Cricket 1911

J une 10, 1911. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 223 T h i s is a p h o t o g r a p h i c r e p r o d u c t i o n w i t h o u t a n y f a k i n g w h a t e v e r . T h e g r o w t h o f t h i s t i m b e r is b e l i e v e d t o b e u n i q u e . I f a n y C r i c k e t e r p o s s e s s e s a b l a d e s h o w i n g s u c h a w i d t h b e t w e e n t h e lin e s o f a n n u a l g r o w t h , w i l l h e k i n d l y c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h — W. E. B U S S E Y , 36, QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, L O N D O N . Cricket Notches. B y t h e B ev . R. S. H o lm e s . CORRESPONDENT airs a grievance : ‘ ‘ Could nothing be done to change what many persons think is one of the greatest evils of cricket, viz. the players and gentlemen coming out of different doors when they leave the pavilion ? ” Well, in my judgment, this is not a very serious matter. I take it that there are different doors because there are separate dressing rooms, and the cricketers use the door most convenient for their respective rooms. But why have separate rooms ? Largely because it would not be advisable, even if it were practicable, to herd twenty-two men in one and the same room. It may have come ahout in this way ; in the early days of cricketseveral noblemen and aristocrats took part in the game, such as the Duke of Dorset, Earl Tankerville and many others of the highest rank ; whilst the professionals then came from the humblest classes, and in many instances were employed on the estates of these lordly patrons of cricket. It was both natural and fitting that off the field of play they should not come into close contact. The professionals would not have felt at their ease : they were far happier by themselves. Some of us, too, can remember when the average professional was of a decidedly rough type, scarcely fitted by birth or training to associate with amateurs. It is very different to-day. A famous amateur, who was really a professional, once told me that had the professionals of his early days been as respectable as those of his closing years, he would not have hesitated to join their ranks. Of course, in the far distant period the amateur was a bona fide amateur who paid his own expenses : there was no veiled professionalism then. County Committees did not create bogus secretariates for men who wished to play cricket without losing caste—men who are professionals in everything but the name. That is the ‘ ‘ greatest evil ” of modern cricket, and should never have been tolerated. I have never heard a professional complain of the separate doors, but I have listened with hearty endorsement to their frequent mention of sundry amateurs who were making more money out of cricket than the players themselves. Up in the North in club cricket the classes mingle freely in the pavilion, with a possible gain to all. It was surely a happy inspiration on the part of Warner to decide that all the members of his team in Australia in 1903-4 should be guested in the same hotels throughout the tour ; he may have heard that in a previous tour separate tents were provided for the amateurs (so called) and professionals which resulted in distressing heart-burning. Perhaps the day is not far dis­ tant when the social line of cleavage will disappear from the cricket field and the pavilion : no genuine amateur would lodge a protest. It was a compliment to Kent and Surrey to be asked to release four of their ablest young cricketers for the trial match at Sheffield, and it speaks volumes for their reserve forces that both counties could, when thus impover­ ished, gain five points. Of course, Gloucestershire to-day in the absence of .Tessop are not formidable, but Sussex cannot be held cheap by any county. It is surely unfortunate for Goatly to be kept on the skirts of the Surrey eleven ; had he appeared thirty years ago when Abel made his debut he would at once have become a fixture in the team. And had Abel come out to-day, it is equally certain that no room could be found for him, and so we might have lost one of the finest batsmen for his inches ever seen. There are several counties who would extend a warm welcome to youngsters like Goatly, just as Somerset were only too glad to have Braund when Surrey could not give him a fixed place in their team. Some cricketers have been born too late. Are the authorities satisfied with this experimental match ? If they are, nothing remains to be said. To me, a trial match a year in advance is almost farcical, form varying so markedly from season to season. But if we are to have such a match, do select the players on a sensible plan, and not, as at Sheffield, goodness knows how. Next year will be the fitting time for a properly organised Trial match, within a week or two of the Test matches. But whatever is done, see to it that the rigour of the game is observed. Fancy changing your sides after a match has begun. That is not cricket. After that could the players have regarded the match seriously ? I have no doubt the youngsters did, and some of them acquitted themselves with distinction. Booth, for instance, did. But why wasn’t he chosen until the morning of the match ? I was surprised to see his name, although he ought to have been among the first selected ; in both innings he batted well, and his bowling— 4 for 52—was the best of the match. Young Hearne ought to be a certain England player ; and Strudwick, although he is about to take his benefit, should at last receive his cap. The captain for next year we can fix upon at once ; Warner is our man ; a great batsman and a born leader. If you want confirmation, ask any of the men who served under him in Australia and South Africa : as one of them graphically said to me— “ He’s one of the very best.” .Tessop one is doubtful about, spite of sundry comments on his vigorous century at Sheffield : but he cannot feel too proud of an innings