The lure of English cricket

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33141, 3 February 1973, Page 4

The lure of English cricket

(By

P.I. PHILPOTT, former

Australian test player)

Rumour has it that the Australian board of control may be considering limiting the participation of Australian players in English county cricket. The justifications of such an action are dubious, but the reasons behind the proposal are very interesting indeed and certainly have implications for New Zealand. There is little doubt that many were disappointed with the premature departure of G. D. Mackenzie from Australian first-class cricket, and many regarded his county commitment as the major cause of his loss. Others, too, pointed to the disappointing form of young K. J. O’Keefe after his Somerset venture as an indication of “the potential danger” of year-round cricket. Certainly the progressively dwindling enthusiasm of G. S. Sobers since his entry into county cricket has not gone unnoticed in this country. Add to these arguments the fact that Australians have always been rather sceptical about full-time, six-days-a-week English professionals, and the case for contemplated control is unfolding. Australians have long believed that week-end cricketers who play limited first-class matches each season are more likely to bring freshness, vitality" and enthusiasm to the game

which can more than compensate for the professional’s expertise. There has always been the vague worry that young cricketers could be “burnt out” too early by the fulltime approach. Of course, there is a great deal of nonsense in this reasoning and for every case quoted as an argument against county cricket, at least one other could be found to support it. But the fact remains that someone is attempting to build a campaign and there is some evidence to support it.

Frankly, I believe that any such campaign at the moment would revolve around D. K. Lillee. The West Australian has captured public imagination and undoubtedly he is the king pin of Australian cricket. R. Massie, R. W. Marsh, K. R. Stackpole and the Chappells are big names and popular figures, but the long-sprinting, big-hearted pace of the athletic Perth bank teller is what the public wants to see most. As always, the really quick, bowler who can hurt, has the crowds gasping. What would English clubs give for Lillee now? I doubt if any player in the world could command a higher price. And certainly fulltime cricket for Lillee would be a disaster for him, a greater blow still for Australian cricket, and probably, in the long run, a mistaker for the sport as a whole.

Lillee uses immense energy rather than technique, he drives and pounds himself, tearing away

mercilessly with all he has. 1 can well imagine him blasting through test sides for the next three or four years if he restricts himself to Australian cricket, but as a full-time professional his days of real pace would be sadly limited. Understandably, the Australian authorities, recognising that they now have both a drawcard and a match-winner, do not want to see this happen. Hence thoughts on restrictive legislation. But why is it that the board of control has only begun to show concern in the 19705? Why not the same worries over Bradman in the 1930 s or Lindwall, Miller and Harvey in the 19405? The answer to this lies in the changed attitude to first-class cricket in England over the last five years, when concern over dwindling gate receipts led to the entry of public relation experts into a game which for centuries had retained its “the game’s the tjting” atmosphere.

In spite of the presence of full-time professionals and full-time psuedo amateurs, cricket had remained a game for players which spectators were permitted — almost magnani-mously-—to watch. Players from other nations were not wanted in county cricket, as they limited the advance of local talent. To discourage the “foreigner” long term residential qualifications had to be served.

For instance, in 1959, 1 was invited to join Leicestershire, hut this would have entailed a three-year qualification period during

which time permanent residence in England was necessary while first-class cricket in either Australia or England was impossible. Of course this meant a total commitment to English county cricket and the end of any Australian career. Many Australians did move into country cricket. Before the war, the great E. MacDonald joined Lancashire, while later B. Dooland G. Tribe J. Livingstone K. Grieves, J. Pettiford — all Australian test players or potential test players — chose fulltime cricket in England. Their careers there were long and illustrious, but 1 know that those who forfeited the opportunity of representing Australia regretted their decisions. It was this latent ambition “to wear the green cap” which smoulders in every Australian cricketer, which kept Australians out of country cricket and led them instead to experience English league cricket. This required no qualification

period, it. meant only weekend cricket, provided experience in England against some of the world’s greatest players, and it was usually better paid than country cricket at that time. The Lancashire League is probably the best known of such competitions, but there are dozens of clubs from Scotland to Staffordshire prepared to pay one professional player, preferably from overseas. So, innumerable Australians — and. of course, West Indians, Indians, Pakistanis, South Africans and New Zealanders — “went to the leagues.” Most of them would have enjoyed a dabble in county cricket but qualifications precluded it. They tended to play a season or two before returning home. The new commercial attitude to English county cricket, however, created a momentous change. Overseas stars were actively sought to bolster county sides and attract crowds. Qualifications were brushed aside, payments rose, and West Indians. Indians, Pakistanis and South Africans were scattered liberally through the counties. Australians and New 'Zealanders were a little late in joining the movement, but gradually they went. Today the young, talented Australian can have it both ways—his Australian firstclass career coupled with an English first-class programme. The effect on English cricket is debatable. Some would point to increased crowds at Gilette Cup matches, featuring a galaxy of international stars, as a justification of the new commercialism. Others would point to the poverty of young talent coming on among the counties as a direct result of the foreign invasion. But of greater importance to me is consideration of the effect on young Australian and New Zealand players. And don’t brush this off as a hypo-

thetical question, for already this year three Australians and two New Zealanders — all first-class cricketers — have sought my advice on this matter. How many others then must be thinking it over? What has English cricket to offer? First and foremost, is an atmosphere quite different to that anywhere else, for England is still “the home of cricket,” and the approach towards the game within the fraternity is unique. It is a way of life, a religion, and the professional is totally involved in it. He has no outside business worries or recreation decisions.

There is nothing magics I about experiencing English conditions, however. Certainly they may call for a more correct technique in order to survive consistently —the batsman needs to concentrate on "side-on, tophana” cricket, the bowler must accept the preeminence of length and line. But far more significant is the sheer amount of cricket played. An English season is equivalent to several Australian seasons. A batsman may have 40 first-class innings and even in league cricket he might have 25 innings. Similarly, the bowler has a more concentrated season and obviously a player has the opportunity to broaden his experience faster. But there are dangers. A young pace bowler, ambitious to represent his country, would be foolish to embark on a county contract. Full-time cricket is no breeding ground for pace. On the other hand, a season or two in league cricket could give him most of the experiences he is seeking without the risk of losing energy cr keenness. For young batsmen or slow bowlers, however, I see little danger of exhausting enthusiasm. If they love the game, they prefer playing cricket to anything else. The youngster simply does not “get stale" and thrives on continuous cricket. The older player, however, would probably enjoy league cricket more The greatest danger for the youngster. I believe, is in the changing atmosphere between the countries of full-time, and part-time cricket. It can be a letdown for a young enthusiast coming back from his total cricket life in England to the more mundane routine. Many have found it difficult to adjust, and have let a promising cricket career slip away. This mental problem is the greatest danger of all. and it is this which has often been misinterpreted as “physically burnt out.” So, about English cricket experience, I come to these conclusions. By all means take the plunge and play under English conditions. Do not fool yourself that in so doing you have discovered a panacea for previous faults and have miraculously developed your technique. Be aware that if you intend to return home, you will need to adjust yourself to a completely different atmosphere. Do not make the mistake of thinking that only the English professional knows what cricket is about. And never, never believe that after the English experience, your cricket at home will be easy.

In the past many young players have made their decisions about cricket in England, and like all decisions, it is one for the individual alone. No matter how genuine the conception, official legislation can never be the answer. Australian and New Zealand cricketers play because they want to, and usually sacrifice a great deal to do so. They have the right to do what they will with their cricketing life. To this extent. I hope I never see the Australian board of control interfering with the players’ freedom of choice.