CRICKETERS’ WIVES

Hokitika Guardian, 8 January 1926, Page 3

CRICKETERS’ WIVES

THE AUSTRALIAN DECISION. ‘•NO WOMEN AT THE FRONT.” (Australia «fc N.Z. Cable Association. (Received this day at 9.0 a.m.i LONDON. January 7. The general opinion in England is that the Australian Board of Control’s decision not to permit cricketers’ wives to accompany I hem oil the English torn is over-drastic. Douglas, interviewed, said lie could not sec how a wife could detrimentally affect i'. player's game. His own wife had twice journeyed with him to Australia without affecting him. Hobbs was accompanied by his wife to Australia on the last tour and never played better. There were scores of similai incidents. The Australians would b< absent eight months, which was a lon{ separation. Hobbs said lie was surprised at the decision coming from a country priding itself on its democratic outlook, liar ticularly applying the restrictions to amateurs. His own experience wa; players benefited through the present) of their wives, although he admits that transport difficulties are increased. It was particularly hard luck lor thosi, who had been looking forward to taking their wives, because coming tc England was a .great thing with Aus training. The idea the hoard had niusi he that women might interfere wit! tho harmony of the tour. LONDON. January 7.

Hendrcn, discussing the cricketers’ wives question, said wives were best left behind in the interests of the players themselves. If every player were to he accompanied by his wife, a iaxlies committee to select a team would be essentail. Moroovor, there were man., functions to which wives could not be invited.

Toone declared: “ The Board of Control has evidently determined the cricketers shall not he embarrassed by soeia duties. There is a. good deal to be said for the restriction, for the presence o wives must have obvious drawback?. Whether England will follow Austin lia’s lend is a matter for Mnrylebon to decide.” MORE OPINIONS, EVERYTHING DEPENDS ON THE WIFE. LONDON, January 7. The cricketers’ wives’ question has developed into a live topic of discussion among cricketers and newspapers. There'ss a feeling that the Board is perfectly justified in exercising its jurisdiction over players, but it is unjustified in seeking jurisdiction over others There is some question of the lcgalitof the hoard in endeavouring to restrict the liberty of wives and relatives of players, whereas the Govenimem does not possess such powers.

The prevailing opinion is that tl a Board has over-stepped the mark, especially in view of the fact that the case is already virtually met by mean ; of the existing embargo, which, from the English viewpoint, worked satisfactorily. Warner says: "Everything depends on tiie wife. There are certain women w’n.) would upset a cricket team just 1. - they would cause trouble anywhere. Personally, I would not prevent wives accompanying players, but the Australians know tiicir own business. Cricket: has become something like a battle and the latest order is no women at the front.”

The “Westminster Gazette” says: “ The ban is obviously due to Australian girls’ well-known love of amusement and night life.”