Lives in Cricket No 4 - Ernie Jones

extraordinary strokes in his 189 on the second and third days. Despite his infringement Jones reaped financial benefits from the game. A sum of £50 had been donated to the SACA to disburse among the South Australian players based on their efforts against the Englishmen. Jones ended up with half of it for producing the best bowling averages and also sharing an award for best fielder. Phillips’ no-balling of Jones was controversial, not because South Australian followers felt his action was perfectly fair, but because several English bowlers were held to be more palpable throwers. In 1896 Fred Spofforth had backed Jones’ legitimacy and said that even if Jones’ elbow was tightly strapped he could still bowl at top pace. The Englishmen, however, felt that Jones changed his delivery with his fastest balls, and Phillips gave him a number of warnings, which was outside the laws of the game. According to ‘Observer’ in the Australasian , Jones was given fair latitude. He was called only once but at least six times he appeared to have a ‘fatal bend in the arm’. Phillips claimed it was easier to judge the fairness of bowling from the square leg position but that was not allowed under the Law then operating. Jones contended that he had not altered his action at all, and that he obtained his pace with the power of his arm rather than his momentum and body swing. The issue might have died down had not Ranjitsinhji, who after his big hundred as a touring player, stirred controversy in his articles for the English Review of Reviews which were reprinted in Australian newspapers and subsequently in his book, With Stoddart’s Team in Australia . It would have been, perhaps, unwise for me, as a member of the English team, to criticise in an unfavourable light, Jones’ bowling had I been less fortunate in my innings against him, or had I not during his tour in England, always upheld him as a fair bowler . But now, in this review of the match, writing purely as a critic I cannot but admire the pluck and judgement of the umpire who no-balled him . . . Another argument put forward in allowing Jones’ delivery to go unquestioned is: ‘Why should he be no-balled now, when he was passed as a fair bowler in England?’ In reply to this query I would state that at home (and this must have been apparent to all who saw him bowl in England) his action was at the worst, merely like some other bowlers actively engaged in English The Great Fast Bowler: 1896-1899 33