Cricket 1884

JAN. Si, 1884. CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 3 EN G L ISH AND A U S T R A L IA N CR ICK E T . From Saily's Magazine. I n 1884 there will be another Australian eleven in England. No game, perhaps, has created so much rivalry between two coun­ tries as cricket; and the excitement stirred up by the international visits of English and Australian teams, instead of waning, has slowly and steadily increased, till it is now almost at fever heat. Without referring to the impressions which this style of batting, or that style of bowling, has at different times caused, it is the purpose of this article to compare Australian and English cricket of the present day, and the powers of those who most recently represented their res­ pective countries; namely, Murdoch’s team in England and Ivo BJigh’s team in Austra­ lian. Few of those who have visited the antipodes will dispute the fact that the Australian climate is more favourable than our own to tfheproduction of good cricketers: the seasons are more certain, the rainfall is less ; cricket is the national sport, and the consequence of these climatic and social influences is that the grounds are excellent. Good grounds make good cricketers (to verify these words we may refer to the large number of fine cricketers Fenner’s Ground at Cam­ bridge has produced), and by the same token those who can avail themselves of the fine grounds of Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, or Ballara t, should be, and are, in the first flight of cricketers. On the other hand, the effect of the good wickets is to prolong matches to four or even five days, and the number, there­ fore, of those who can give the necessary time to the game is limited; it is a sign of the times, however, that such a fine team as Murdoch’s undoubtedly proved themselves to be in 1882 can be produced out of the few Australians who regularly play and practise. It is our humble opinion that their success in England was due to three causes : 1, condition; 2, physique; 3, the fact that their tour was purely a business one, their sole object being to play cricket and win matches. On the first point we may remark that few cricketers in this country, either amateur or professional, go into strict training for cricket: the amateurs, because their social engagements, to a great extent, preclude them from this course ; the pro­ fessionals, beoause they think it unnecessary. Whether condition is or is not necessary, is a point rarely disputed; we may safely say, however, that the great majority of cricketers play the better for it, and that the rest would play no worse. With regard to the second point— “ physique,” the Australian team are, un­ deniably, a very strong lot of men, and certainly a younger lot, on the average, than any eleven they played against in this country—the Universities excepted. Whether their fine physique is a coinci­ dence, or whether it is the effects of a hard, outdoor, healthy life, matters little; but however much we may have been chagrined by their England successes, we could not but observe with admiration, that when their bowling was collared (which was not often the case), each bowler, instead of being put in the corner at short leg, mid-on, <&c., <fec., andjerking the ball np as if his arm were in a glass case, ci uld go into ‘ ‘ the country,” return a ball like a thunderbolt 100 yards from the wicket, and then come back to bowl as well as ever. In this way they saved many runs, assisted the captain in placing his field, and went through a long day’s fielding with comparatively little fatigue; while in many of England’s first- rate county and other teams, all the hard work has to be done by two or three gifted beings who can throw a trifle over 50 yards. The third point is perhaps the most important of all : to win as many matches as possible was the sole object of the Austra­ lian team; they lived their lives simply to play cricket. There are few in England whose sole object in life is cricket; amateurs have either their business or social engage­ ments, and professionals, as a rule, have some duties to attend to in the way of selling cricket materials, &o.; and it stands to reason, w e. think, that those whose attention is wholly and entirely concentrated on any pursuit can master that pursuit with the best effect. It was with these advantages that they brought to so successful a termin­ ation their campaign of 1882—a campaign in which their victory at the Oval will be ever memorable. In the September of this same year Ivo Bligh started out with a team determined to win the laurels taken from England, and this team, though by no means so repre­ sentative of England as Murdoch’s team was of Australia, succeeded in winning two out of three matches against that same eleven which had humbled England at the Oval. This result tends to show how great an improvement is possible when the sole object of a team is to win a succession of matches, and when there are facilities for good and constant practice. We will now compare the merits of the players, and will first refer to the bowlers. We are inclined to think that in this department of the game the Australians are our superiors, far and away. We have heard some players remark, that while it was a pleasure to play most of our English bowlers, it was hard brain exercise to watch the scientific deliveries of Spofforth and Palmer, and perhaps the peculiarities of these two bowlers—two of the best who ever bowled—may prove interesting. Spofforth gets most of his wickets by his imperceptible alteration of pace, and by varying the flight of the ball in the air, other­ wise tossing the ball to a greater or lesser height, yet without altering his accuracy of pitch. His theory is perfect; it is shortly this. To bowl his fast ball he puts the whole strength of his hand behind the centre of the ball; to bowl his medium- pace ball he puts the whole strength of his hand behind three-quarters of the ball, i.e. (to use a billiard phrase), instead of holding it a whole ball, he holds it a three-quarter ball, with the result that while his arm always revolves at the same pace, the ball loses a quarter of its pace, the speed thus lost being converted into a spin ; and simi­ larly for his slow ball, be holds it a half ball. It is apparent, therefore, that the amount of break or spin given to the ball entirely depends on its pace. The advan­ tage of this method—to deceive the bats­ men— is obvious; for, instead of altering the pace by putting more or less vigour into the arm (a transparent device), he effects his object by manipulating the ball with his fingers. Palmer, like Spofforth, depends on the alteration of pace to deceive the batsman ; but, in addition to a break from the off-side, he can bowl what is technically termed the “ curly ball,” and also a very deceptive Yorker. It is a curious fact that although he can make the ball break both ways at will, it has never been our good fortune to see him use a sticky wicket with very deadly effect; while od the other hand, we have seen him irresistible on an absolutely perfect wicket, his fatal ball being a medium-pace ball, which breaks back just enough to beat the bat. His inability to use a sticky wicket with much effect is due, we think, to the fact that his peculiar spin becomes so slow that the batsman is able to watch it care­ fully, and thus meet it. In addition to these two wonderful bowlers they have Giffen, Garrett, and Boyle, who all, with more or less success, employ tie same method of changing their pace. The bowlers of Ivo Bligh’s team were C. T. Studd, A. G. Steel, Barnes, Bates, Bar- low, and Morley. Messrs. Steel and Studd are the only two out of the five who can be called in any sense of the wotd scientific. A. G. Steel, perhaps, bowls more different balls than any other single individual in the world; but his devices are too apparent to be continually successful against first-rate bats­ men. C. T. Studd bowls for the catch on the off-side, and occasionally makes the ball break back considerably; the chief virtue, however, of his bowling is the power he possesses of making the ball leave the ground at different paces, with but little apparent variation of action. All the professional bowlers come under the same denomination (automata ? ) ; they can all bowl a good ball, but on a good wicket their devices are so apparent as al­ most to border on the ridiculous. Morley, when in good health and at his best, is the first fast bowler of the day; but he does not alter his style of bowling with a view to defeat the style of the opposing batsman. However much critics may disagree with our remarks concerning these bowlers, and our comparisons, which are so detrimental to our own men, they must notice with a great deal of pleasure that one and all bowl with a straight arm and bowl successfully. A great deal has been written about suspi­ cious action, and we here wish to express our firm conviction that only straight-arm bowl­ ing should be allowed. It is a sweeping reform, but to ‘ remedy the evil reform is necessary, and why not this ? The points in favour of this proposition are: 1. That the highest proficiency ever reached in this department has been reached by straight-arm bowlers (Australian). 2. That it is easier for an umpire to decide whether a bowler bowls with a straight or crooked arm, than whether a certain action of the bent arm constitutes a throw. We fail to see how umpires, much less the public, can decide this matter of throwing, till the M.C.C., or some authorised body, will give them the definition of a throw or jerk. We think, too, that the M.C.C. would do well to consider how far it shall be in the power of an umpire to stop a bowler from cutting up the wicket with his spikes as he delivers the ball. “ The umpire shall be a judge of fair or unfair play,” does not neces­ sarily deal with the question; for the umpire, when appealed to, may argue thus; “ This bowler cuts up the ground purposely, there­ fore it is unfair.” So far so good ; but if he says to himself, “ This bowler cuts up the ground, but does not do so purposely, and therefore it is fair,” he gives a decision man­ ifestly unjust to the batsman ; the test of this evil should be the effect, not the causa Next Issue of CRICKET will be published Thursday, February 28.