Cricket 1912

A u g u s t 31, 1912. CRICKET: A WEEKLY The Triangular Tests. S ome A fterthoughts on the N in e M atches . E ngland ’ s S uccess due to S uperior B owling . B y H amish S tuart . Although the Triangular Tests have failed to roalise the expectations, much less the hopes, of tlioso who pro­ moted the scheme, the comparative failure—for after all the failure was only comparative—of the greatest competition ever arranged and the most important and novel series of matches ever played has been directly due to circum­ stances which were beyond control and could not be foreseen. England alone had a side that could fairly bo described as fully up to the “ test ” standard in all respects, though whether the side was up to the highest English standard is another matter. In my opinion the English side was not up to the highest English standard and was not such a good side, for example, as the 1902 side. I doubt whether the side could have fought the uphill fights against odds which the 1902 team fought. The side was never really tested, however, and was probably given an adventitious appearance of strength by the comparative weakness of their opponents, particularly in effective bowling under the prevailing conditions. The Australians, though a good side, were greatly weakened by the absence of certain men who would have been in the side but for the “ rupture.” Trumper, Hill, Armstrong and Ransford would have made a very great difference. Their absence was one of the circumstances over which the promoters of the scheme had no control. Under the circumstances the Australians, though a good side in posse, for many of the young players on the side have yet to realise their powers, and these are unquestionably great, could not be compared with Austra­ lian sides of the past in any department save fielding. They had only three batsmen (Kelleway, Macartney and Bardsley) of the same class as the best Australian batsmen of the past. The batting of the side as a whole lacked the solidarity and was below or made to appear b ilow that of Australian sides of the past. The same remark applies to the bowling. There were good bowlers in the side, but there were no great bowlers. The South Africans were in all respects inferior to the side of 1907 as a “ test ” side. Their batting, chiefly because those of whom most was expected were most disappointing, was poor, but the real cause of their failure was the falling-off in their bowling. If all three sides had been up to their highest standard, it is safe to say that the “ tests ” would havo produced a far keener and closer series of struggles and that we would have heard a great deal less as to the failure of the tourna­ ment because of its very character as a competition. The failure was due to special causes as already indicated. England alone, as I have said, had a side that was fully up to the test average. Yet if Australia had had a side representing her full present strength and not a side con­ taining so many youngsters unused to English conditions and the South African bowling had been up to the standard of 1907, we should have had a great and keenly-contested series of games, in spite of the weath jr. In the case of the South Africans, their moderate batting would have been of less moment and would certainly not have had the same disastrous consequences, if the bowling in its collective aspect had been as good as in 1907. As it was the poor form of South Africa in four of their six tests—one might say their signal failure to do their powers even approximate justice in the first two matches—robbed the competition of much of its interest and reduced it to a duel between England and Australia. T h e W eather . Finally the weather did much to ruin the competition, and must have done so to a very groat extent, even if the sides had been the strongest, that all three communities had over “ fielded.” At the same time it is safo to say— and having seen all nine matches I base my opinion on personal observation—that England would not have beaten South Africa with anything like the same ease in all three matches if the South African bowling had been up to the RECORD OF THE GAME. 403 1907 standard, while it is absolutely certain that Australia would not havo gained such decisive victories as they won at Manchester and at Lord’s. How the sides would have fared if hard wickets and real summer weather had been “ the conditions ” in all the matches can only be matter for conjecture. In all probability, however, the two visiting sides would have been seen to far greater advantage against England—I do not except England v. Australia at Lord’s, and do not think that England v. Australia at Manchester was a fair test—than they were under the actual conditions in the four matches with England that had a definite result. In the case at least of the Austra­ lians, their batting at Lord’s can be quoted in support of the generalisation advanced. Then there is yet another consideration. It is trite knowledge that the “ home ” side always possesses two initial advantages in all test, matches, though the degreo of each advantage depends naturally upon circumstances. The two advantages possessed by the home side are greater familiarity with the prevailing conditions and a wider range of selection. H ome S id e s ’ A dvantages . As to the first of these advantages, the Australians aro naturally more used to Australian conditions than aro English or South African sides, while the South Africans in South Africa have the advantage which constant playing on matting wickets confers. English sides are in turn more used to rain-ruined or rain-affected pitches and to playing in cold, damp weather, than are Australians and South African sides. But the degree of the advantage obviously depends in each case upon the relative strength of the sides otherwise and upon the adaptability of the visiting sides. In the series of tests just finished England had the strongest side, and hence the advantage of playing on peculiarly English wickets and under peculiarly English climatic conditions was more pronounced than it would otherwise have been, especially as neither visiting side showed the same adaptability as previous Australian and South African sides have displayed. As to the second advantage, the home side need only include men “ in form,” and may be varied at the last minute, so a* to include players—particularly bowlers—suitable to the actual or prospective conditions of any match. The visiting sides have no such range of choice. They must run the risk of men being in form or out of form, while they cannot greatly vary their side to suit the conditions. Obviously, therefore, the home side have here again a groat advantage. But the degreo of the advantage also varies, and is dependent upon the “ material ” availablo and. the judgment with which it is utilised. It must bo admitted that in the Triangular Tournament England has enjoyed both advantages to an exceptional degreo, and tho fact, read in the light of the considerations previously advanced, should give us pause in forming any estimate of the real playing power of tho English side as compared with past English sides. It should also “ moderate our transports ” in the matter of England’s success in winning the Cham­ pionship. All these considerations do not, howovor, necessitate any hesitation as to the merits of the sides. As tho games were played, England was the superior side in all depart­ ments save fielding. In fielding tho Australians wore at least our equals. In other respects both the visiting sides were our inferiors, though not to the degroe to which the bare results point, for the margins by which we won wore undoubtedly increased by tho conditions and by the superiority of our bowling under such conditions. Here I roach what I believe to be the true secret of our success, and was assuredly the cause of the margins by which wo won being so large. E ngland ’ s S uperior B owling . Looking back over the nine test matches, I havo no hesitation in attributing England's success to superior bowling in the widest sense of the term. One is apt to forget that in dealing with cricket, no judgment can possibly be just, logical, or convincing which ignores the relative. One side may make many more runs than the other side without batting any better, and wo can only judge of the real relative merits of the batting by taking the quality and character of the bowling into the calculation, and also the conditions otherwise under which the two