Cricket 1898

J a n . 27, 1898. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 11 EXPEN SES OF AU S T R A L IAN PLAYER S . (From the Adelaide Observer , Dec. 11). The improbability—now knowD to be a certainty—of George Giffen, the best all-round Australian cricketer, playing in the test match which is to begin at Sydney presently has been the cause of the public hearing a good deal about the remunera­ tion the Australian cricketers who take part in the test games are to receive from the promoters of the English tour. It ha s been argued that the public arc not concerned in the financial arrangements made between the promoters and the players, but when inability to conclude a satisfactory agreement leads to the ab­ sence upon an all-important occasion of the best cricketer in the country, surely they are interested. Further than that, one of the parties concerned thought fit three years ago to publicly announce that New South Wales players had asked for an exorbitant sum in return for their services in the match England v. Com­ bined Queensland and New South Wales, and he did not hesitate to stigmatize them as professional cricketers. As the social relations of Australian players to the English authorities would be vitally prejudiced if they were classed as profes­ sional cricketers, the question of expenses has, I think it will be admitted, a direct popular interest. Before saying any more on the general question, it would be well, perhaps, if I briefly explained how it has come to pass that Giffen’s name is not among the players for the forthcoming match. When Stoddart’s first team was in Australia under the management of the Melbourne Club and the Trustees of the Sydney Asso­ ciation Cricket Ground the Australian players in the test matches had their travelling and hotel expenses paid, and, in addition, received varying amounts to recoup them for loss of time. It has been recently stated in Melbourne papers that they were treated handsomely, and that “ not a solitary complaint by the Austra­ lian players was ever heard.” As for the “ handsome” treatment, I know of one prominent batsman with a pretty level head for business who told me at the time that if similar circumstances ever arose again he could not in fairness to his family leave his businees for the remuneration he received then. Several others also complained, and I remember a well- known Melbourne pressman and myself discussing the position at Sydney in 1895, and remarking that there would be trouble about the expenses if another English Eleven came out under the same con­ ditions. So soon as it was definitely known this year that Stoddart was coming again the players who were so “ hand­ somely ” treated three years ago discussed the question of expenses, and when nine of the cracks were in the West with George Giffen’s Eleven towards the close of last season an understanding was arrived at that if their services were needed they should receive considerably more than they did in 1894-5. Unfortu­ nately for themselves they lacked the business foresight to make a hard-and- fast agreement, so that after all each was left to act for himself. The five South Australians, Giffen, Darling, Lyons, Jones and Hill, however, subsequently decided to work together, and about four months ago wrote to Major Wardill informing him that they expected to receive a certain sum which was about double the average amount paid in 1894-5. Major Wardill came to Adelaide, and in an interview told the players that the terms they asked were out cf all reason. It has been stated by a Melbourne writer that the leading members of the South Australian Cricket­ ing Association agreed with the Major, but this I can say positively was not the case. Further, the assertion has been made that the oidy bugbear with Major Wardill was that the players asked that if one of them chosen, say in the first test match, was left out of the next and played in the third he should be allowed expenses for the intervening period. What our players did ask was that if they were kept either in Melbourne or Sydney and then not picked they should be paid while they were away from home, which was not an unreasonable request. After telegraphic communication Messrs. Wardill and Sheridan declined to give the sum per match which the men wanted, and offered a lower one. The Major left Adelaide without arranging terms, but Mr. Cress- well subsequently took the negotiations in hand, and secured from the promoters an offer equivalent to the sum the players had stipulated for in the first place. This was accepted by Darling, Lyons, Jones and Hill, but Giffen refused, and there I part company with him. Unless he has some other reason for not playing it seems to me that he should have been bound by the vote of the majority of his companions, for the majority vote had ruled them all along. He has stated that he will not play because our Association is making up the difference between the amount asked by the players and the sum offered by the promoters, but I have the assurance of the Chairman of the Association that such is not the case. It has be?n said in a Melbourne paper that Giffen asked the promoters for £150 for the whole season, but he has made no such request. So far, then, as expenses are concerned, Giffen seems to have no cause for com­ plaint. He, of course, has a perfect right to say whether he will play—perhaps he is not anxious to—especially as these test matches are arranged for the benefit of the grounds which the promoters of the tour manage rather than in the general interests of Australian cricket. It was aptly put by “ Observer ” in the Argus the other day:— ‘ ‘ Cricketers outside those clubs would be more than human did they not, as I have heard them, retort —‘ Play for Australia ! N o ; play so that bowling greens, grand stands, and every modern comfort and convenience may be furnished the members of clubs, in whom we are not in the least bit interested, and who, having reaped the reward of our exer­ tions, express their thanks with a sneer, ‘ You are only professionals.’ ” The same writer pointed out that there is no real necessity to have five test matches to settle the question of supremacy for the time being between the cricketers of the two countries. In England when an Australian Eleven is there only three are played, but the promoters of Stoddart’s tour arrange two extra games, because the receipts so handsomely fill their coffers. Ten or fifteen years ago, when fewer important matches were played in Aus­ tralia, employers did not mind giving their employes who were first-class cricketers leave of absence to take part in them, but in a season like this a leading cricketer playing in all the matches for which he is qualified needs to be away from business for over thr e months, and no employer would pay a man who is absent all that time. Apart from losing their salaries the time devoted to cricket is calculated to affect the status of the player in his profession, in the office, or in the warehouse, and we have had striking instances of Australian cricketers who have lost their places through following the game too closely, and when their cricket careers have closed have reoeived little or no recompense from the organiza­ tions into whose coffers they put so much money. Is it any wonder, then, that with these examples before them the younger generation of cricketers say—“ If we are to play we must be well remunerated while we are in the front rank, in order that we may put aside something for the rainy day.” The population of Australia is not yet numerous enough to support a long series of matches every year, and until it is we shall not have a large class of cricketers who devote the whole of their energies to the game. When that time arrives social status will have to be con­ sidered, and I venture to say that though they may be termed professionals the cir­ cumstances will be similar to those that exist with the baseballers in America, where all players are equal on the field, and off it move in that rank of society for which they are fitted by their eiucation. In the meantime players who ask, as certain English amateurs do, for a liberal allowance above hotel and travelling ex­ penses when they are away from business, ought not to be classed as professionals and suffer the social disabilities which, the majority of Australians unfortunately think, are attached to a deserving class of public entertainers. i r ~ ~ ~ , TRY A REVOLUTION IN Cigarette Paper ! Books j EACH LEAF READY TO HAND FOR USE. \ A T A L Ii TOBACCO N ISTS. I N E X T ISSUE , T H U R S D A Y , F E B R U A R Y 24.