Cricket 1911

December 23,1911 . EUGBY FOOTBALL AND CEICKET. 599 Cricket in Australia. B y P . R. L e C odteur . Undoubtedly Australia’s batting strength depends to a very great extent on the variety of styles at her disposal. The fact has often been remarked, but, strangely enough, all enumerations of the elements composing the variety seem to stop short with a bare statement that Australia is rich in good left-handers. But this is by no means the end of the story. It is really only the introduction. Perhaps it is worth while drawing attention to three points which are rather overlooked.. It is worthy of remark that the Australian side has had con­ tinuously for many years a striking characteristic, due perhaps to deliberate foresight of those controlling Australian cricket, perhaps to mere chance. This characteristic is an extraordinary inequality in theJphysique of its eleven members. Consider the relative sizes, for example, of Trumble and Gregory, or of Armstrong and Macartney. As a small boy I remember that my interests in the rules of boxing, especially in that rule which decides how low one man can hit another, received a decided fillip after I had seen a photograph in which Trumble and Gregory were represented as engaged in deadly conflict, the result, so rumour said, of a challenge from the latter. It calls to mind the recent and similar encounters between Jack Johnson and George Robey, and Kirkaldy and Sayers. If one considers the personnel of late Australian elevens he finds that they all, without exception, have contained extraordinarily big men and extraordinarily small men. For example, in the last team that came to England were Armstrong, Noble, Laver and Macartney, Gregory, Carter. Can a bowler ever be sure that he has got the measure of a side of batsmen differing in stature so completely as these ? It is very improbable. He may dismiss all the big men and find himself unable to make an impression on the small ones, or vice versa. What usually happens is that he has great difficulty, in a partnership between two such opposites, in adapting himself quickly, and consequently his bowling, and indeed his whole state of mind ; is unsettled and perturbed. Speaking generally, tbe large man’s scoring shot is a drive of some sort, and the small man’s a glance or late chop or cut. A ball which the former may hit between mid-off and cover the latter prefers to place past the slips—the wicketkeeper’s bete noir. It is extremely difficult for a bowler who must send down three balls an over to one man and three to the other to adapt himself at once, and reproduce at will either of the two quite different mental states. For good bowling is the result of a delicate balancing of forces, and this can be very easily disturbed, far more easily than tbe peculiar feeling of equilibrium of which a batsman is conscious. Another contrast whieh gives considerable variety to the side is that while some of the batsmen are firm-footed others leap out of their crease on the slightest provocation. Take, for instance, the contrast between Armstrong and Kelleway on the one hand, and Hill and Ransford on the other. The former do not move unless forced to do so ; the latter only remain still under restraint. It is a curious fact that this readiness to jump in at a ball seems to be more common in Australia than in England. One might have expected that here, where the wickets are not so true as in Australia, it would have been found more profitable to leave the crease than it is there. But on the contrary it is an Australian characteristic, and an Australian, Harry Graham, has shown the highest development of the art. When these two sets of facts are borne in mind, the presence on the Australian side of men large and small and of jumpers and non­ jumpers, and when it is remembered that these give four combina­ tions, one is able to appreciate better the task which the M.C.C. bowlers must undertake. Nowhere could be found a better illustra­ tion of the utter ineptitude of the advice so often given to bowlers, and so annoying to them,— “ bowl a length.” What is a length against such a mixed assortment ? There is certainly no spot on the wicket which can be pointed out as the pitching spot for a “ length ” ball. For such a ball differs for each batsman. What would be a length for little Carter might be something like a half­ volley for Armstrong, and what might be a length for firm-footed Kelleway might become a half-volley for Hill. No one knows better than a bowler that it is necessary to bowl a good length, and no one but the bowler knows the difficulty of judging exactly what that length must be with each separate ball. The man sometimes called a “ monotonous length bowler” most frequently uses all manner of subtle variations of pitch. Most people will agree that at the present time the two above- mentioned points make for more variety in an Australian than in an English team. Perhaps there may not be equal agreement with the third point, that greater variety is gained by the Australians in their more frequent use of irregular shot-strokes “ not in the book. ” If one could put all English and Australian batsmen into two separate bags, shake them up, and then produce from each bag a type, one would find that while tbe English style is prettier and more graceful the Australian contains more unexpected shots. If this estimate is correct, the fact may be due firstly to the wickets, the good ones allowing the batsmen to do extraordinary things, the bad ones com ­ pelling him, and secondly to the comparative absence of coaching. Of these three points too little has been said by those who seek to explain the strength of Anstralian batting. Yet they are most important, particularly the first. If one were asked what .has made representative Australian teams so strong, and were limited in his answer to one single point, he could not make a better reply than that they have always been composed of giants and pigmies. In the side picked for the first Test Match the contrast is less marked than it has been for many years, but yet it is very noticeable. In considering the variety in the present Australian side all estimates agree as to the value of three left-handers like Hill, Bansford and Bardsley. These three players agree, however, only in being left-handers. Each has a style most strikingly his own. Were they not left-handers they would be mentioned more for their contrasts than for their likenesses. THE SECOND-CLASS COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP FIXTURES, 1912. 27. 9.- 12 . 12 .- MAY. —Oval, Surrey 2nd XI. v. Kent 2nd 27.- XI.. JUNE. —Newcastle, Northumberland v. 24.- Cheshire —In Durham, Durham v. Cheshire 20.- —Oval, Surrey 2nd XI. v. Glamor- 26.- gan —Stoke, Staffs, v. Monmouthshire 27.- —Blaekhill, Durham v. Staffs. JULY. —St. Albans, Herts, v. Norfolk —Town Mailing, Kent 2nd XI. v. Staffordshire —Cardiff, Glamorgan v. Monmouth­ shire —St. Albans, Herts, v. Bedfordshire —Stoke, Staffs, v. Northumberland —In Cheshire, Cheshire v. North­ umberland —Cardiff, Glamorgan v. Wiltshire --Bedford, Bedfordshire v. Norfolk —Stoke, 8taffs. v. Kent 2nd XI. —Camborne, Cornwall v. Devon. —Oval, Surrey 2nd XI. v. Wiltshire. —Bedford, Bedfordshire v. Bucks. —Penzance, Cornwall v. Monmouth­ shire 22 .- 22 .- 22 .- 22 .- 23.- 24.- 24.- 26.- •2(5.- 31.- Newcastle, Northumberland v. Durham •Newcastle, Northumberland v. Lincolnshire -In Durham, Durham v. Lincs. -Newcastle, Northumberland v. Staffordshire -Bedford, Bedfordshire v. Hert­ fordshire -Truro, Cornwall v. Kent 2nd XI. -Lincoln, Lincs. v. Cambridgeshire Exeter, Devonshire v. Monmouth­ shire -Walsall, Staffs, v. Durham -Bushey, Hertfordshire v. Suffolk -In Cheshire, Cheshire v. Durham -Bletchley, Buckinghamshire v. Bedfordshire -Exeter, Devonshire v. Berkshire -Oval, Surrey 2nd XI. v. Suffolk -Grantham, Lincs. v. Durham -Camborne, Cornwall v. Berkshire -Cambridge, Cambridgeshire v. Suffolk -Neport, Monmouthshire v. Devon. AUGUST. -Poole, Dorset v. Kent 2nd XI. -Bletchley Park, Buckingham­ shire v. Wiltshire -B ury St. Edmunds, Suffolk v. Norfolk -Cambridge, Cambridgeshire v. Herts -Reading, Berkshire v. Devon -Norwich, Norfolk v. Hertfordshire -Ipswich, Suffolk v. Cambs. -Chester-le-Street, Durham v. Northumberland -Cardiff, Glamorgan v. Surrey 2nd XI. -Dorchester, Dorset v. Berkshire -Exeter, Devon v. Cornwall -Felixstowe, Suffolk v. Hertford­ shire -Beckenham, Kent 2nd XI. v. Dorset -Westbury, Wiltshire v. Surrey 2nd XI. -Stoke, Staffordshire v. Glamorgan -Reading, Berkshire v. Cornwall -Aylesbury, Bucks. v. Herts. -Gravesend, Kent 2nd XI. v. Corn­ wall -Newport, Monmouthshire v. Glamorgan -Luton, Bedfordshire v. Cambs. -Reading, Berkshire v. Dorset -Norwich, Norfolk v. Suffolk -Trowbridge, Wiltshire v. Glamor­ gan 14.- 14.- 16.- 16.- 16.- 16.- 19.- 21 .- 23.- 23.—( -Abergavenny, Monmouthshire v Cornwall -Cambridge, Cambridgeshire v. Bedfordshire -In Lincolnshire, Lincolnshire v. Northumberland -Norwich. Norfork v. Cambs. -Exeter, Devon v. Dorset -Norwich, Norfolk v. Bedfordshire -Trowbridge, Wiltshire v. Dorset -Hythe, Kent 2nd XI. v. Surrey 2nd XI. -Reading, Berkshire v. Bucks. -Wimborne St. Giles, Dorset v. Wiltshire -Cambridge, Cambridgeshire v. Norfolk ■Sherborne, Dorset v. Devon -Ipswich or Felixtowe—Suffolk v. Surrey 2nd XI. ■Cambridge, Cambridgeshire v. Lincolnshire -High Wycombe, Buckingham­ shire v. Berkshire Swansea, Glamorgan v. Stafford­ shire -In Wiltshire, Wiltshire v. Buck­ inghamshire -In Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire v. Cambridgeshire Newport, Monmouthshire v. Staffordshire In Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire v. Buckinghamshire R 1 0 HARD DA PT ’S NOTT I NGHAMSH I RE MARL.-Particulars, apply Radcliffe-on-Trcnt, Notts.—(A dvt .)