CRICKET

Hokitika Guardian, 8 October 1932, Page 6

CRICKET

BRADMAN’S POSITION

BOARD OF CONTROL.

Sydney,-Sept. 30.

The return of Mailey’s team of cricketers from Canada last week was the overture to a very considerable outburst of discord in cricket circles. Even while the Monowai with . the crickexers Was steaming up the harbour., the Board of Control was passing a resolution which reaffirmed its previous; embargo on piayer-writers or writer-players in more specific terms* Fpr reasons that are fafniLar to everyone who has followed the hiscory of test cricket—,or for that matter, test football—in recent' years, there} are 'obvious' objections to the inclusion in representative teams of players who act as correspondents for newspapers, and in this capacity comment on the play of individuals in the various teams and, criticise or express opinions about their own or their rivals’ qualifications and achievements. This sort of thing lias caused ai great deal of trouble in the past, and there is no doubt something to be said in favour of;the resolution adopted by tne Board of Control to,,the effect thaj no man who is picked ill a test team shall be allowed to act as newspaper correspondent in the sense defined .above—unless he is a professional journalist getting his living with his pen, and requests} and secures the necessary permission from the board.

EXCEPTIONS MADE.

But while I admit) ■ that there is something to- be said by way of excuse for this rule there are two important points to be borne in mind in considering its force and value. In the first place, though this rule * was Adopted 'some years ago in milder form, it has been set aside more or less completely in several cases since. In Australia, Wqodful, PoiiM'ord, Oldfield and Grimmett, as well as, Bradman have contributed articles on cricket largely to various newspapers under conditions that at times, infringed the board’s ruling. While t)ie last Australian eleven was at Home, Grimmett wrote a book which certainly, did not square with, the board’s prescription and Bradman himself j though he was penalised for going., outside instructions in this matter, might .fairly claim that up to that time the decision of - the board on this question had not become fixed permanently and immutably. And the proof that this view of the case •'•3 rorrect lies in the fact that the board has new found it necessary to record its decision again in a stronger form. For if the decision of the board had been final, and the board itself jnnd been satisfied that it* rule was intelligible and likely to prove effective 1 , it would have no yea'son or': .excuse for passing such a resolution again..

After the last Australian tour the position in regard to player-writers was i thus Breaches of former rules had been condoned, and ! the board’s -policy: for. the future was by no means conclusively settled. It is at-this point that Bradman’s case assumes such exceptional imporance. For, as everyone should know, it was in the interval between the, last Home tour and the present Season that Bradman accepted the contracts which are now causing so n uch debate and. difficulty. Young and