AUSTRALIAN CRICKET CROWDS.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 433, 24 January 1912, Page 3

AUSTRALIAN CRICKET CROWDS.

By P. R. Le Couteur, in "Cricket.")

I have been surprised to find a most erroneous general impression in Eng-

land about Australian crowds. It seems to be generally believed that at the least they are very difficult to deal with, and need to be humoured. Some people have actually asked in all seriousness whether it was true that empty bottles were thrown at players of the opposing sides! The idea seemed to be that it thirsted for its opponents' blood. Reports frequently appear in English newspapers about the "barracking" at cricket matches. This impression is distinctly unfair. It would be an interesting task to examine into the origin of the error. Very probably it has been fostered by the unfortunately ambiguous use of the word "barrack." In England it has a much more dyslogistic sense than it has in Australia, where it is synonymous with "supporter."

In Australia a man is said "to bar rack" when he cheers on his side (an Australian would say the 'Varsity supporters at Queen's Club or Lord's were "barracking"), while in England he "barracks" only if he cheers on his side with obviously disagreeable intentions towards the other side. As a matter of fact in England the meaning has been twisted so far in this direction that one speaks rather of "barracking" opponents. So the word has come in England to mean gibing, in the nasty, objectionable sense. It is quite possible that this ambiguity, aided by the scanty cable reports, has helped to develop this completely wrong conception of the Australian crowd.

But probably this is not the whole story. It is possible that cricketers have been to Australia who have not attempted to understand the people there, and adapt themselves to the conditions. For the conditions are a little different —not much so, it is true, but still slightly different. It is difficult and risky to speak generally of a "Australian crowd." In the reserved parts of the ground one finds the same conditions as at Lord's or at least very similar. Obviously the above remarks are not intended to apply to chem. In the unreserved parts one finds the same mixed gathering as in England. But if its characteristics are different from those of its English counterpart

it is in this direction: It is more alive and alertly interested in the play. One might say it identifies itself more with the game than an English crowd; it feels that it itself is taking part.

An English cricket crowd rather gives one the impression that it has come to see a spectacle, and be entertained. An Australian crowd has come to play. It can be readily understood, then, that the spontaneous cries to "Get a bag," and so forth, which greet the unfortunate fieldsman who has dropped a catch are not indicative of iliwill, or bad feeling, or of anything but personal disappointment. It is the English "damrit" plus some humour which arises when the imagination plays with the suggestion.

The crowd is essentially humorous. Imagine a broiling hot day of over lOOdeg. in the shade, the ground hard, the fieldsmen hot and tired, the bowlers bowled out, and the batsmen triumphant. Fifty after fifty appears on the scoring board. Then, during one of those lulls characteristic of the game, a voice is heard advising the captain to "put the umpires on." It is a well-worn joke, but it is always funny. This, I think, is characteristic of the Australian crowd. A player must obviously laugh with it —but he is merely foolish if he allows himself to be annoyed. He may be certain that it will be ready to cheer him heartily the next moment, should he so deserve. An Australian crowd w,ill grudge applause to no one who has won it.