“BARRACKERS”

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 557, 9 January 1929, Page 1

“BARRACKERS”

Do They Mean It ? NOBLE SAYS “NO” SYDNEY PAPER’S CASTIGATION Two markedly divergent view’s of Australian “barracking” at the cricket tests are given in the following comment on the subject. M. A. Noble, in the Sydney “Sun,” says the barrackers don’t mean half what they say, and that the Englishmen should not take any notice of them. The Sydney “Morning Herald/' on the other hand, refers to the barracking of Duckworth, both at Sydney

Duckworth and Melbourne, as a “disgraceful episode,” and asks if it does not suggest that Australians are “squealing” when their team is getting beaten. Noble writes as follows: Though the English‘cricketers are becoming more accustomed to Australian “hillites,” they still take them too seriously. In view of the meagre success hitherto achieved by our men, it is not to be wondered at that their spirits in consequence went down to zero. It is understandable why a feeling of hilarious elation should manifest itself when, after their poor showing in previous games and all that has been said and written of them, our men should make such a grand recovery. There isn’t half the venom behind the quips and jibes that the crowd’s loud-mouthed expressions might indicate. They are born leg-pullers, these] barrackers, with a marvellous fund of humour and fairness. Our English brothers would sense this if they could remain passive and unaffected under the influence of their bellicose exterior. I admire Duckworth’s calm and continued skill during this and other trying ordeals. No doubt this wonderful little 'keeper is not unmindful of the generous applause invariably bestowed in appreciation of his activity, safety, sureness and speed behind the stumps. One of his colleagues should restrain his youthful enthusiasm which sometimes creates an unnecessary desire to appeal, thereby urging the crowd to show its disapproval. “DISTORTED SPORTSMANSHIP” The Sydney “Sun” comments: One of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of Australian sport is :he barracking of G. Duckworth, the English wicketkeeper. It was bad during the second test in Sydney, but worse at Melbourne. Duckworth seems to have incurred displeasure because of his appeals, moreover, he is still being erroneously held responsible for the Kippax incident After he fields the ball he is barracked. Either he is ironically cheered or insulting epithets are hurled at him. To-day he was hooted, and then counted' out, after appealing for a catch on the leg side off Larwood. There was no justification for the demonstration. In fact, it is tinfP Australian crowds ceased their hostile shouts when an appeal is made by a visiting player, inter-Statc or international. For anyone outside the arena to express an opinion on what is sheerly an umpire’s decision is nothing more nor less than impertinence. It is quite possible the habit has been encouraged by the many eulogies of the conduct and the cricket klowledge of our crowds, eulogies expressed not only by our own authorities, but by visiting officials and players. One can only regard some of the barracking that is indulged in as emanating from a distorted sense of sportsmanship. Tate responds to all the barracking. He enjoys turning the joke on himself. Duckworth is of a different temperament, and merely keeps on giving the spectators a courageous display of wicket-keeping artistry. '.that is why one wonders at the hostility shown toward him. It would be, perhaps. understandable if the insults came from a few among the crowd, but that is not the case. Whole sections from all round the arena join in me auuse in sheeplike style. On Saturday Ryder had some policemen moved from the sight screen and the crowd laughe<J. To-day Sutcliffe wanted a similar step taken, and the crowd jeered. Do not these incidents savour of squealing in adversity, a tendency to which non-sportsmen are prone?