in railing at the so-called weakness of English bowlers should remember that Australia, perhaps, is in an even worse position than we are and the reason is not difficult to find . . . they have only to look at the lifeless artificial wickets in England and the concrete ones in Australia and there the reason is to be found. It is not the bowlers' fault. The astonishing thing is that they bowl as well as they do.
In one sense cricket is in the same position in Australia as it is in England. In both countries there is a scarcity of effective bowlers and the reason is because, to quote Mr. Trumble's words, "The groundsman now holds sway over the game." Mr. Trumble adds further, "That he has been encouraged by cricket committees in recent years, largely for financial reasons, to secure a wicket which mainly by the introduction of binding soils and the use of the heavy roller, is little short of the condition of concrete." I refrain from saying anything from the financial point of view beyond expressing a hope that Mr. Trumble's words will be seriously considered in Australia and here also. But I repeat that in both countries bowling is ineffective not because it is bad, but because bowlers are hopelessly handicapped by the easy wickets and the unfair use of the legs. At the time of writing Australia is talking about Mr. Ponsford's tremendous scores in the last season's cricket in Australia. Mr. Ponsford is of course a very good batsman and very likely, as Hendren is reported to have said, he has learned much by batting on the very different types of wicket he played on in this country in 1926. But English judges of the game will not reckon Mr. Ponsford to be a player of the same class as Murdoch, McDonnell, Hill, Darling, Trumper,
