Cricket 1912

C R I C K E T I A W E E K L Y R E C O R D O F T H E C A M E .— A uoust 24 t h , 1912. ‘ Together joined in Cricket’s manly toil.”— B y r o n . N o ‘ 22 , „ . Y ° L t - " ‘ wSER,ES- S A T U R D A Y , A U G U S T 2 4 , 1 9 1 2 . P " « * 20 . h Chat about ^Vir. G. R. Hazlitt. There is no such thing as luck, say some people. These are generally among those who have all their lives had good luek at their elbows, but prefer to ascribe whatever success they have gained to merit. No one will ever persuade me that there is no such thing as luck. I have had too much—of the wrong sort. And I think it would be difficult to persuade Gervys Hazlitt of that same. He played for Australia when only nineteen. That, you m ay say, was good luek. I prefer to regard it as the due reward of merit. B ut it was certainly the roughest of luck to fail by a narrow squeak to gain a place in the Australian Team of 1909, and to m iss the Bhodes Scholarship which had been confidently predicted for him. And now that he has at length come to England as an Australian representative, he has had his chances of m ak­ ing runs severely discounted by eye trouble (it m ay not be generally known that he under­ went a slight operation for this some weeks ago), and has been accused of chuckiDg! I don’t believe in the alleged unfairness of H azlitt’s delivery. Not a whisper of anything like this was heard before he came over, and they are at least as keen in A ustralia as we are here in spotting a doubtful delivery. Moreover some critics are in­ clined to see doubtful action where others, with less carp­ ing tendencies (the critics in question m ay say with less knowledge or less judgment, I know), can discern nothing unfair. I have been told that H . L . Simm s has a doubtful delivery. I cannot for the life x>f me see it. W . B . B urns is another case in point. Lock­ wood came under the ban years ago and W illiam Quaife, and others in whom I saw no guile —of that kind, anyway. Gervys H azlitt played his first match for Victoria in 1905-6, when a youngster of seventeen, and though he did little then it was generally held that he showed great promise. In 1906-7 he made few runs in his- three matches for the state, but he bowled well, though without getting wickets cheaply. Four for 114 and 4 for 149 were among his analyses for single innings, figures which suggest overwork in the case of one so young and not specially robust. Playing for the Best of Australia v. New South Wales at the end of the season he made a capital 52, he and J . A. O’Connor unexpectedly putting on 100 runs for the ninth wicket. He ran up a century for Melbourne v. Carlton early in the 1907-8 season, and was bowling well too, so that his brisk innings of 28 (five 4’s) and his really excellent bowling (7 for 12 7 in the match) for his state v. the M .C.C. team under A. O. Jon es’s leadership came as no surprise. A fortnight later he scored 21 and took 6 for 13 4 v. South A ustralia at Melbourne. E very one agreed that he was worth his place in the Australian team for the first test; and, though as it chanced his bowling met with no success, his batting played a great part in a thrilling finish. Australia won the match by two wickets, and his stand with Cotter at the finish— the two added 56 in 39 minutes — was largely responsible for this. He showed real fighting qualities then, and great things were naturally ex­ pected of him . B ut he did very little in any of the remaining big m atches of that season, and, failing in the second test, was dropped out of Australia’s team. H e played useful all-round cricket in 1908-9, without doing anything remarkable. H is best innings was his 62 for the Best against the Australian Team at Sydney, his best bowling per­ formance 3 for 19 and 5 for 80 in South Australia’s two innings at Melbourne. While his per­ formances were onlymoderate,his promise was still so undeniable that m any felt an injustice had been done in leaving him out of the team for England. Q . R. H A ZLITT .