CRICKET BRIGHTER NOW.

Shannon News, 28 June 1929, Page 1

CRICKET BRIGHTER NOW.

CHANGED *LAWS. HOBBS CRITICISES L.B.W. RULE. (Sun Special). LONDON, Sunday. The new rules are .making cricket brighter, says Mr Carson, the wellknown authority on the game, writing in the "Evening: News." He gives figures for the first few matches of 1929 compared with those of 1928, and says that, although the time that.the new conditions have been working is rather too short for a complete comparison, the new rules appear to be a move in the right direction. J. B. Hobbs, however, strongly criticises the new Lb.w. rule. Mr Carson shows that in 19 matches in-the first fortnight of May, 1928, 17,648 runs were scored for 535 wickets, at an average of 32.98 runs a wicket. In 17 matches in th,e same period this year 10,979 runs were scored fdr 510 wickets, averaging 21.57 runs a wicket. Ten games out of 19 were won in 1928, and 11 out of 17 in 1929. "The scoring thus approximates to the pre-war scale of 22 runs a wicket," he adds. "I hesita'te to say that the larger wicket has affected the run-get-ting power of big batsmen. ELIMINATING f RABBITS." "Possibly there has been a reduction of the time occupied by foatsmen Nos. 9, 10 and 11. This is all to the good, for nothing is more dreary to the spectator than a long drawn-out innings by the tail-enders. "I am afraid, however, that much as the size of the stumps is increased, it will not bother the high-class batsmen much, although it may eliminate the 'rabbits.' "I think that- there will be an increase in the, number of finished games, and a lessening in the volume of runs scored. This proves the value of the suggestion that wickets should be less elaborately prepared than they are today."' J. B. Hobbs, in an article in the I "Sunday Dispatch," says: "The 1 l.b.w change is generally resented, ow- j ing, firstly, to. the belief that it is unfair to the batsman, and, secondly, that it is liable to get. a batsman the reputation of getting his legs In" front of the wicket. "I was never ablcy to understand why a tendency to get out Lb.w. was considered a reproach to a batsman, who, when using proper footwork, must frequently run the risk of getting out Lb.w. * The prejudice is deepseated, and if the player's feelings count, the experiment will not be permanent. "I believe that the wider wicket has come to'stay in county cricket, but it is not likely to be applied to the Tests, as the Australians would object to stumps larger than those to which they have been accustomed. A temporary return to smaller wickets next season is advisable in order that English bowlers may not be handicapped in the Tests." ' OLDFIELD ACCLAIMED. "I have seldom met a better sportsman than Bert Oldfield," says 11. G. Larwood, the English express bowler, writing in the "Sunday Chronicle." "I have never known him to attempt to bluff the umpire or to do anything unfair. "I expect that he will spend his spare time in England in watching the cricket and reporting his impressions to the Australian selectors, but I doubt whether even his eagle eye can discover a young Englishman with the ability of Jackson, whom I believe to be better than Bradman. Perhaps he does not possess Bradman's tremendous run-getting powers, and he certainly does not possess his supreme selfconfidence, but he is more-elegant and polished, with a fuller armory of allround strokes, especially on the leg side, where he is superb"." ■