CRICKET COMMENTS

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 459, 17 February 1933, Page 7

CRICKET COMMENTS

LEG THEORY TACTICS ARTHUR MAILEY'S OPINION OF LARWOOD'S BOWLING. McCABE'S POSSIBILITIES. A good deal has been written in favour of and against Larwood's legtheory, writes Arthur Mailey in the Sunday Sun. Whether this form of attack should be tolerated or suppressed, those'who suggest that leg-theory bowling should be abolished do so because they think its sole object is to intimidate and is likely to injure batsmen. Until it could be fairly certain, however, that Larwood's object was. to intimidate batsmen, it was difficult to find fault with fast leg-theory. To-day, however, something very close to intimidation took place on the 'Gabba Ground, when Oxenh'am was batting. I have never yet, as far as I know, questioned an umpire's decision through the Press, and I would not refer to umpire Scott's in this article, only for1 the fact that it has a bearing on the Larwood-Oxenham incident. Larwood bowled. a fairly good length ball, and Oxenham pushed it to the leg side, where Allen, as far as most people could see, made a fair catch. Oxenham stood andi made no attempt to go out, and when the umpire was appealed to, he gave the verdict in favour of Oxenham. This decision apparently incensed Larwood to such a degree that out of [ the next five or six deliveries, he j bowled four particularly short ones, which caused Oxenham to duclc his 1 head.

Touch of Temper. To me, Larwood appeared to show in his bowling a slight touch of temper, or to put it more mildly, annoyance at umpire Scott's decision. If Larwood wants support for his legtheory tactics, his actions to-day will certainly not gain him any converts. Let us believe that it was a fair catch. In fact, I thought it was so obvious that it must have been a noball, but after dismissing that I came to the conclusion that the batsman at the bowler's end must have obstructed the umpire's view. The Q.C.A., in its wisdom, does not allow Pressman in the members' enclosure or near the dressing-room, otherwise we might have had a clearer view of the incident. The fact remains, however, that Oxenham was given not out, and the. incident should have ended there. Oxenham had a perfect right to stand his ground, because Allen was so close, and the shot was p'layed fairly hard, that Oxenham himself might not have seen the actual catch. I am certain that if Oxenham had thought he was caught cleanly he would have left without any appeal. Was All Out. I regret having referred to this particular incident at such length, but its bearing on, leg-theory tactics or body-line bowling, as the Board of Control prefers to call it, probably calls for more than a passing mention.

It Larwood was not bowling at his top pace before this incident, he certainly strained every muscle to produce his top speed after it. The wicket did not assist Larwood, or the other bowlers for that matter. The bumping ball came off the wicket slowly, and in some cases barely reached the wicketkeeper on the full. On other occasions we have seen Ames jumpang up with his arms extended to stop the flying ball. If the Australians bat on a wicket similar to that which Queensland batted on to-day, they should compile a big score. As far as I could see, it resembles the Melbourne Test match wicket. England's attack to-day was far from dangerous. It must not be forgotten that they were bowling against batsmen that fairly erumpled up against New South Wales nnd South Australia. Litster's Form. Litster, who batted so well at Toowoomba, treated the Brisbane spectators to some very fine batting today. After Cook had been dismissed he played a lone hand and practically dominated the English bowling. It is true that after Larwood's last futile attack on Oxenham the fast bowler did not bowl very mueh, but j even when Larwood was bowling at ! his best Litster batted with plenty of ' confidence. ! The Queenslanders did well, for ■ batsmen of their calibre, to top the : ; 200, particularly as Jardine placed j his field perfectly, and the flelding | of the Englishmen was so keen. j The splendid flelding ground, no | doubt, favoured good ground-work. ! Much interest was centred on Gil- ! bert's bowling, but he did not seem to i have sufficient time to warm up, al- , though several deliveries flew past | "yerjty so fast that the batsman _ 1 found himself playing at the ball S -when it was in the keeper's hands. j McCabe as Opener. i ! Australia has had several changes ! in opening batsmen this season. Is ' there any prospect of Stan McCabe ■ getting a job in Brisbane? asks A. G. 'Moyes'in the Sunday Sun._ Yesterday, he continues, in the absence of Fingleton, Stan took on the task against Wall and Tobin and made a good fist of it, too. In fact, for a man who was not quite in touch, he did wonderfully well, and played the new ball with reasonable confidence. I McCabe has a good defence and can attack. He should be able to blend tho two, so that nothing loose will be . thrown away. Furthermore, he likes opening the innings, I am told, a lih- : ing that many great players of the past have had. There is always a" chance m the first few overs of picking up the loose ones before the bowler gets his arm swinging properly. Of course, there is also the chance of getting the extra-good one, but somehow I don t think it matter s much where you go in. The good one comes sooner or Trumper went in first for' years, and Macartney got there when he could. Bradman would have welcomed the chance a year 01* two ago, btit got no encouragement, and now it is too late to try him. In fact, second wicket would be better than first wicket for him. It is, .1 think, worth considermg whether McGabe would not be a good partner for "Woodfull. ^ He might make a big success of it.*