CRICKET REFORM

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 110, 3 February 1938, Page 3

CRICKET REFORM

M.C.C. Commission’s Report A CRITIC’S SURVEY ( After nine months of careful study the commission “appointed by the Marylebone Cricket Club at the request of the Advisory County Cricket Committee to investigate the problems confronting the counties taking part in the first-class county cricket championship” have produced their report, writes “Watchman,” in the “Observer,” London. It ie long, it is complicated, it is many-sided, and it contains no bombshells. The commissioners, W. Findlay, R. C. N. Palairet, and R. H. Mallett, do not wave the red flag of revolution. They have approached cricket as a great game, too complex and honoured to be lightly despoiled, not as a mere recreation for the mob, which can be “jazzed" to suit the mood of an hour. In considering their viewpoints and their recommendations it is necessary to recall, the situation which led to the creation of the commission. At the end of the season of 1936, after a series of wet, bleak summers, many county clubs were in a desperate state of poverty. The wolf which had been kept at bay for so long was at the doorway at last, and it looked as if some of the committees were prepaid to adopt any wildcat scheme which seemed to have even a remote chance of increasing “gates.” They had forgotten, as the committees generally do in such circumstances, that their troubles were in a big measure caused by the bad weather, which had equally affected the hire of boats on the rivers, the ice-cream trade, seaside boarding-houses and hotels, and everything else which depends upon sunshine for profit.- But the counties only . saw that their balance-sheets were bad and a crisis approaching rapidly. So they did what they generally do in times of trouble and turned to the M.C.C. for aid. The commissioners had many 1 schemes brought before them, but they have carefully refrained from recommending the more drastic forms of “reform,” such as allowing the visiting team to bat first instead of tossing for innings, period play, two-day matches, a longer over, and a method of promotion and relegation from teams of different divisions. Indeed, of the changes they do recommend that are more directly concerned with the manner of play’ as distinct from financial 'jugglery, two present, any cause for reasonable objection. Of these, one applies to short-pitched fast bowling, commonly known as “negative length, ’ the other to a reduction in the number of firstclass counties. Line for Bowling? In regard to “negative length,” they contend that much of the dull play is caused by the bowlers rather than by the batsmen, and they suggest that, a line or lines should be drawn across the wicket, bevond which bowlers would be required to pitch the ball, or be penalised in some wav. presumably by being noballed.” Blit here we are on very slippery ground. The spot where “negative length” meets the ground differs appreciably with the pace of the pitch and the speed of different bowlers. Are we. then to have half-a-dozen lines drawn across the wicket, or is a groundsman, armed with brush and bucket and whitewash, to rush forth periodically nnd change the position of the line? Moreover. an accurate howler would soon learn to pitch the ball mechanically an inch nr two over the line, and still be negative in effect but not in law. Consider. too. the unfortunate umnire. He cannot have eyes everywhere. There aie too manv snags here for comfort. No dotibf balls short of a length used persistently do slow down the scoring, although the many batsmen who now play right back to everything and regard n forward push stroke as old-fash-ioned, cannot be considered innocent parties. They turn into “negative” bowling deliveries which used to ho driven. Bnt if a player regulnrlv nnd glaringly bowls with purely defensive intentions and is obviously doing more harm than good to the county his committee always has the power to drop him from the side. That is a power far stronger than a dozen cro«s-fhc-wickot lines. Tn regard to the curtailment of the championshin the commissioners suggest j that the number of competitors in the first-class division should bo reduced from seventeen to fifteen. Tn this way, they say. it would bo possible for all the sides to'meet each other which would do away with the percentage method of judging results. and the amount of first-class intercounty cricket would he reduced from about 236 matches to 210. thereby allowing extra representative matches to he played. Bnt here again we are on slippery ground. Who would be the two teams exiled? To send down to the secondclass division, the two counties finishing at the bottom, of the first-class tabic might mean the sudden disappearance of one of the most popular teams—and no

hint’is'given of how the team could ever be brought back again. Counties the Masters. This, however, is the affair of the counties themselves, a point which often escapes notice. For they have a perfect right to control their own destinies. They could introduce a relegation or promotion rule next week if a majority, of the committees were in favour of it. The M.C.C. govern the game at large, but they do not want to interfere with the domestic affairs of a competition. They have no more desire to direct the county championship than they wish to have a finger in the Lancashire League or the Bradford League. It was the Advisory County Cricket Committee, which consist of a representative of each first-class county, three from the Minor Counties’ Association, and one from the M.C.C., who introduced the two-day match scheme which helped to spoil the season just after the war. It is the Advisory County Committee, not the M.C.C., who change the method of deciding the championship from time to time, and who are responsible for the cumbersome collection of first-innings’ points and elaborate percentages. The M.C.C., it- is true, have eventually to sanction all proposals, but what the Advisory Committee pass is never turned down. So if the counties consider that they have not a satisfactory championship they have only themselves to blame. The first part of the commissioners’ report, which is devoted to finance, with, 'especial attention paid to the manner of allotting Test match profits, will be more to the taste of financiers than to the average follower of cricket, and the question of county “gates” and the advisability or otherwise of passing on to the public the entertainment tax, is purely the concern of the club officials, who are at liberty to make their own decisions. More important from the spectators’ point of view are the suggestions in regard to hours of play—the intervals, and other matters connected with the clock. The commissioners have done especially good work in stressing the evils of wasting time —surely the quickest way to irritate a crowd —and they would rearrange matters that no tea interval could be taken shortly after the interval between innings, and remove the frittering away of five minutes here or there which at present happens so wantonly. They would also cause it to be impossible for hours of play to be altered at the will of the teams on the third day, and make it a rule for the ingoing batsman on all occasions to meet the outgoing batsman before he enters the pavilion. Everyone who follows cricket will greet all this with hearty approval. . Intervals illegally prolonged do not benefit the players, and there is no excuse for dawdling. It is a pity that a suggestion is not made to prevent refreshment from being taken out on the field between the refreshment intervals except on very exceptional occasions.

The commissioners point out that their recommendations have not yet been considered by any of the governing bodies, and no doubt before any changes are definitely made‘in the conduct of the game much will be whittled away and many a suggestion turned down. But if they succeed in bringing home to the counties even the importance of punctuality the commission will have been worth while.