Cricket 1909

J uly i , 1909. CR ICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 227 The construction of the Demon Drivers is fully described in The Evolution of a Cricket Bat , which may be obtained free upon applica­ tion. CRICKET IMF ROVED MAKE- KEEP THEIR S H A P E -LA S ■' LO N C E R g 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 . BUSSEY’S EOOTBALLI IMPROVEDMAKE-KEEP THEIR SHAPE-LASTLONGER C A T A L O G U E U P O N A P P L IC A T IO N . B U S S E Y S .DEMON DR IV ER S ~IJ- | ARE OUT AND OUT THE B EST, J Q 1 grades 4 'e -4 -3 /S -3 '-2 % - Z _ [C A T A L O a U E Q U P O N A P P L IC A T IO N ITO GEO. G. BUSSEY & Co., L td ., 36 & 38, Queen Victoria St., LONDON. Manufactory — Timber Mills — PECKHAM, S.E. ELMSWEIX, SUFFOLK. Agents all over the world. AT THE SIGN OF THE WICKET. B y F . S . A s h l b y -C o o p e r . The side which will represent England in the match due to commence at Leeds to-day should give a mucli better account of itself than the one so unhappily chosen for the Lord’s game. There is much more bowling at command, and the fielding and wicket- keeping should leave little to be desired. English batting at the present time is, however, of doubtful quality. All who saw how the side went to pieces on the third morning of the match at Lord’s were astounded, for there was nothing in the wicket to account for the collapse. Arm­ strong certainly bowled as he can seldom have bowled before, and it is difficult to see what, the law of averages apart, there is to prevent him proving as effective again in similar circumstances. When one glances at the list of men whose reputation rests upon their batting one cannot look forward very hopefully to England making a large score. Probably no one would pick MacLaren solely for his run-getting ability, and Fry has had such little serious match practice this year, and has then done so little, that few people would have been surprised if he had been left out in favour of King. There are great possibilities in Jessop, Hobbs and Sharp, though whether the last-named will be able to do himself justice on his first appearance in a match of such importance remains to be seen : perhaps his experience of playing football before huge crowds will stand him in good stead. Jones has scored well this week against Lancashire, but neither Tyldesley nor Hirst has proved quite so successful as expected, and Hayward’s knee has not yet fully recovered. The outlook is certainly not bright, but there is, of course, the possibility that one or more of the players will suddenly return to his best form for the occasion, in which case the Australians should have all their work cut out to win. The absence of Blythe, after the specialist’s report on his health, was expected, as was also that of George Gunn. Barnes continues to do excellent work in good-class League matches in Staffordshire, but whether he was invited to be present at Leeds, or even at Lord’s, is a mystery. He has on many occasions proved himself so essentially a man for a big occasion that his selection would probably have met with general approval. It is difficult to see what reason the Selection Committee can have for keeping secret the names of any men who have preferred to decline the invitation sent to them. It is generally understood that Barnes was asked to play at Lord’s, but the public, upon whose patronage the success of the matches depends, have been refused information on the point. It is difficult to find any excuse for such policy. The letter (reproduced on page 235) which Mr. A. G. Steel wrote to the Times last week deserves the attention of all thinking cricketers, not only on account of its author­ ship but because it emphasises a few points which, in the hurry and bustle of these twentieth-century days, one is apt to lose sight of. Especially is this so concerning the suggestion to try the worst bowler on the side for a couple of overs, after the best have proved unsuccessful. Boxall, writing about the year 1800, gave the same advice, for, said he, “ as no two bowlers run alike, or deliver the ball the same, or bowl the same pace, therefore any man is a change ,that can bowl.” And Lambert, sixteen years later, said “ ditto to Mr. Giles here.” “ Very few bowlers,” he remarks in his little book, “ run alike before the delivery of the Ball, or deliver it in the same manner, therefore any fresh Bowler may materially alter the mode of the Striker’s hitting, therefore if any one person bowl ever so well and no wickets are obtained and runs are getting fast, it is always adviseable to change the Bowler or Bowlers, though it be for such as are not so well qualified.” Probably the policy would more often than not prove more successful than reference to the bowling analysis would lead one to suppose, for in the majority of cases the substitution of a third-rate bowler for a good one would un­ settle the batsman without securing his wicket. On the other hand it might provide him with twenty runs or so in the course of an over, by which event he might be given such confidence as to lead him to take liberties when the recognised bowlers of the side resumed the attack. One recalls Alfred Lyttelton’s success with lobs in the Test match at Kennington twenty-five years ago, and the late John Painter’s share in the Gloucestershire triumphs over Kent and Mid­ dlesex in 1895, but it would not be easy to furnish many instances of such pronounced success in support of Mr. Steel's suggestion. With regard to the remark that “ a straight bat is still the best, in spite of the pull stroke ” there appears to be some differ­ ence of opinion. The science of batting has developed to such an extent during the past thirty years or so that the value of the straight bat, though still great, is not so apparent as it used to be, and the time may come, though it is difficult to believe that it ever will, when no importance at all will attach to it. One by one what had come to be regarded as axioms of cricket have been east aside. At one time it was deemed a heresy to leave the crease for the ball—to “ give her the rush ”—and old Fennex has told with what disapproval his father watched him indulge in such unorthodoxy. Nyren would not sanction a bowler giving twist to his deliveries, and until comparatively modern times—Julius Ctesar and E. M. Grace were the first to indulge in the stroke to any extent—it was considered almost despicable for a man to pull a straight ball round to leg. As time goes on opinions may change and beliefs become shattered, but the dictum of Canon Edward Lyttelton—“ Effec­ tive play is the only good style ” —will remain. Next week’s University match gives promise of proving more interesting than usual, for each side appears to be stronger than the majority of recent teams. Lock­ hart I have not yet seen, but so far as one can judge from what one has heard it would not be surprising if he occasioned the Oxonians a lot of trouble. He has, in Tuf­ nell, a capital wicket-keeper to support him, and although Olivier has not been so suc­ cessful as anticipated Lockhart should prove equal to bearing the added responsibility which devolves upon him. Both teams are well equipped so far as bowlers and wicket­ keepers are concerned, but neither possesses a batsman of outstanding merit. Howmany men the two sides will supply for the Gentlemen v. Players matches remains to be seen, but Gilbert and Lockhart should be certainties, and either Tufnell or Pawson— the former for choice, as he is used to Lockhart’s bowling—may be asked to keep wicket. (Mention of Gentlemen v. Players tempts one to ask, “ Will the former have a representative side in the Lord’s match?” If not, it will be very regrettable.)