Lives in Cricket No 34 - Frank Mitchell

110 In The Cricketer Winter Annual 1931 he went further: ‘By the laws of cricket a man is either an amateur or a professional. The career of the latter is pleasant and profitable, and it would not be surprising if the next generation do not see many young men who would either be seeking employment as curates or private schoolmasters joining the ranks as professional cricketer.’ His final thoughts were penned for a Cricketer article in September 1933: ‘To our mind the submersion of the amateur is not good for the game. We have no quarrel with the professors but we are still convinced that a blending of the two is the best for the game. Possibly it would be as well were the two classes to be positively fixed by a definition of what is an amateur. It is an old subject which few care to discuss though it is well understood.’ Nearly thirty years later the subject was finally discussed and put to rest, largely through those calling themselves amateurs realising that their time was over. More campaigns In the late 1920s with large scores being made in both county and Test matches Mitchell was an early advocate of changing the size of the wicket, and his advocacy did bear fruit when in 1929 the size was experimentally increased by one inch in width and one inch in height, leading later to a permanent change. He recognised the problems that touring sides of England often had when playing on unfamiliar wickets, proposing that they have an opportunity to play a match on each Test ground before any Test appearance on that ground. He gave encouragement to groundsmen, constantly suggesting that they be permitted to use marl to bind together the surface, but that, above all, that they be freed from outside interference in the manner in which they prepared their wickets. He urged the provision of better scoreboards with much more information upon them, noting the contrast between those at Melbourne and Sydney with the boards on the English grounds. It would be many years before that issue was properly addressed, and some would say that his urging of more information being given over loudspeaker systems has still to be adequately considered today. He foresaw the future debate, still in progress, on the engagement by the counties of overseas players. At a time when English and Australian cricketers remained dominant in the world game he wrote ‘We should be the importers and not the exporters’ and in 1929 ‘It should be beneath our dignity to attempt to induce any member of a visiting team to stay in England for the purpose of playing cricket.’ His general context was in relation to South African players. What would he have thought of the past few years? He ventured onto more dangerous ground in 1930 when reflecting on the possibility that Duleepsinhji might be chosen to represent England against Australia that summer: ‘The generality of us would prefer to beat Australia with a side that is English born and bred.’ Yet in August 1930 he also wrote that there is ‘every sign that the East is going to be a great factor in the cricket world’ . In the Winter Annual for 1932, and never mentioning that he played international cricket for two countries, he wrote ‘ Let us make a fresh start and frame some code of laws which will insist on men playing A column in ‘The Cricketer’