CRICKET

Hokitika Guardian, 22 June 1933, Page 2

CRICKET

{;;! LARWOOD’S OUTBURST O.HITI- - CISEI). IpS HI LONDON PAPER’S OPINION. |l|3 ||;l The time hag come when a protest ||:l should be- made against .the sedulous ilil attempts that are being made by a 111 section of the press to cause peril manout friction between the cricket |;| authorities of England and Australia l;i| (writes tlie editor of “Sporting Life” I|i| in the issue of May 9). ili It' ia deplorable that newspapers 111 claiming to be national should be prepi pared to sacrifice dignity and Die p welfare of the greatest game the wiz HI of men has devised to mere sensations 1"! mange-ring.

“The Sporting Life” has deliberately refrained from commenting on the Ijbdyliue controversy. It -'took the view, when the matter was first raised in Australia,. that it could best be settled by the M.C.C. and the Australian Cricket Board.

The stunt press is responsible for the dimensions to which the quarrel has crown, and it is to be feared that the dispute is likely to develop into something far beyond a difference ol opinion as to the sportsmanship of a particular kind of bowling. How much better it would have been if less ink had been spilt. The worst and most regrettable example of injudicious fulmination against th,& Australian onlookers and the Australian players has come from Larwood. _ , \V<; C nu to some extent sympathise with the Notts howler because of the annoyance) ho had to submit to in Aus. ‘{rHlih but that does not excuse his ill'lflihed, ill-natured, and unfortunate ' aiiiniadvehfeions on those he met on the field. ' ... Ho has poured contempt and ridicule on Bradman and WoodfuU. He has oone out of his way to charge unsportsmanlike conduct against players who are held in esteem in the world ot CI Larwood is entitled to his personal views on whether Bradman and Woodfull have a yellow streak, but he has not a .scintilla of right to publish those views to the woild. It is unlikely that any advice that may be given in this country to the Australian player*, or to those control cricket “down under, will followed. , , (ir| n Even so we would say to them, not attach undue importance to Larwood’s outburst. He did not appreci ate the possible far-reaching consequences of his highly-coloured and injudicious utterances. When lie realised to some extent the blunder lie had committed he tried to prevent the publication of his uncensored censure. There is no suggestion that Larwood should not be held responsible for every word to which he has appended Ins signature. He must he. His remarks were unwise, provocative, and they were not cricket. Tlie M.C.C. was confronted with a difficult task before his interview appeared. Their task is now much more difficult and unpleasant. We do not excuse in the slightest degree the unseemly barracking to which the English players were subjected in Australia. . The .hooligan element there give vent to their feelings in a manner, which .outrages the conventions of cricket. ,But two blacks do not make a white The fact that the Australian crowds, or rather a small section of them, forgot their manners in their annoyance at Larwood and Voce- does not absolve those who represented England from behaving as gentlemen and setting an example to which an appeal could be made to devotees of the game in Australia to copy. The indiscreet observations of Larwood have done an infinite amount ox harm. Our Australian friends should understand that they are deplored by all in this country who are sincere lovei’s of the game. More than this it is not necessary to ,say. To say less would lead to the (misunderstanding that Larwood has ,AJie support in this country of those) iwlio have followed with regret ana with some dismay the controversy over bodyline bowling. We are content to leave the merits of the matter in the hands of the cricketing authorities. If those wild have dipped their pens in gall would forbear for a time, it would be a good thing. Constantly to he stirring up strife merely for the sake of titillating the appetite of those who delight in newspaper sensations is not, or should not he, the function of great newspapers.