Cricket 1912

298 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. J u l y 6, 1912. The Triangular Tests. W h a t is E n g l a n d ’ s B e s t S id e o n F o r m ? B y H a m is h S t u a r t . 0. B. Fry could write, and I am under the impression that he did once write, an admirably convincing article on the theory of “ test team selection.” But the English captain, like others before him: has discovered that it is easier to theorise on the subject of test team selection than to give practical expression to the said theories by picking a really well balanced, well equipped side that has the smoothness of a machine in the field and is not merely a lop-sided, hotch-potch of good, or oven great players. Why selectors, hitherto known for something more than mere sanity of judgment, should lose one half of their discretion as soon as the official mantle of the selector falls on their shoulders, is a psychological problem which a selector alone might solve by a thorough process of self-analysis and introspection. The outsider cannot get within the mind of the selector ; he can only judge the selectors by the product of their joint wisdom, and that product generally falls a good deal short of justifiable expectation. Quite inexplicable errors have been made ever since the present system of selection was adopted, and apparently the tragedy of errors has still many acts to run before the curtain falls and we revert, if ever we do revert, to the old system which produced better sides. Those who criticise the work of the selectors often lack the courage of their real convictions ; they are willing to wound, but afraid to strike. Personally I see no reason why the selectors should not see themselves as they are seen by others. I would go even further and urge that whenever a responsible writer sees an error, or what he conscientiously believes to be an error, in selection, it is his duty to point it out, especially if he can support his views on reasoned grounds. The duty may be distasteful, but as Cromwell said of another great personage to whom he did irreparable injury, it is a “ stern necessity.” No one ever criticises the work of the selectors for the mere sake of being critical. The capable critic may occupy a position of secure freedom, but he does not occupy a position of less responsibility than the selectors. He must have regard to his reputation, even though ragged through wear; he must respect his own judgment; he has high interests to serve, and above all he has a sense of reverence for his office that is not the same sort of rever­ ence as is paid to the devil for his burning throne. Personally I have endeavoured to maintain the courage of my convictions in the matter of the English side. Moreover, all that one has written on the subject in previous articles has been amply justified by events, particularly in the third test at Lord’s last week. I held that we were not placing even our best batting side in the field ; that our bowling lacked variety, and that its weakness would be exposed if Barnes and Foster, as was always possible and indeed was almost probable, failed to meet with immediate, much more if they did not achieve sus­ tained success ; finally one pointed out that the old problem of placing the field, or rather of allocating suitable places for each man would be again in evidence, apart altogether from the fact that certain members of the side could not field well—I am applying the test standard— in any position. But the selectors paid no heed to criticism. They had picked their side, and they made no belated attempt to remedy its obvious defects. As I said what I now say before last'week’s match at Lord’s, I do not write in the light of events in urging the inclusion of Hayes, Douglas and Hitch for Warner, Heame and Foster in the England side for Leeds on 8th July. Events have nicely justified the views expressed a fortnight ago. Warner is one of our greatest batsmen, but if he is not fit, and if he is out of luck and out of form, as his long succession of failures of late indicates, then surely it is the part of wisdom to play a batsman like Hayes, who is in form and in luck, who never loses his side any runs even if he should fail to score and who is a useful change bowler. Heame can afford to wait for further honours ; he is certainly not at present such a useful all-round player as Douglas, apart altogether from any sentimental considerations which might be urged in favour of the Essex captain. The omission of Foster may seem rank heresy f but Dean, though a greatly inferior batsman, is bowling better than Foster at present, and is even more likely to go through a side. Foster has been freely punished in recent War­ wickshire matches, and seems to be suffering from staleness. Hitch is our fastest fast bowler and, though like most bowlers of his type he may have off days, he has never bowled better than he has done this season, and if well nursed may at any time do a big performance. His pluck is indomitable ; moreover he has plenty of stamina, while he is almost worth playing for his fielding alone. Apart from the other considerations urged, the intro­ duction of these three men, Hayes, Douglas and Hitch for Warner, Hearne and Foster would improve the fielding. Hayes and Hitch can field anywhere, and Douglas, if not brilliant, is useful. Hitch, Bames, *Dean," and Douglas form a fine bowling combination, with Rhodes,’-'Woolley, and Hobbs in reserve, provided always the English’ captain does not forget the last-named two as he did at Lord’s. In terms of what I have said, I venture to suggest the following side for the next te st: Fry, Spooner, Douglas, Bames, Rhodes, Hobbs, Hayes, Hitch, Smith, Woolley and Dean. Having seen all three test matches so far played, I have no hesitation in describing the English side—its defects notwithstanding — as the strongest of the threo sides. The relative merits of the sides is and must, of course, remain, a matter of opinion, yet one cannot accept the view, seriously advocated by one of our most respon­ sible, and certainly one of the most authoritative of papers, that the matches have shown that there is little to choose between the three sides. I should have to take a much narrower view of cricket than it is my custom to take, if I regarded the results of the two matches in which South Africa have participated as reflecting their real playing power or their relative merits as a side compared with England and Australia. There is no escaping the fact, however that they lost both matches in an innings, that their batting was poor, their bowling was ineffective and that their fielding as a whole fell a good deal short of the test standard. My personal impression is that both England and Australia are in little danger of defeat from the South Africans under equal ana normal conditions, but either might beat South Africa (Australia has already done so) under such conditions. Even if the same English side as played South Africa or the side that met Australia were again selected, then their batting is so strong that their defeat under normal conditions by either Colonial side is highly improbable, even if their bowling is not strong enough to beat Australia under such conditions, or rather to carry any assurance of victory. I regard England—and here I am taking the two sides that have already represented England—as the strongest side in batting and in bowling, Australia as second in batting and in bowling and best in fielding and the South Africans as a moderate third in all three departments. Anything may happen in cricket, but the infinite possibilities of the game, however eccentric be their manifestation, should never obscure one’s judgment in appraising the relative merits of contending sides. I took a sympathetic and, I trust, a broad view of the two South Africans defeats, and gave due weight to the moral and material causes that helped, as it happened, to make them seem a far poorer side than they are, yet I believe that the impression left upon my mind by their play is the impression left upon the minds of nearly all who saw the first and second tests. Moreover, I think that the above estimate of the merits of the three sides would be endorsed by nine out of ten persons who have seen all three tests. P o s t sc r ip t u m . — T h e selectors are g rad u ally approaching the best E n g lish side, and b y the tim e o f the last test m atch th ey w ill probably attain to the sam e. I t is a lo n g road to C orinth. E v e ry o n e w ill regret the stern n ecessity o f om itting W arn er, and everyon e w ill hope th at he w ill speedily recover his form and fitness. H a y e s should assu red ly h ave been in the side—but I need not add to w hat has alread y been said. To say m ore w ould be to suggest the Ir is h ju rym an w ho differed