with no time limit on the Tests in Australia the tourists dug in as though if were an endurance test. So seeurcly had they become entrenched on commencing the fifth day of battle that Australia was then set a tremendous task, and it was made well-nigh impossible by the Ames-Verity partnership yesterday. The hopelessness of the position fro"m Australia 's standpoint was made even more apparent when Pingleton, Ponsford, and McCabe crashed early in the final innings. .' , /

In order to win this Test the Australians will have to break all records in their present strike, the fourth innings of the match. There have been only two occasions in England-Australia Tests on which a team has succeeded in winning when set the task of making more than 300 tuus in the fourth innings of a match. At Adelaide in the 1901-2 season Australia made the required 315 for tho loss of six wickets, and at Melbourne in 1928-29 England won in making 332 for seven wickets. There have been occasions, however, 'when Australia has made big scores in its second innings at Adelaide, though these have.not been the final innings of tho matches. In- 1907-8 Australia's second innings against England yielded 506 runs, and this figure was exceeded in 1920-1 with a score of, 582. ' v

Of the "leg-theory" much is being said and written. Tho "leg-theory" is nothing new in cricket, nor can any exception be taken to it. The main cause of complaint is what has been termed the "body attack" by the fast bowlers. It as nothing new for a fast bowler to pitch a ball outside the leg pin, and it is nothing new for a fast bowler to "bump" tho ball. Moreover, there is nothing in the laws of the game to prevent a bowler adopting these tactics. "A particular point about the present policy is that a special leg-side field is being set to support the fast bowling on the leg side. And, there is nothing wrong in that.. But where there is an objection is in the fact that deliveries, are pitched in line with the batsman and made to bump chest and head high. In this there is the danger of cricket losing the remainder of its bright features and the possibility of the only player worth while in the gam© being the bowler who can fire the balls down in such manner. Cricket is too grand a game to fie spoilt in that way. As it is tho batsmen are being cramped enough these days, and in placing them in tho position of having to use their bats purely to defend head ana body the game, of course, would be ruined. To dispose of the "leg-theory" would bo just as absurd as to do away with tho fast bowler. It is largely a question of fair or unfair play, and in this tho umpires stand1 as the judges. So far, apparently, their judgment is that tho attack to which exception has been taken comes within the bounds of fair play. When it is proved that the tiatsman is being used as an "Aunt Sally" then it is time to take drastic action. It remains to bo seen whether that time has arrived.

Tho tactics, certainly, have been condemned, and it was in England that tho first words of condemnation wero uttered. P. F. Warner and the Rev. J. H. Parsons were among those to characterise Bowes's "bumpers" as not being in keeping with tho spirit of the game. At the- timo when those voices were raised in protest, it is interesting to recall, J. Fingleton, a present Austra<lian Test player, declared that Bowes had every right to bump tho ball at a batsman to try to force him away from tho wicket. "It is not nice," said Fingleton, "to have a whizzing ball creating a vacuum around one's' head,i but the batsman has two oyes, and,, after all, only the short ball bumps." This declaration does not size up very well with the latsst expressed opinions of this Australian batsman. P. F. Warner, too, has bten placed in. a most difficult position in view of what he said in England and taking account of what is happening under Ms part-guidance in Australia.

Just ono other point: England's selectors appeared to have erred badly in not giving A. P. F. Chapman a further opportunity of distinguishing himself as he did in leading the last English team in Australia to victory.