Cricket 1904

54 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A pril 14, 1904. THE M.C.C. TEAM IN AUSTRALIA. Ia a careful and thoughtful article, F. A . Iredale refers as follows in the Daily Mail to the M .C.C. Team :— Time has been the means of revealing many traits in the character of both Warner’s team as a side and the players as individuals. Some earlier impressions have become intensified, while one feels inclined to say that prophecy on the whole has not been quite correct in delineating the collective horoscopes. Warner has not lost one admirer who in the earlier part of the tour prophesied great things from him as a leader; but no one, not even his best friend, would say that he has quite earned his place as a batsman and fielder alone. As a captain, however, he has quite worthily filled the position. Warner is not quite the genius Maclaren was, considering how easy his task has been with so many successful bowleis on his side. Maclaren has been accused of overworking his bowlers. This is rather unfair, as anyone knows that in his team he had only— practically speaking—three bowlers on whom he could rely, viz., Barnes, Braund, and Blythe. When the former was lost to the team, Maclaren’s side los't its backbone. To do as he did and very nearly beat Australia more than once by batting alone was no mean achievement. Had he had Rhodes and Hirst in the team there is no telling how the side would have fared. Warner, on the other hand, has had little trouble with his bowlers, and with the exception of the second test he has had command of them whenever they were found necessary. Where Warner stands above Maclaren is in the management of his men. I don’t think he is more popular than Maclaren with them, but I think he studies them more and understands them better. His team admire him as a plucky chap who is trying hard to fill an onerous position under great difficulty; Maclaren’s men admired him because he is a great player. Warner’s characteristics are keenness, a delight in overcoming a difficulty and thereby maintaining a prestige, and arguing a point. We have a good illustration of this latter at one of the matches. Some one chose to ex­ press an opinion on a subject, when the skipper chimed in with, “ Well, you know I am a barrister, briefless now, perhaps, but 1 feel that 1 would like to argue the point with you,” and so we left him arguing. I know of no one who is so fond of criticis­ ing newspaper reports of matches. Woe to the unfortunate scribe he comes across who perhaps has at a moment’s notice to telegraph a portion of the game to his paper and who makes a mistake. He will find him out and ask him unblushingly how he came to make such an awful blunder as to say that “ Warner or 6 ome one else gave a palpable chance to somebody when as a matter of fact the b ill was a bump one.” Perhaps in hi* heart the little skipper means well, but he is fo keen, and he lets you know it. To the ordinary mind the secret of Warner’s success 60 far appears to be solidity, good generalship, variety in the bowling, and the general all-round excellence of the players. To my mind the real success of the tour is due to Bo&anquet. Everyone has more or less done his share* son^e more than others, but the one man who stands out above the others is the Middlesex player. To look at the averages one would be inclined to say “ Rubbish” to this; but, nevertheless, Bosanquet is the one man feared by the Australians. On good wickets—the real test between sides—the one man whom the Aus­ tralians hope will have an off-day is Bosan­ quet. Rhodes, of course, is invincible on the sticky ones, Hirst on the fiery, and Arnold is very likely to get anyone out; but strange to say, on good wickets none of these players is feared ; Bosanquet alone is the one man who can create a “ rot.” Bosanquet, th 9 imperturbable, the inimit­ able, the inconsistent, can do more harm to the other side in half-an-hour than all the other bowlers put together. The Australians say, “ You can have all your Rhodes, Hirsts and Arnolds, but give us Bosanquet (when out on business) on a good wicket.” Bosanquet is never flurried, never worried, he is just as cheerful when getting pasted in all directions as he is when getting six wickets for 45 runs. His imperturbability is astounding, as witness the following: He arrives at an hotel—needless to say after the others—interviews the landlady. “ Have you my room ready ? ” “ What room ? ” “ No. 56.” “ That’s engaged.” “ Oh, but I must have it,” in very quiet tones. “ But you cannot,” said the lady. “ But, my good woman, I must have that room; it is quite understood I was to have it.” “ But I say I am mistress in my own house, and I eay you cannot have it as it is engaged.” By this time the landlady was in anything but a tranquil frame of mind. Bosanquet, how­ ever, remained in his former cool, collected state. How much longer they continued in this way is not quite known, but later on Bosanquet was seen to emerge from No. 56 as if in full possession, and saunter through the hotel in his usual manner of not noticing any one in particular, and anything but flurried. Rhodes has been a great success, quick at making use of his opportunities on the bad wickets, and by “ keeping them wide on the o ff” has escaped punishment on the good ones. He has not found the toar very trying, and does not fear a breakdown, as Lord Hawke thought possible a few years ago. Tyldesley, though not the greatest run- getter, is clearly the best bat in the team. On sticky wickets I should think he shares with Trumper the distinction of being one of the two best bats in the world. His out- fielding has been magnificent, and the number of runs he has saved in that position has been very great. Foster has been a success and a disappoint­ ment. His one great score stands out as a monument of prodigious effort, but his subse­ quent play has been of so spasmodic a character that one wonders where his great genius has disappeared to. I know of no one who possesses such strong mannerisms while batting. This alone would never make him a popular player in this country. It would be inopportune to criticise all the players, but suffice it to say that, with two exceptions, the team as individuals have all earned their places. In concluding this article, one is forced to say that Warner has made three mistakes which stand out rather prominently. The first one is in bringing Fielder to this country. A bowler who is only half fast will never be successful out here if he be obliged to rely upon his pace alone. No doubt Maclaren’s success with his surprise packet Barnes led Warner to hope that in Fielder he might have found his mascot. The second mistake was in persevering with Relf in place of Knight. To do justice to the Sussex player, it is only right to say that he has been a great trier in batting, bowling and fielding, but unfortunately for himself he is not class enough yet for an England v. Australia match. Knight has had few opportunities, but in the last new South Wales match he clearly showed he is a fine batsman and quite worthy of more opportunities than Warner has given him. The third mistake is in regard to Hirst, Warner bowls him too much. In many a match the fast left-hander has had to resume after but an indifferent rest. On the other hand Rhodes has been rested a lot. Hirst by his action alone must take a lot out of him­ self, and bearing this in mind Warner might have spared him occasionally. Barring these mistakes Warner has done his part exceedingly well. He has imbued his men with his own keenness. No man has tried harder to get possession of the “ ashes ” than he has. THE SITUATION. [ a CONVERSATION WITH MR. CHUCKERUP, AN UMPIRE WHO OFFICIATES FOR A THRIVING “ WEAK MEDIUM” CLUB.] “ Well, Mr. Chuckerup, I hope you are satisfied with the doings of our men in Australia.” “ Oh yes, sir. It’s a bit of all right, of course. They’re a-bringin’ back the ashes, and we ought to give ’em a really ’earty welcome. But, mind you, it don’t prove nothing.” “ Proves nothiog ? I don’t quite understand.” “ Well, now, I arsk you. What do it prove ? It don’ t prove as them as said the team wasn’t up to much was wrong, and it don’t prove that them was right who said it was the best team ever sent out. D o it, now ? ” “ Well, I hadn’ t thought of that, one way or the other.” “ No ; I dessay not. But look you ’ere ! When that team went out, them as cussed it and them as blessed it was both under the impression that the Ors- teralian season would be ’ot and dry, as it ought to be They calculated on our bowlers ’avin’ to bow l on puffect wickets all the time, and regulated their cusses or their blessin’s accordin’ . And what ’appened, I arsk y o u ? Why, ’ardly a match but what was interrupted by rain, and the usual conditions as ’appens in Orsteralia wasn’t never seen at all. So, as I says, the team ’aven’t proved nothing, and ’Eving ’elp ’em if they meets a representative England team at Lord’s in June on a puffect wicket.” “ Well, as to that, we shall see when the time comes. But what do you think of the look-out for cricket this year ? ” “ Um ! Well, I don’t think there will be any reforms such as was talked about last year. Leastways it will be only talk, though, if the season ’appens to be a dry one, there ’ 11 be enough o ’ that, you may bet. But my club took such a stand against the wider wicket larst year that the reformers couldn’ t do nothin’ .” “ What do you thiak of the proposed new couocil for the counties, to assist the M .C .C ?” “ I don’t much believe in councils. What with the London County Council and the District County Councils and one thing and another, I don’ t hold much