Cricket 1910

M ay 5, 1910 CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 101 MODERN CRICKET. If the cinematograph lm<l been known in the days of Pilch and Parr as well as iu the times of the early Australian visits, and we possessed “ living pictures ” of cricket as then played, how should we find it compare with the cricket of to-day ? As regards Pilch’s day, when “ be'l- toppers ” were commonly worn, wfcen bats and other apparatus differed f»om those of modern times, when the wickets, scythe mown, were rough and lumpy, and a score of over 100 fora who'e inuiugs was accounted good, and an individual contribution of 30 was equivalent to a modern century, and when the bowling w s either underhand, or round arm level or below the shoulder—we should feel that we were witnessing a game as different from our cricket as that of Pilch’s day was from the cricket of the Hamble- donian period. But it would not be so in regard to the early eighties, those days of great all-round Australian and equally great all-round English teams. In the early eighties, when in holidays as a school-boy I rushed across to look at the wicket at the end of an inuings at Lord’s and the Oval, the wickets appeared as level, smooth and gool as they do now. Cricketers dressed then just as they do now ; they batted and bowled much as they do now. And yet, it has always seemed to me, without wishing to be thought a “ laudator temporis acti,” that the cricket of the eighties and nineties was far more varied and inter­ esting than that of to-day. Dr. Grace has repeatedly said the same of the cricket of his earlier days, and in a recent issue of Cricket I was glad to see the same thing noted by Mr. W. L. Murdoch, the greatest of all Australian batsmeu. Too perfect grounds largely account for this; bowlers can get little break on ; the ball so easily reaches the boundary that fieldsmen make little effort to stop it; fields­ men thus get careless ; catching deteriorates, and the game altogether becomes more mechanical and less interesting. The late James Southerton in his “ Few Wrinkles on Bowling,” which appeared in the Red Lillywhite for 1876, said that on the grounds he then bowled the wickets were so much better than those of his early years (he was then 47 and had played for over 20 years in first-class cricket) that at times it seemed hopeless to try to get men out; but still, he added, I bowl every ball in the hope of getting a wicket. How many bowlers could say this now? Could Armstrong, when in 1905 he bowled over after over off the leg stump ? And why not ? They have no chance: the wickets are too good for them : their task is hopeless against goo 1batsmen. In Souther- ton’s time the wickets, owing to patent mowing machines, had become vastly im­ proved, and in fine weather, against the cracks of the period—W. G. Grace, Daft, A. N. Hornby, W. Yardley, I. D. Walker, ifcc.—he might well despair of gelt:ng their wickets when well set. But still he bowled every ball in hope. I repeat, not many can do this now. In the eighties and nineties the slow and medium-paced bowlers were the most suc­ cessful; fast bowlers there were, but they were great not qua fast, but because they possessed break like Richardson and Lock­ wood ; but at the present time, pace, qua pace, seems the one thing sought after, and the bowler by sheer pace tries to frighten the batsman out of his wicket. Here we have another mark of deterioration - pace before skill: and this not ihe bowler’s fault, as he is the creature of circumstances. Thus cir­ cumstances intended for the well-being of the game have contributed to its deteriora­ tion. We need what are called “ sporting ” wiekits again. Another reason why our cricket has fallen from a former standard is that owing to .pressure of business many of our mo?t promising amateurs are unable to pursue the game. There are those who maintain that no one should rank as an amateur if he receives the slighte>t remuneration for h:s services. To this class of reasoners I have never belonged. It would flavour plutocracy. At cricket, ai elsewhere, the labourer is worthy of his hire. There are grades of society just os there ore various classes of workmen. If a cricketer used to a higher station of life than that occupied by the ordinary professional cricketer, who in Lanca­ shire, Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire will most probably be drawn from the operative cla*-s—the colliery or factory worker-feels that he cannot keep up his statiou in life on the earnings of a professional cricketer, ond if he is of such pre-eminent ability as to mike it desirable that his sfrviccs should be continued for the game, it has always seemed to me very snobbish to say that such a cricketer should not rank as an amateur merely because he receives some remunera­ tion. In the interest of cricket the mere possession or non-possession of money should not be the determining factor for the con­ tinuance or otherwise of a player at the game. From this we see that the tendency of our day is more and more to encourage professionalism, which is generally held to be an evil in all kinds of games. To counteract it I advocate that prominent public school men and University players and others well-born and educated — bene vestibi , bene m ti et docti moderate ”—should be en- cquraged by the payment of decent grants or salaries to give their services to the game. The names of several of our greatest amateur players who have been encouraged in tlrs way will readily occur. But, supposing these had not been encouraged, who can say what harm would not have been done to the game ? Taking the period 1880-1890, I think no one will d sprite that the appended list of names would have constiiuted an ideal England Eleven. Not that these eleven men ever did actually all play together for Englan \, but for the whole period the list could not be beaten. Here it is :— W. G. Grace; champion bat; also great bowler and field. A. Shrewsbury; great and steady batsman and splendid point. W. Gunn; splendid bat; grand in the long field. W. W. Read; grand free batsman, good field ar.d lob bowler. A. G. Steel; magnificent bat, slow bowler and fiel I. W. Barnes; fine batsman rising to great occasions, grand break back bowler and field. G. Ulyett; splendid all round man. Hon. A. Lxttelton; great wicket-keeper and fine bat. G. Lohmann; superb all-round man; great bowler of variable pace. J. Briggs; grand head-work bowler, fine bat, splendid cover-point. W. Attewell; fine length bowler, good field and fair bat. Peel might have played for Briggs, but the latter was the better in the field, and for a great occasion. No need here of an extra fa^t bowler; Lohmann, Barnes and Ulyett were quite fast enough. The above team contains eight “ star” batsmeu, and seven first class bowlers of varied styles. How pitiable it seems to compare the above galaxy of talent with the teams we put into the field last year! But in the eighties the Surrey Club chose the Oval Eleven, the M.C.C. the team for Lord’s, and the Lancashire Committee that for Old Trafford. Sur.ly th>it system was a better one than entrusting the selt ction to three men, themselves players. Mr. A. C. MacLaren wan a great player as a schoolboy, scored a century in his first match for Lancashire, made the highest score on record in a first-class match, batted mag­ nificently in Australia aud for Lincashire, fi r many years at his best had hardly a superior as a batsman, and as a plucky and prudent captain is universa ly extolled. Yet, it must be admitted that he was a passenger in the England team of last year. For some years he had failed to renew his early successes. His average la'-t year was only 19 in all first-class, ond in Test matches only 12. Aud this, a man played for batting a’one and selected, not on present merits, but because three years previously he had waived his then claims to the captaincy in favour of another player. It was not on his merits that he was chosen to play at d to l e captain in the fivematches. I do not thiuk the aunals of the game furnish another instance like this. In 1899 W. G. Grace, then in his 51st year, played for England and captained the eleven for the last time. Aft r 35 years’ continuous play in first-class cricket ho still ranked high in the average list, as indeed he did in some years subsequent to 1899. In these columns I have often dealt with the doings of the greatest of all cricketers— W. G. Grace—and, with reference to the captaincy of the England Eleven, and also to the sensitiveness (to use no stronger term) of many present-day p’ayers in regard to those whom they will choose to play under, it may be well to hark back to the very earliest meetings of England v. Australia. What do we find there? Simply that in the great Oval match of 1880, the famous match on the same ground in 1882, and all three matches —at Lord’s, Oil Trafford and the Oval—in 1884, W. G. served under another. This will be news to many younger cricketers with sufficient knowledge of the history and of the doings of players of the game to know tliot no one during all those years could compare with W. G. either as batsman or as all-round man. “ An able captain,” the Red Lillywhite calle 1 him in 1877. All through the decade 1870-1880 he had cap­ tained Gloucestershire and the Unite 1 South Eleven in their matches against odds. His side was hardly ever beaten. The Red Lilly- white at the close of 1876 declared that a judicious captain would probably select him before any three other men that rou’d be chosen. From 18SG until May, 1889, ho captained England. And England di I better under his captaincy than under that of any­ one else. Yet in his halcyon years he was not chosen! He was over a year junior to A. N. Hornby and three years senior to Lord Harris, the England captains of the earliest Test-match years referred to. Seniority did not count. But- and this is the point to bear in mind—do we find traces of the green-eyed monster in our Champion’s attitude in those far-off years? Did he