AUSTRALIA ANGRY

Hokitika Guardian, 19 May 1933, Page 2

AUSTRALIA ANGRY

OVER LARWOOD’S INTERVIEW

INSIDE HISTORY OF M.C.C TOUR

SYDNEY, May 17

No interview lias ever created more resentment in Australia than that given by England’s fast bowler, Larwood, relative to the recent unfortunate tour of the Marylebone Cricket Club team. It is to be regretted that New Zealand did not see Larwood in 'action, but even if it had done so it is doubtful whether the famous leg theory would have been tried in the Dominion. Cricketers in Australia are more that ever convinced that the use of the tactics which caused such a storm was deliberately planned, and the fact that they were go planned, is seized upon as a very good reason for the alteration in the laws of cricket as proposed by the Australian Board of Control. There are still many players and officials who assert that a bowler lias as much right to take wickets as a batsman lias to make runs, so long as both keep within the laws of the game, but they question whether it would lie wise to retain laws vhich permit of intimidation. Admitting that a; great deal has been said and written about bodyline bowling, it is dear that the controversy Ims only just begun, and there are many who fear what the repercussions Will bi v . A refusal on the part of " the ‘ Board »f Control to send a ‘team to England next year unless the atmosphere fa cleared is being discussed as a possibility. Even if the board decided that nothing would be done to interfere witli the arrangements, the players would still have a say. In some quarters it is asserted that it would not be in the interest of the game to go 0,1 witli the tour unless there was a definite understanding and a greater feeling of friendliness between the two countries.

“DIRTY LINEN”

It is recognised that the washing ( of flirty linen is not good for the game of cricket, but various officials hav<? pointed out that tiie Englishmen, particularly Larwood, have called the tune, and it was not to be expected that Australia would not retaliate. They give the lie direct to statements that the English team' was one happy family, and some remarkable, stories lmve appeared in print to prove that this was not so. The Australian press has been accused of deliberately manufacturing stories of 'dissent among the Englishmen, but a true statement of the position would probably be. that the press had deliberately refrained from publishing many of the stories that became common property. The special correspondent of the “Sydney Sun” wlm accompanied the team throughout, its tour, declares that from the time it landed at Perth until the time it departed for New Zealand ffierA’hvas'fq, dissension. . A's the tour '; wore' on ; grew until there was a . distinct; cleavage of friendship, openly displayed by sarcastic -remarks) one, to tlie other. Larwood complained that he had been insulted by Australians everywhere be went, but according to this writer he was insulted on one occasion only, and that by a man who was the worse for drink. Larwood frequently displayed his anger, notably when he was selected as twelfth man for the Bendigo match. He scratched his name out of the list that had been supplied by the captain and said: “I will hot be there.” Larwood came to realise that he was England’s sheet anchor, and he wfts able cqlj the tune. The manner in which ( he was deferred to by the captain and the manager aroused bitterness of the team, Patuadi was deeply hurt when, after scoring «... in his first test and be was dropped from th J e' : ;next:'three tests. It is stated that sarcastic remarks -in all manner of places were amusing to the initiated, and when lie formed a “club” of his own, which lie I termed the “round staff,” consisting J of members of the team who were not /

in the test side, all knew what he meant. For those players Pautaudi had special ties on which was embroidered in silk the. figure of a rabbit.

UNPLEASANT INCIDENTS

Tiie same writer says that the unpi res in the tests and the. players could tell of many things that happened in the field which would he eye-openers to the general public. During the first- test, for instance, Umpire Hole handed the hall at the start of the Australian second innings t 0 Sutcliffe. The Englishmen examined in and .then sarcastically remarked: “Couldn’t you find a smaller one?” The umpire boiled at the imputation fch-.it the hall was smaller than the standard size, hut he answered that it had gone, througli the standard tests. Don Bradman tells of two happerings. In the first innings of the third test at Adelaide, after Wood full was struck over the heart by a ball from Larwood, and had recovered, Jardine, with the ball in liis hand walked up to Larwood, and within hearing of Bradman said: “Well bowled, Harold.” When Bradman went in to bat in the second innings lie says an Englishman said to Larwood: “Don’t waste time; let them have it straight at him.” Sufficient has been told to indicate the tense feeling that existed within the English team and between the touring and the Australians. It is clear that cricket tours can never be •a success unless a definite move is made by the authorities to clear the air. Larwood’s interview is regarded as so wide of the mark that it has certainly widened the breach. Mean-

time, the central figure of the controversy, Bradman, is spending a quiet holiday in the mountains recovering from the extraction of 12 teeth one day last week. He denies the accusation that he was frightened bv Larwood, and says that actuary his method of playing Larwood exposed him to greater clanger than the orthodox way. However Larwood’s statement was apparently a financial success, even if it was a failure in other directions.