Cricket 1912

42 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. M a e. 30, 1912. But hold—what is this that I see ? MacLaren’s run up figures three ! Argentine— Born attack Has no terrors for Mac When he sets tongue— (and bat)— flashing free ! T h e selection of Frank Mitchell as captain of the South African Team came as something of a surprise, but certainly not as an unpleasant surprise to English enthusiasts. Mitchell should be quite the right man in the right place, firm and judicious. One South African critic objects on the score that he is not really an Afrikander, at a ll; but as F. M. captained the 1904 team this seems rather beside the mark. For the matter of that, B. O. Schwarz could be objected to on the same ground. Vogler seems to have no one but himself to blame for being left out. Kotze was not, after all, able to go up to Johannesburg for practice, owing to the illness of his father, and all idea of his joining the team has been abandoned. T. A. Ward has been chosen as second wicket-keeper, and Joe Cox was kept in suspense a shorter time than he had anticipated. There was some doubt as to B. Beaumont, the big, hard-hitting Transvaaler; but any difficulty in his case seems to have been overcome. The latest change— the substitution of Louis Strieker for .T. W. Zulch— is as yet unexplained. A. L. G ib s o n , of Essex, showed good all-round form in a match in Ceylon (the score will be found on another page) in February, scoring 69 not out, and taking 9 wickets for 90 in the two innings of the other side. Berhaps when he next plays for Essex he may be given a chance of performing with the ball. His brother, G . H. Gibson, captain of the Winchester eleven a few years ago, was playing in the same side, and made 42. In the course o f the first day’s play 659 runs were scored in 6 hours. A t half-past the eleventh hour it was announced from Sydney that after all Victor Trumper and Vernon Bansford m ight possibly join the Australian team for England. But within twenty-four hours came an explicit contradic­ tion from Bansford, who stated that he would not make the trip unless invitations were again extended not only to Trumper, bu t to Hill, Armstrong, Carter and Cotter. T h is was naturally out of the question. However anxious we may all have been to see the crack Australian players again— and I don’t think that their welcome here would have been any the less hearty for their squabble w ith the Board—we must all adm it that the Board would have stultified itself in the opinion of three continents if it had done as Bansford suggested. He and Trumper m ight have been added to the team. The whole six could n ot have been, b y any possibility. To have forced any of the men chosen in their places to stand down for them at the last moment would have been the grossest injustice. T h e whole affair is a tragic pity. B oth sides are as far in the wrong as it is well possible for both sides in any quarrel to be. The Board have had over two years in which to clear up the matter of Frank Laver’s alleged insubordination, and to leave the clearing it up till the time for choosing the team came was simply asking for trouble. Then, too, they went outside their legal powers, as it would seem, in appointing a representative who was also to be manager, which barred the players from choosing a manager for themselves. But this, as may be easily understood, was because the Board would not have Laver at any price. O n the other side, the players— the recalcitrant six, as Iredale styled them— stuck to Laver with something very like fanatic loyalty. They argued that he was indispensable to the team, which on the face of it was G ROUNDSMAN—CARETAKER for 7 acres Recreation Grounds and Recreation Institute attachod to Factory in West of England ; would suit couple with­ out encumbrance. Man mu*t be experienced in looking after Cricket Pitches and Grass Tennis Courts, and wife would be required to help look after and take an interest in Institute. State age and experience to Box 782, T. B. B rowne ' s A dvertising O ffice , 163, Queen Victoria Street, London,— [A dvt .] slightly absurd ; they saw that, with a majority for the Board on the Selection Committee, he had no chance of being chosen as a p la y er; and they believed that by holding together they could force the Board to accept him as player-manager. They were mistaken, however. M o s t of us hold that there should be a Board of Cricket Control in Australia. But few like entirely the methods of the Board as now constituted. A man who has been for years a popular idol is apt to be a trifle self- willed. But it is a fair question whether jumping on him with both feet is likely to convert him to sweet reasonable­ ness. The “ rebels ” felt that, having backed Laver in his tacit defiance of the Board, they could not desert him. One fancies that a word from Laver might have put that right. One is almost certain that a less arbitrary attitude on the part of the Board would have done so. F r a n k L a v e r , one of the best of good fellows, might have said, probably would have said if his temper had been more normal— for Clem Hill and Peter McAlister were not the only people who lost their tempers during the struggle— “ Well, see here, you fellows, I ’m very much obliged to you ; but I think this has gone far enough. There’s no reason why you should all lose the trip, and Australia be short of full strength, for my sake. I am outlawed by the Board ; but as for you—make your peace with it, and go ! ” T h e Board m ight have said : “ We are not satisfied with Mr. Laver. We do not consider that he did his duty in 1909. We are the masters of Australian cricket, and we mean to remain so. But we cast no reflections on Mr. Laver’s probity, and if the team is determined that he shall be manager, let him be manager, though under the distinct proviso that he submits himself to our authority, and that he gives our representative every facility to exer­ cise control over the financial part of the tour.” N o t even Messrs. Hill, Armstrong and Co. could have expected the Board to accept Laver again without his making submission. But he had gone farther towards that than most people here were aware until quite lately. The books about which so much fuss was made, the books that he would not produce— those very books were taken by Clem Hill, himself a member of the Board, to a meeting of the Board— and the Board refused to have any dealings with them ! Throughout, let it be distinctly understood, no charge has been made against Frank Laver’s honour, in spite of the silly statements about the enormous amount paid out in tips—which was surely no one’s business but that o f the players, for the Board’s percentage on the difference between £500 or so and, say, half the sum, is not worth mentioning. B ut enough of this. The long struggle is over. The Board has won. Was it not the Duke of Wellington who said that the only worse thing than a victory was a defeat ? The Board has won at heavy cost. It has, it would appear, driven out of first-class cricket Clem Hill, Warwick Arm­ strong, Victor Trumper, Vernon Bansford, Frank Laver, Hanson Carter and Albert Cotter. Montague Alfred Noble had already been thrust o u t ; was Albert Hopkins another of the victims ? He has been scoring largely in club Cricket in Sydney this season, but does not appear to have been considered even for the State team. W e shall miss them. We missed Hill in 1909 ; it Would have been good to see him again. We shall miss the dour, giant strength of Armstrong, the lithe gracefulness of Trumper, and the clever batting and splendid fielding of Bansford. The other three who might perhaps have tom e, leaving Hopkins and Noble aside, scarcely make the same appeal to the popular imagination. Hazlit may replace Laver, Carkeek may do every bit as well as Carter, McLaren may prove better than Cotter. But the very best of the new men can scarcely step into the shoes of Armstrong, Hill, Bansford and Trumper. B u t now to look on the brighter side. Is the team that is on the way a weak one ? Emphatically-—no ! Less