TEST BATSMEN.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20427, 23 December 1931, Page 11

TEST BATSMEN.

VIEWS OF ENGLISH CRITIC. BRADMAN AND DEMPSTER. (from oub owk correspondent.) LONDON, November 10. Mr Trevor Wignall ,in his "Daily Sportlight" column of the "Daily Express," to-day lias a good deal to say about cricket and cricketers. "Whether Don Bradman is the greatest batsman in -the world," he writes, "is bound, to be a matter of opinion." I do not pose as a judge (he proceeds), but he is decidedly the most wonderful cricketer of his age that 1 liav© ever watched. Some say that he has not the strokes or the polish of certain famous Englishmen, btit is this really important? Bradman gets the runs, and in Test cricket in particular that is about the only thing that matters. An Australian with whom I conversed on Saturday last produced the theory that young Stanley McCabe, another Australian, is superior to Bradman as a stylist and in sheer prettiness of stroke. This may be true, but I can see the contention starting another argument. McCabe was tho baby of the last Australian team, but although ho was quite a success he did not approach Bradman for scores of as an atttraction. There is not much difference in the ages of this couple, McCabe being slightly the younger, but a big score he ran up against Gilbert, the aboriginal fast bowler, last week, demonstrates that he is still impoving. Dempster's Excellence. It should not be forgotten, however, that there is a New Zealander named Dempster who is clearly in the Bradman and McCabe class. Ho was one of the big figures in English cricket last summer,, and if lie were given an opportunity of playing on this side for one of the chief counties it is oonceiveable that he would jump even nearer to the very top. I was able to watch Dempster only once, for I hau to leave for the United States just when ho was settling down, but he struck me as a batsman, with all the known strokes, and with a method that was the most excellent to watch. It is frequently stated of Australian cricketers that they are hardly more than Saturday afternoon players. This is said by way of emphasising that they do not get the same practice as Engj lishmen. i I do not altogether agree with the assertion, but it is perfectly correct that New Zealanders are limited to I what in effect are club games. The rise of a man like Dempster is therefore all the more significant. I think he can'be I counted with the twelve best on earth. Many, I admit, would be ready to reduce this number to six. Irritating Comparisons. Two of tho best of our younger players are Bakewell and Arnold, who are fairly sure to go to Australia next autumn. But I doubt if we have any newcomers who as yet are" quite so skilful as Bradman, McCabe, and Dempster. Englishmen take longer to develop than the youths of the Dominions. Bradman and McCabe were only boys when they played in their first Tests, yet they conducted , themselves like veterans." It would have required an explosion beneath his feet to have rattled Bradman. I am afraid that, like other writers, I am sometimes inclined to compare the old with the new. It is an irritating habit, and, what is worse, it never serves much of a purpose. To attempt to compare, say, Bradman with Jack Hobbs or Beggie Spooner is really a waste of time, for the trio are as poles apart. There will never be another Hobbs, and probably never another Spooner, and by the same token it is easy to guess that we are seeing the only Bradman of .our lifetime. Batsmen of the Past. Writing to the "Daily Telegraph," Mr Oscar Asche, the well-known actor, recalls that he saw Charles Bannerman. make 165 runs, retired hurt, in the first Test match at Meboume, March, 1877. As I was only five years old at the time (he says), I could not subscribe to the opinion, held *by many old Australians, that he was the greatest bat Australia ever produced. .But I saw both Hill and Trumper in their hey-day, and I saw Don Bradman here in '3O. He certainly did not' give the impression of a seeker after publicity, thought he quite rightly took advantage of the big fees offered him to write the story of his life, thereby incurring tho displeasure of the autocratic Australian Board of Control. ; In fact, he was very reserved, even amongst his comrades. He had nearly every stroke except the lofted drive. It was because he kept nearly everything on the carpet and looked so safe that' he was at times slightly boring to watch. As a run-getter he stands head and shoulders above all other Australian batsmen, and i 3, think, only approached by Sutcliffe in this particular quality. But close your eyes and dream back on the individual performances which have given, you most pleasure and beauty of style, and the figures of Trumper and Macartney stand out clear from the fog of years. So with English batsmen. There are bats one remembers having watched with greater enjoyment than Herbert Sutcliffe at his best, though none has equalled his record. Banji, "Tip", Foster, Spooner, Palairet, Woollev, George Gunn, all strike at the door of memory. Bradman had his faults, which may get him into trouble when he has lost than schoolboy eye. There was one bat in the last Australian eleven who was more exhilarating to watch than the Don, and one who may prove his equal as a run-getter—McCabe.