HOW GAME OF BOWLS IS PLAYED.

Hokitika Guardian, 8 January 1926, Page 4

HOW GAME OF BOWLS IS PLAYED.

DIFFERENT ’methods

The exodus of our visitors and the consequent comparative lull in interest gave us opportunity to turn over in our minds and discuss with each other incidents and impressions in and relating to their visits, says an Australian. Little things, most of them—not very important. Their interest only that of the person considering them. Wasn’t it Josh Billings who wrote that, “it is the little things that trouble and annoy us. We can dodge an elephant; we can’t a fly.-” To perpetrate •a “bull,” some of these flies are mosquitoes.

It is a common thing to hear Victorian bowlers shout most excitedly very scornful and scathing remarks to a fellow-bowler who wanders somewhat out of the centre of his rink when crossing over. Voices, words, and manners combine to convey tu the wanderer a full sense of the iieinousuess of his sin. The sound of their expostulations conveys an idea ol selfish interference with a tellow’s rights —of an act performed to the marked depreciation of a competitor's skill, and of conduct unworthy a howler, a sportsman, and a reputable citizen. No dictionary contains words sufficient to express in language the bitterness of the scorn and the bite ol the sneer with which some bowlers invest the peculiar shout which conveys’ to the player who sometimes walks out ol the direct line the intimation that he has douo so. His period of sinfulness is not a lengthy one. Probably live seconds covers its lifetime. A 1 little patience and the excited explosion could be saved. .When the Britishers wore playing there was none of it. With innumerably more opportunities and immeasurably more justification for it, no Victorian permitted himself to take audible exception to wanderers. More important still, the Britishers showed conclusively that bowls—and good bowls—can be played in spite of traffic on the rinks. They gave many proofs of this tact. Once I saw Wake when four men were actually standing about half-way up the green, and when a variation of Sin or 9m from his correct line would have carried his bowl among their feet, bawl with apparently as much unconcern as if the green had been clear. And why not? So long as the correct run of the bowl, the “right green,” is free it should be possible to bowl correctly, ft is not. the standing man that is the danger. It is the moving one. NO. 3 AT THE HEAD.

Mention of British bowlers reminds me of Mr Wake's statement, telegraphed from Brisbane, that, given two rinks of equal merit, one playing as the British play and the other as Australians, he would hack the former. Naturally, Air NNake is a Briton. He learnt his people’s methods, lie follows them. He knows the British side of the question. It would he interesting to Ltave a statement of. his reasoning. AVhat makes the British methods superior? The only material differences between them and ours are the continuous migration of their players and the periodic transfers of ours; the presence at “the head” ol their thirds and at the mat end of ours. Careful consideration of the differences has led me to conclude that the only benefit is the continued interest which accrues to their first and second players by reason of their being better able to see the development of each head. My conclusions —like those ol Ah- NVakc—are based on theory only. They are not results of practice, but I cannot see that their third men are any I letter able to bowl because they hare seen the formation of a heail from tlie skipperAs end than when they have seen its budding from the mat. I cannot discharge from my mind the belief that—to the walchftt! hmvler at the mat end-—every bowl trial runs is a guide to those that lolloa. Each end looks different from the mat and at Ihe head. I nloss Air AN ake has aipuments which do not present themselves to those who othciv-iso mast provide them for themselves the quest ion must lie considered to he still debatable. Unless the signs are misleading one nt the skippers in the recent interstate matches depreciated his performance bv allowing himself to be obsessed by the idea that a rink on which b L . was playing uas laulty. It v.as not. J bad the assurance of Ids opponents and ocular proof—in the play of liis own men as well as those against, whom they Were contending- -that the rink was good and suitable i" every wav for its purpose. <>n more occasion’s than not Lh- faults ascribed to rinks are really only existent m tlm mind; of the players who advertise 'diem. T have known skilful ssipx feed the fears of opponents who have cxnvosfi'scldoubts of Upwls to draw on certain rinks or certain hands. Bowlers should he something of logicians, and demand of themselves good"rensons to support any belief that their howls have developed some sudden and unexplained inability to do "hat all other howls in the link are doing. It is an unknown thing that a rin.\ has decided to make distinctions ill

its IreaLmeiit of Ihe howls tout run over its surface. Nearly every player treated by rinks—gets one really good bowl now and again. And if or.e, why not more Tf possible once, why impossible again. WHAT TS A GOOD GREEN. What is a “good” green? Passing, as a sine ipm non, everything but the quality of pace, that question is one of the most difficult propounded to bowlers. Looking on at the play in the champion rink competition on the Richmond Green last Saturday. T was struck by the .reflection that T had never seen or heard of any definition of the term. Cricket legislators and lovers of that game are beginning to be concerned about tile extreme of compressed, and almost absolutely unmarkable, density and even lies to which cricket pitches are worked by the curators of the principal grounds. Too inequality of the effect of this is causing doubt ot its wisdom and bringing suggestions of its abrogaton.l The preparation of some has somewhat similar prime results. Some greenkcepers—some clubs—consider a green “good” only when it is shaven almost bare of -grass, is rolled to a hardness approximating that ol a cement floor, and every finger flip means a run of 12 or 15 feet. Others prefer more grass to their “good” green; they like it equally well rolled, love to see some life still left in the grass,

are desirous of realising a “bite” in it. and wish it to have from 10 to 15 feet less run on it than is on the former. Which is the better? Is there a standard? If not, is it not possible, and would it not be wise, to make one? 1 think so. I think also that it would bebeueficiul to the life, and make more easy the maintenance, of greens if it were done. At Richmond on Saturday the state of the green was such that bowls were “coming back.” They were actually finishing in the form of a sickle blade. I saw one bowl pass within two inches of the shot bowl on the forehand, run round it, and finish, behind it—that is on the mat side of it—and touching it. I saw another make a return trip that was noticeable from the bowler’s end. Those standing were it stopped, and others seated on the bank, were emphatic in stating that it was 2ft Gin shorter where it stopped than it was at the farthest, point ot its- run. I think that is ridiculous. If it is not. why grass the greens? Bowls would run linger, wider, with less effort of delivery, and “finish” more noticeably on asphalt cement, or even wooden surfaces. So far as any copy of the rules may he relied on the Australian B.C. lias not decreed otherwise. It has enacted that “the green” shall have certain measurements and tertain furnishings. Whether “the green" is to he formed of slate, earth, wood, or cloth—painted or naturally coloured—is left to imagination or the government of practice. ’ "