Cricket 1912

464 CEICKET: A WEEKLY sides batted. In other words, we cannot judge batting by the absolute standard of runs made. Even in the case of two sides that are equal in point of batting power against the same bowling, the batting of the side with the better bowling may be made to look greatly superior, because they are playing inferior bowling. This seems a mere platitude, but like most platitudes it is a truth that is often ignored, and has, in my view, been ignored by most critics in dealing with the triangular tests and the causes which gave England tho Championship and made England superior to, or at least emphasised England’s superiority over, the other two sides. Not one of the six matches played by England was played on a good wicket, and every one of the four, in which the weather permitted a definite result to be reached and an English victory to be won, was played on a pitch that was either very difficult (this applies to both Oval matches) or gave the bowlers plenty of assist­ ance, as was the case at Lord’s and at Leeds. So convinced do I feel from personal observation that England’s success was due to superior bowling, that I venture to express doubt as to whether England would have won any of her four finished games, if the Australian bowlers had been able to utilise the pitches as the bowlers of certain Austra­ lian sides of the past would have done, or if the South African bowling had been up to tho standard of 1907 in its collective aspect. England might, of course, have won all four matches, but the successes would only have been achieved after many moments of anxiety and by very much smaller margins. Tho probabilities are, however— and here one writes from the cricket point of view—that all the matches would not have been won. One must not, however, ignore the fact that the argument here advanced has another side. The better batting side, presuming equality of bowling, may make the bowling of the other side seem inferior according to the degree of superiority which the better batting side possess or can assert. In this case England was the superior batting side, and the fact emphasised the superiority of England’s bowling. At the same time our batting was apt to and did indeed break down whenever tho Colonial bowling, as it did periodi­ cally, attained the same standard as our bowlers not merely attained but maintained. The argument per contra is thus of little relevancy to the issue under discussion. A G en era l I m pression . To resume the main argument, it must be noted that the general impression left by bowling depends upon the technical insight and knowledge of the observer. There were many periods during which the South African and Australian bowlers looked every whit as difficult, and indeed were quite as difficult, as our bowlers. Our batsmen showed laborious defence and were frequently beaten. There was this difference, however, for the observer with the necessary insight and knowledge. Our batsmen were never in the same danger of getting out as were the Colonial batsmen; they could be beaten and yet survive to make more runs than the Colonials, partly because they stayed longer at the wickets, but also because, if they did so, they got a much larger proportionate number of bad length balls than the Colonial batsmen received. The truth is that none of the Colonial bowlers, except on rare occasions, and possibly these occasions were due to chapce, adopted right methods or bowled with the same consistent accuracy as our bowlers. As a rule tho error made by the Colonial bowlers consisted in attempting too much or, put broadly, in using “ good wickot ” methods on “ bad wickets.” Whenever a Colonial bowler hit the golden mean and bowled near the wicket and trusted to the pitch (thus correcting the error of too much break, etc.) he met with supreme success and our batting broke down just as badly as did the Colonial batting. Pegler, when he finished off the innings of England at Lord’s after going on for the first time at the Pavilion end, and Hazlitt when he finished off the second innings of England at the Oval in the most summary fashion oh “ test ” rocord, are two instances in point. The Colonial bowlers did not even adopt the time-honoured device of bowling round the wicket when they were doing too much over the wicket—a plan which Lohmann invariably adopted and almost always with suc­ cess. One cannot avoid the conclusion, therefore, that our opponents contributed to our success by the improper use OP THE GAME. A u g u s t 31, 1912. of their bowling skill or rather by failing to pvit their skill to proper account on bad wickets through adopting wrong methods. We always got more runs than we would have made, if the skill of the opposing bowlers had been properly and rightly directed. By parity of reasoning our batting was given an adventitious superiority in its collective aspect by the inferiority of the bowling of our opponents. It is for these reasons that the conditions were oven moro in our favour than would otherwise have been the case. Another conclusion is that our success—and assuredly the degree of our success—was due in part to indifferent captaincy and the failure of the Colonial leaders to utilise their experience of English conditions by giving their bowlers those very hints as to methods which, if taken, might have altered greatly the character of the cricket in, and the course of, each of the four games which we won. Still the general impression left by the play in all the matches was that we would have won the championship, if every match had been played under equal conditions or, in other words, on fast wickets and in real summer weather. I am equally certain, however, that the two visiting sides would have done much better if 1912 had been as 1911—a summer in which the sun ever “ lit up the morn ” and “ the golden rain of noon ” was the joy of every day. Under the actual conditions both visiting sides enhanced their inferiority by lack of adaptability, particularly in the matter of their bowling methods. T he L ast D ay of the L ast T e st . Although a day of more dramatic contrasts and sensational happenings never dawned over the Oval, one must deal brietiy with the last stages of the final test, because the play itself is now ancient history. When the game was resumed on Thursday, England were 198 runs on with 6 wickets in hand, and had lost 4 wickets for 64 runs in their second innings. As tho wicket was as difficult as ever, the result was assured, unless the unexpected, inmore ways than one, happened. Hearne and Ery took the score to 91, when Hearne was caught at forward short leg off a “ rearer.” Then Fry and Douglas, by an admixture of very good cricket and very good luck, added 79 before Fry, who had batted in all for three hours 40 minutes, was caught in the slips at 170. Then followed a dramatic change. The four remaining wickets fell for 5 runs, and the innings, which lasted for 4£ hours, closed for 175. When Australia went in again at 3.30 they had 310 to get. Their innings suffered the same sudden dramatic change as had marked the close of England’s second innings. The score board showed one for 0 ; then 1 for 46, then 2 for 46 ; later 9 for 54, and finally all out 65. The extraordinary character of the day’s play may be inferred from the figures, but had to be seen to be fully appreciated. Yet in a way it is more dramatic in print than it was to see, because to those who saw the play the two stands (that of Fry and Douglas for England and that of Jennings and Macartney for Australia) were as intelligible as the two “ collapses ” which followed. Fry and Douglas looked likely to get out any ball, and both had extraordinary luck, Fry in the matter of escapes from being bowled and once from being caught, and Douglas from being out leg-before. Still both played great cricket, and they merited their luck. Fry’s success was specially gratifying. Scarcely less so was that of Doug­ las, because it showed that he merited his place. Other features were the bowling of Hazlitt, who after going in at 167, finished off the innings by taking the last 5 wickets for 1 run in 4 overs 4 balls. He had previously been doing too much, and just as one had decided that he ought to bowl round the wicket, he accomplished this wonderful perform­ ance by continuing to bowl over the wicket. Another inci­ dent was when Fry trod on his wicket. The umpire gave him in on the ground that his stroke was completed before the wicket was broken. No other opinion matters. Yet another incident was the running out of Bardsley by Hobbs, who threw the wicket down from deep point. Bardsley made the stroke, and the wicket thrown down was of course that toward which he ran. The decision was much debated, but once more no other opinion save that of the umpire matters. If one may dare to say so, however, Bardsley did not appear to be at all conscious of his danger ; his back was towards Hobbs as he ran, and he did not greatly hurry. In fact, he did not realise the position until the