FURTHER COMMENT

Hokitika Guardian, 18 January 1933, Page 5

FURTHER COMMENT

ON BODY BOWLING

ENGLISH & AUSTRALIAN VIEWS.

(United Press Association—By Electric

'JL elegi apU—Copyright. )

LONDON, Jan. 16. The “Daily Teiegrapli ” says: ‘

is Jngli time that tiie lovers ot cricket

in England and Australia should declare tlieir impatience at the sulphurous atmosphere in which the tests 'have become involved.”

Tne paper goes on to say: “The printed opinions of the old Australian test players are not agreeable with tile descriptions 0 f the play, which suggest that unskilful .batting, rather

than dangerous bowling, lias caused the loss of lekets and also the injuries. However, the strain of test play always tends to produce unfortunate incidents, but tne players, the spectators and the critics should minimise these, of they will become a noxi ous element in cricket.”

The “Daily Mail” satirically asks: “Why not start a free for all fight, and have done with it; or let the Australians bat iii armotir plate, or use a rubber ball, or tennis racq/uets.” The “Daily Chronicle,” in a leading article, says; “If the MaryJebone Club decides that the leg theory is not cricket, that will be tile end thereof, but at present there is no ground for supposing that it isn’t cricket. Australia’s sporting answer is to - discover batsmen who are quick enough on their feet to meet the attack.”

Speaking at a London dinner Sir Julian Calm said: “1 do not believe much of this controversy. I have entertained all of the Australian teams. They have all been good fellows. I am not going to have anything said against Larwood, because he .belongs to my club.” The “i\ews Chronicle” says: “We do not know what reply, if any, the Mafylebone Club will make to the Australian protest about the leg theory. The viiole controversy is rather mystifying. Why is the leg theory not cricket? Why, if it is being applied unfairly, have the umpires said nothing. AIJ fast bowling is dangerous.” The “Daily Herald” .says: “Some things are not cricket. One of them is the most undignified snivelling by a section of the Australians because English bowling tactics have beaten their best batsmen. The so-called “leg theory” attack is many years old. The Australians in 1926 did not protest against the bowling of Root, because it did not worry therm”

ENGLISH PLAYERS' VIEWS

THE “LEG THEORY” UPHELD.

LONDON, January 16, Opinions on the body bowling controversy are given by prominent cricketers. Ha:old Giliigan says: “It is disgraceful. Tiie newspapers have turned cricket into a sort of circus game. The mg theory proves that tiie people hit are very slow on their feet. Jr. i s not always the bowler’s fault. Duieepsinhji ana Bradman, at their best, pliiy dliort-pitclied balls very easily.” btrudwick says: A fast bowler can-

not control length as easily as a slow bowler. 1 do not think Larwood would try to hit anybody, and nobody would oe more sorry if ne did. 1 remember that Gregory, at Melbourne, hit me over the Heart tiirice successively, but i do not believe for a moment tiiat he tried to.

Howard Marshall, in the “Daily telegraph,” says; “There is nothing new in the leg theory which Foster exploited in Australia. We may argue, though not compiain, that Gregory and MacDonald bumped the hau alarmingly through to a slip field, whereas Darwood, to four short legs. There is no denying that Laiw-od carrying the ball breast-high must be dangerous when he employs these tactics, but nevertheless the incidents are unwisely and unnecessarily magnified. If a protest is made to the M.C.C. ive get l-id one Avay or the other of an argument, already tile cause of too much acrimonious and harmful discussion.”