Cricket 1912

A p r i l 27, 1912. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. 79 Cricket: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 33 and 35, MOOE LANE, LONDON, E.C. SATURDAY, APBIL 27, 1912. Communications to the Editor should be addressed to him at 33 & 35, Moor Lane, E.C. Advertisements, Subscriptions, &c., should be sent to the Manager, at the same address. The following are the rates of subscription to C r ic k e t :— Great Britain. Abroad. One Year ... ... ... 6s. 3d. ... 7s. 6d. The 24 Summer Numbers ... 5s. Od. ... 6s. Od. The 6 Winter Numbers ... Is. 3d. ... Is. Gd. pavilion Gossip. The abstract and brief chronicle of the time. — Hamlet. S o m e t h in g definite h a s now emerged from the welter of protest meetings, talk of injunctions to restrain the Board, angry letters and bitter speeches, which have marked the various stages of the quarrel between the Australian Board of Control and a number of the leading players, backed up by a considerable section of the public. At a meeting in Hobart, Mr. T. A. Tabart, an old member of the Tasmanian team, moved that Mr. W. P. McElhone, chairman of the Board, be asked to resign, “ as he has not the confidence of the cricket-supporting public and players of Australia, and his presence is a hindrance to an amicable settlement of the dispute.” T h is is fair and straight hitting, and as such has my approval, for what that may be worth. There can be no doubt that Mr. McElhone is the ruling spirit of the Board as at present constituted, and he is a man who strikes one as quite ready to accept responsibility and meet his opponents openly. I don’t say he ought to resign, mind— only that Tabart’s motion is of the sort better calculated to clear the air than hours of windy rhetoric about the misdeeds of the Board generally. A n interview with Mr. McElhone appeared in this paper late in 1908. It dealt chiefly with the Triangular Tournament, which Mr. McElhone opposed at first, and scant reference was made to the players. The Chairman of the Board of Control, by the way, is comparatively a young man. He was born in 1870. Eric McElhone, the N.S. Wales player, is his nephew, not his son, and Herbert Hordern is also Eric McElhone’s uncle. N e a r l y all the prominent Australian cricketers of the past seem to be “ agin the Board.” Among these, one may mention Joe Darling, H. H. Massie, Harry Moses, J. W. Trumble, George Giffen, T. W. Garrett, G. H. S. Trott, George Bailey, and W. Bruce. On the other hand, it seems probable that the rising generation will stand by the Board. The team now nearing our shores is said to be incensed at the slighting comments passed upon it by the press, and resolutely determined to prove that it is no second-rate combination. Should it come out well at the end of the tour, the Board will hold something very like an ace of trumps. I t is not to be supposed that public opinion down under is entirely anti-Board. In Brisbane and Sydney the Board’s supporters are probably in a large majority ; and in the other cities there is a strong minority in its favour. A t a protest meeting in Melbourne Matthew Ellis, a well-known State player, was not allowed a hearing because it was believed that he held pro-Board views. This sort of thing is neither creditable nor judicious. If the case for revolt is so strong Mr. Ellis could not damage it, and to refuse to hear him was unfair. “ N o t O u t ” of the Sydney Referee is a champion of the Board, and “ Not Out ” is a gentleman for whose opinion I have the greatest respect. He is also a believer in the Fourteenth Australian Team. So is Dr. Leslie Poidevin, another excellent judge. But another well- known Sydney journalist— I don’t mention his name, since he did not give explicit permission—writes thus :— “ Our unfortunate cricket trouble has robbed the great carnival of 1912 of much of its interest. The dis­ carding of Messrs. Hill, Trumper, Armstrong, Bansford, Carter and Cotter, the inability of Mr. IT. V. Hordern to make the trip, and faulty selection, has left us with rather a moderate side, although some of the new men are bound to do well. Still it is a great disappointment, especially as the trouble could easily have been overcome without weakening the influence of the B oa rd; in fact a little tact and forbearance at this juncture would have placed the Board in an impregnable position, but now the whole cricketing section of the Commonwealth is stirred to its depths and will not readily settle down again. “ By the appointment of Messrs. McAlister and Iredale to the selection committee, instead of Messrs. Armstrong and Trumper, the Board threw down the gauntlet at the very outset of the season, and although opportunities were not wanting it resolutely declined to hold out the olive branch. When it is considered what “ The Six ” have done for cricket, what popular idols they have been with the cricketing public everywhere, it seems a thousand pities that the Board did not adopt a conciliatory attitude instead of mistaking obstinancy for firmness ; but alas ! “ human reason is a feeble torch carried by stumblers on a starless night.” Pi'obably very little more will be seen of these great players on the cricket field, but Hill and Trumper will be names to conjure with in days to come.” T h e scoring system invented by Mr. .Tames Young, official scorer to the N.S.W.C.A., was referred to in a recent number of this paper. Mr. Young has now sent me the detailed score of the return match between N.S.W. and the M.C.C. Many interesting facts can be gleaned from it. I give only a few of them here. I n Wilfred Bhodes’s first innings he received 197 balls, and scored 119 off them. Hazlit (70 balls, off which 32 were scored) and Kelleway (36 balls, 15 runs) kept him fairly quiet; but he scored freely off Scott (39— 26), Macartney (14— 14), and Emery (38— 32). His second score of 109 was made off 119 balls. This time the pace was hotter all round, Emery (32— 25) and Macartney (16— 9) coming in for least punishment, while Kelleway (25— 23), Collins (21— 18), Scott (13— 15) and Hazlit (12— 19) were the other bowlers. S y d G r e g o r y ’ s 186 were made off 351 balls. Eight bowlers had a go at the little man, only to leave him unconquered at the finish. Foster (63 balls, 21 runs) and Barnes (42— 12) presented more difficulty than the rest, whose respective showings were : Douglas (85— 47), Woolley (55— 40), Bhodes (46— 27), Hobbs (27-—14), Vine (24— 18), Hearne (9— 7). T r u m p e r made 53 runs off 75 balls in the second innings, Emery 65 off 113. In all the Englishmen made 510 runs (38 extras included) in 433 minutes, their opponents 509 (51 extras) in 491 minutes. The more one sees of Mr. Young’s system, the greater is the value one puts upon it. Mr. J. F it z p a t r ic k (Sydney) writes :— Re selection of teams, the suggestion put forward in January’s C r ic k e t that the last choice might well be left to the captain of the side is an excellent one, and an effort will be made to have it adopted here next season. Regarding the team for England— a good deal of dissatisfaction exists and it is pretty generally agreed that E. P. Barbour, S. J. Fen- nelley, Dr. C. E. Dolling and C . McKenzie are better batsmen than some of those selected. Indeed, the omission of Mr. Barbour is nothing short of a blunder, as he is one of the finest cricketers in Australia. Mr. Gregory, despite his success against the English team, has failed so regularly in England that he is extremely lucky in being chosen