Cricket 1909

J une 3, 1909. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 163 The construction of the Demon Drivers is fully described in The Evolution of a Cricket Baty which may be obtained free upon applica­ tion. CRICKET IMr SOVtP MAKE- KEEP THEIR 5H&PE-LAS. LONCERg C A T A L O G U E U P O N A P P L IC A T IO N . C A T A L O G U E U P O N A P P L IC A T IO N . C A T A L O G U E U P O N A P P L IC A T IO N . IB C A T A L O G U E U P O N A P P L IC A T IO N . ■ t u r e g s a r a a 8 r,DEMON DRIVERS 7 f i ARE OUT AMD OUT THE B E S T, f Q SMOTHER GRADES A .'eW -3 'e-3 '-Z ’S -Z '- _ iflliijp p w a 'l C A T A L O G U E U P O N A P P L IC A T IO N T O GEO. G. BUSSEY Sc Co.. L td . 36 & 38, Queen Victoria St., LONDON. Manufactory — Timber Mills — PECKHAM, S.E. ELMSWELL, SUFFOLK, Agents all over the world. AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. By F. S. A s h le y -C o o p e r. Most people, and especially the Australians, must have regretted that the first Test match was decided on a wicket seriously affected by rain. The circumstance was in England’s favour, for both the batsmen and bowlers in the Australian side have much to learn on soft wickets. The visitors possess no hitter of the stamp of McDonnell, Bonnor, Massie Lyons, who might change the whole aspect of a game in a very little time. Such a player would have been simply invaluable them last week and might well have caused the match to have a different result. If Blythe and Hirst had once been mastered, the Englishmen would very possibly have found themselves in a somewhat serious predicament. However that may be, the fact remains that the only time during the match that the Australians held their own was during the partnership of Gregory and Ransford in the second innings. England were certainly the better team all round and deserved to win, though their batting in the first innings was disappointing. The absence of Hayward weakened the side considerably : with him present, England would surely have totalled more than 121. It is worthy of note that two left-handers obtained all the wickets for England, and that Whitty and Macartney, also left-handers, opened the bowling for Australia. Whitty, although the wicket should have suited him, did not meet with any success in either innings, and it is small consolation to him to know that he bowled better than his analysis would suggest. Reference to the score will show that in the first innings of England more than a third of the runs were made off him although he failed to secure a wicket. This fact leads one to imagine that it would have proved better for the Australians had Laver played in his place. It will be recalled that four years ago Laver proved most successful on English wickets until the amount of work he got through told upon him. It is more than likely that he will play if the sides are destined to meet again under similar circumstances. The inclusion of Cotter in the Australian team, seeing that he did not bowl a ball in either innings, is open to criticism, especially as Hopkins, who is a better batsman, was available and not chosen. On a soft wicket at Lord’s seven years ago Hopkins opened the bowling for Australia and got rid of Fry and Ranjitsinhji without a run, and I cannot help feeling that his presence in the side last week would have strengthened it all round. In addition to lacking a player of the Massie or McDonnell type, the Australians are also handicapped in not possessing a recognised first-wicket pair. A good start is a valuable asset for any side, and the more important the occasion the better effect it has upon those who go in afterwards. Trumper and Duff were an ideal pair to open an innings; they understood each other perfectly and, perhaps because they did not know what it was to suffer from nerves, very seldom failed. To date the Australians have played eight matches, and as many as seven different pairs of players have started the innings; Bardsley has been partnered by Noble, Hartigan, Trumper, McAlister and Cotter, and Macartney by Noble and Trum­ per. This unsettled policy cannot be good for the side. An effort should be made to decide which players are best qualified for the position, and for the following two places, and then persevere with them. With bated breath I would suggest to the Australian captain that he gives a thorough trial to Bardsley and Macartney as the opening pair, that he himself goes in first wicket down, followed by Ransford. All four named are likely to play in the great majority of the matches and on the most important occasions, and by ad­ hering to the order suggested the players would—to the advantage of the side—soon become thoroughly accustomed to each other’s play. Bardsley and Macartney have done well in Australia when starting the New South Wales innings together —they scored 203 in partnership against South Australia at Sydney in January last—and there would seem to be no reason why they should not prove a good first wicket pair over here. And besides, if (as seems likely) a fair share of the bowling is to fall to Macartney’s lot, it would be a good thing to send him in early to bat. The publication of a volume bearing Dr. Grace’s name on the title-page is a note­ worthy event. Each of his previous produc­ tions enjoyed a good circulation, but it is safe to say that the latest will prove more popular and a greater success than either. The “ Little Book ” * contains nine chapters, all of which are interesting. Perhaps those which will appeal most to cricketers generally are on “ The New Bowling” and “ Past and Present.’’ Speaking of the “ googlie” the G.O.M. says, “ I should think there are no cricketers better suited than the Parsees or the West Indians for this kind of delivery, and if the next side from the West Indies contains three or four first-class ‘ googlie ’ bowlers, I, for one, shall not be in the least surprised. I know that many cricketers out there are studying the ball.” And he quotes MacLaren as saying at Uttoxeter in 1907, after his introduction to the style on a good wicket, “ If this sort of bowling becomes general, I’m packing my bag for good and aye. And what’s more, good-bye to all style and ‘ attractiveness in batting.’ ” In “ Past and Present ” the author, evidently forgetful of the fact that Trumper includes the stroke in his wonderful repertoire , states that no present-day batsman plays the ball to leg under the upraised left leg. Nor can it now correctly be said of Armstrong that he bowls “ wide to leg” and “ never tries to bowl the wicket down ” : nowadays he gene­ rally pitches on the wicket. And “ W.G.” is surely wrong when he states that he has obtained spectacles only twice. According to the score-books he did so four times, the two instances overlooked occurring in 1863. One who has read “ W.G.’s ” previous books cannot peruse his latest without feeling that he is becoming rather critical in his middle age. In his chapter on “ Batting” he remarks (p. 13), “ It is quite true that when a left-hander is in, more time is expended. Wasted is a wrong as well as an unfair word to use in this connection.” There is a good deal in this contention, but it is amusing to note that three pages later (five lines from the end) “ W.G.” himself uses the term “ wasted ” when “ expended ” would have been much more appropriate. Some of the author’s remarks on “ Cricket Journalism ” are deserving of attention, but he has not made sufficient allowance for the disadvantageous positions from which re­ porters are often obliged to witness the play and for the difficulty frequently experienced in obtaining reliable information. “ An unsigned criticism in cricket or anything else London George Newnes, * “ W. G.’s Little Book.” Ltd. Price Is. net.