Cricket 1911

198 CEICKET : A WEEKLY RECOKD OF THE GAME. J u n e 3, 1911. ‘ ‘ Do you mind telling me the best innings you have ever played ? ” “ That is a very difficult question to answer without appearing conceited. But the blame rests with you. There are so many circumstances to consider. The con­ dition of the pitch, the state of the match, and also your own health and humour—a matter which is too often overlooked, the assumption being that a player is always well and never subject to the ills of ordinary mortals. In 1901, at Nottingham, I hit 221, and that I consider as good as anything I have ever done when we have been in danger of defeat, and that is the time to try your nerve. So far as overcoming the actual difficulties of the pitch I do not think that I have done anything better than 62, at Melbourne, in 1804. We won that Test match on a bad wicket. My 02 came in the second innings, and I have no hesitation in saying that the wicket was really more difficult than any pitch I have ever seen in my life. I don’t remember anything so bad as that. It was almost impossible to be bowled out because the ball got too high and turned. You had to keep playing the ball off the back of your neck. The task was to get the ball away on the leg-side, especially as there were so many fielders round the corner. But somehow I managed. For sheer hard hitting my record score of 295, in less than a day, also comes to mind. The other side were batting for the last twenty minutes. That was more or less a lucky innings, but my soundest display, without any chance, and with the least hitting of the ball in the air, was 243, at Leicester, in 1908. I have never played an innings that gave me more satisfaction. I kept the ball more on the ground than in any other venture of that length.” ‘ 1 Do you hold that cricket is in a parlous state ? We have heard much from amateurs about the Somerset scheme. Would you mind saying a word on behalf of the professionals ? ” “ I do not know that I have any business to say a word for the Players. For myself I can say that there is too much talking and writing about the decline of cricket. If the authorities had stuck to the Lancashire system of counting for a few years cricket would have been all right again. The main principle was right, the only alteration necessary being to eliminate the match altogether if neither side had completed an innings. If each side had only completed an innings I should call it a draw in the usual way. Of course you never can tell how a system will work out. Still, I hold that the Somerset scheme is more suitable to the second-class counties than our own. We are likely to have a lot of playing for a draw on the third day. You see, in a two days’ game they are obliged to have an adjudication of this kind because there is small chance of finishing, but with three days the situation is entirely changed. Now I think the side leading on the first innings will hang on to their three points, whereas if both sides were fighting for a finish a draw would be a great disadvantage. A perfect plan at cricket is impossible for many obvious reasons, but in this Somerset idea we are confronted by the fact that the side leading on the first innings secures the majority of the points. Many a team will rest content with that profit. The proportion of marks for that lead is too great. Supposing by any chance a weaker side get a lead on the first knock, and accidents do happen at cricket, why, they are going to sit tight, to be sure.” ‘ ‘ But on other matters I am glad that the Committee at Lord’s have not allowed any change. To have altered the no-ball rule would have been a triumph for those umpires who have put, as I think, a false construction on the old rule against the tradition of cricket. Nor do I believe in the opposition, the visiting side, always having the right of batting first on the home team’s ground, if these visitors lost the toss in the first instance. Doing things by vote takes the spice out of the game. Nor do I think that your own crowd wants that change. Nine times out of ten the people would know who would bat. Is that good for the game ? One of the never-ending charms of cricket is its uncertainty. The more that idea is preserved the better.” ‘ ‘ Do you think that the game needs brightening from within ? ” 1 ‘ I suppose you mean by the players. A batsman ought to play a free game. I am not encouraging reckless play. But a fellow has no right to waste time if he has got 15 or 20 runs. Then he should have got a good sight of the ball. I certainly think that county committees should select men who will play a free game. I am down on the man who ‘ sits on the splice.’ It is bad for the spectators, it is bad for his team, and it is bad for the opposing side. There are circumstances in which a player is justified in simply staying at the wicket. Take the case of Cook in the Notts, match at Old Trafford last year when he helped Mr. Hornby to gain that great win. But those men who sit on the splice from the beginning of an innings have caused the game to be talked about as it is. Now, in my opinion, county committees have this matter in then- own hands, where they have any choice of players. To a very large extent these committtees are, by choosing these defensive players, encouraging those cricketers who will not play the game.” ‘ ‘ What do you think about England’s prospects in the Triangular Tournament ? ” ‘ ‘ We need some young blood. That is my first thought. Why ? We want men who can field. Picking men for batting and bowling is of little use if you have no places for them in the field. We had a wet season when the Australians were last here, or else our fielding would have been shown up worse than it was, and that was need­ less. It is a nice thing when everybody wants to field at point or mid-off. The team ought largely to be chosen on a fielding basis. Take the best batsmen who are the best fielders in various positions. It is of no use selecting the best batsman if he cannot field and cannot move over the turf. We badly require men in the long-field. You see, if you take the best batsmen, whether they can field or not, their weakness has a bad effect on the rest of the team. A. O. Jones is the best fielder I have ever seen in my life, take him in every position. You can put him in the long-field, and you can place him at silly-point to Wass, but wherever he is he is in the right position. We cannot all be like the Notts, captain, but we can make fielding a great test for a place. Men like Jessop and Ransford are worth their places, because they have such a restraining effect on the batsmen. Our bowling will be hard to find, because we have so few outstanding men. No doubt the three trial matches were possibly arranged to find men who are fit for our tour in Australia, and that trip will tell the selectors the young men we have, but England needs a very strong team. Australia will probably have four left-handed batsmen in their side. That will make them a difficult lot to beat. The experience the South Africans have gained in Australia will do them a lot of good. If they had only had a little luck in the second match at Melbourne they would only have lost that rubber by 3-2. They are a young side and will play a keen part.” ‘ ‘ No, I do not think the googlie will prove the deciding factor in the Tournament. It is becoming easier to pick out the googlie ball. In my opinion the Triangular Tourna­ ment will be won by the side which has the best fielders, and the most stamina. The cricket will be a tiring process, and the lot who can stick it, as they say, will capture the laurels.” For Sydney Ram blers v. Dungog on April 15th , a bowler named Morgan took all ten wickets in an innings. G E O R G E L E W I N & C O . , (Established 1869.) Club Colour Specialists & Athletic Clothing Manufacturers OUTFITTERS BY APPOINTMENT To the M.C.C. West Indian XI.,1911; M.C.C. South African X I., 1909-10; the Australians, 1890, 1899 and 1902 ; Mr. Stoddart’s XI., 1894-1895, 1897-1898 ; Mr. MaeLaren’s XI., 1901-1902 ; West Indian XI., 1900 and 1906 ; South African XI., 1901 and 1907 ; and M.C.C., Lancashire, Kent, Surrey and Sussex Counties, Wanderers, Stoics, Bromley, Sutton, and all Public Schools’ Old Boys’ Clubs, and Queen’s Club.— Write for E st im a te s F r e e . W 0EKS CAMBERWELL- Telephone: P.O. City 601. 8, CROOKED LANE, MONUMENT, LONDON BRIDGE, E.C.