Page:The Crisis in Cricket and the Leg Before Rule (1928).djvu/50

42 agreement. One thought that the proposed alteration had not had a sufficient trial, two or three thought umpiring would be too difficult, one was against any change but added that he thought in a dry season when wickets got crumbly it would help materially to shorten the innings, which isthe very thing that all who have the interests of the game at heart want to see, and another thought the new rule was not understood. It is quite true that a sufficient trial had not been given, but those who thought that too much was thrown on the umpires, apparently overlooked the fact that under the proposed alteration it is not necessary to judge whether the ball pitched straight or not and the umpires would be relieved of what is the most difficult point to decide. Two of the most experienced cricketers who gave their opinions were Mr. Brain and Mr. Paravicini and these differed in opinion. Mr. Brain said that on fast true wickets the alteration would not help the leg break bowler as the legs are practically never between wicket and wicket. In these days legs are between wicket and wicket continually to balls of all kinds, but in Mr. Brain's day this was not so prevalent as it is now, but still it was by no means rare, though apparently Mr. Brain did not notice it. Mr. Brain then makes the extraordinary statement that "On the plumb wicket the off break bowler can't do enough for the new rule to help him." Mr. Brain must have seen bowlers such as Spofforth and Palmer, J. T. Hearne, Lohmann, to name only a few, and did he really mean to say that even on plumb wickets such bowlers did not get hundreds of wickets with off breaks? In these days batsmen get in front and save their wickets with the legs; in Spofforth's