SPECTATORS' MISTAKES

Evening Star, Issue 15729, 17 February 1915, Page 2

SPECTATORS' MISTAKES

[By Alan R. Haig-Brown.]

(For the Dunedin * Star.*—Copyright.) For the last season or two cricket has been suffering from a surfeit of criticism. Is it wise or even fair? Spectators who pay sixpence or a shilling to view a match not unnaturally imagine that they purchase other rights than the right to sitting or standing room. It is the old idea of those who pay the piper having the right to call the tune. ' Iheatre audiences or music hall audiences do not claim such rights, they merely claim to be able- to stav awav or not as they please. Cricket spectators can act in similar fashion: but too much criticism does little good either to cricket or cricketers. —When Criticism is Justified.—

It nia-v be argued with some sound sense that staying away from any_ performance is the severest form of criticism. It is not: it is rather a hint to the management, which the latter will be quick to act upon or become bankrupt. It is, however, much better that alteration should be undertaken from within, by the management, bv the experts, than de inanded from the outside by those who do not realty understand the game to the same extent. Now this leads up to my main point in this connection. Only in so far as cricket is not cricket have the spectators the right to object to what t-hev see when they go to a match. It is not"for them to suggest that cricket would b<- a better game if it was rounders, or tip and run. "or baseball. And the best judges of what is cricket and what is hot are, and always will be. those who pia.y, and. emphatically not merely those who watch. .

In soite 0/ the fact that county cricket is in no small degree, dependent upon the spectators for its welfare, it is not altogether fair to compare cricket as a whole to the stage or the music hall. And it is a imstake"ott the critical spectator's part to imagine that it he can compel an alteration in ceuntv cricket and change it int«v baseball or hockey he could also control the destlries ,f cricket in general. Were county cricket to die to-morrow, there would still remain club cricket, rountrv house, village, and school cricket, and no agitation by" the Press or by disappointed" spectators would ever cause :tiiv vital upheaval in those important branches of the game. Xor do I think that the mass of "spectators wish for any ..hange: it is only t'ne noisy ones we hear. But it is the thousands of"silent watchers and minor plavers who usually control the destinies of cricket. And they really ■ \i.-t: they are not like that great_ mass .:' silent voters which is always going to help in a body either tho Liberals or Tories at the "next election, but which lit-ver does. If in the meantime the small hut noisy band of critical spectators content themselves by staying away from matches which they do" not enjoy, they will have, made their protest with due v eight and dignity. And let them also take to heart the axiom that criticism ..! ericket is only justified in so far as it .;>..'.- not aim at" altering the true eharacU r of -the game. —Choosing England's Team. — About- on a par with those who would change the nature- of cricket are those enthusiasts among spectators who take upon themselves the right to choose England's representative team for the Test matches. The sublime impertinence of the anonymous scribes, who sit down and pen their" views upon the question of who should play in these important games, must amuse where it does not disgust the authorities. " Dear sir," runs their letter to their favorite newspaper. "" In my opinion the following should be chosen for England v. Australia," and then follows their eleven names, and the signature " Fat-Head." or something which equally well hides their identity from all t-xeept those who know them. Now such letters may appear trivial, but they are really nothing of the- kind. Nobody is a more" greedy devonrer of the newspapers than the cricket public, and these continual suggestions as to a different team from that" selected tend to destroy the confidence of spectators in the selection j committee. Now, the latter are. experts ; ! they have no axe to grind, they know the ; form of every player concerned far better i than does anyone "else, they have but one abject in view—the winning of the match. Consequently, they should be spared from sriticism before, during, or after the natch, whatever the result. They have irre tlu-ir best and it is in every ease. 1 good test -. nothing «ould he worse for . n ,T destinies- of English cricket than that ;hc public should be able to force the hand 5f the i-elcction < oinmittee. It is no secret ihat the spectators have before now succeeded in embarrassing the experts, even if they have been able to do nothing more. Sneaking generally a cricket crowd lavs ; :.-ch" far less open, to criticirm than does a football crowd. It is usually an orderly a.tsemhlv, seldom bored, sometimes a little listless, but always ready to be enthusiastic whenever opportunity offers. It is a changing crowd—that is to say the Fame people are seldom present, for the whole of the match, and Friday morning sees a very different lot of faces to those which Saturday afternoon welcomes. Consequently, it has seldom the same unanimity which is a-i outstanding feature of tho«=e who witness a brief "encounter at other games. Cricket crowds, too, espeeially_ where county cricket is concerned, arc fairer and loss given to partisanship than are the throngs round a football enclosure. All this, of course, makes tor cool and deliberate criticism of play and players. Nevertheless, I often wonder whether so intricate a game is ever clearly and really understood by ihoso who have- been spectators all their lives, and who have never served an actual apprenticeship upon the field of play. O: coarse every regular abundant at matshes imagines that he knows all about if, but he often makes a big mistak- in his conceit. '" Lookers, on see most of the game " he will tell you. but in cricket there is far. far more than meets the eye. —Capable Critics.— It is difficult- to suggest ignorance of the game to the mass "ot cricket spectators without pay:ng a, very generous tribute to

those \v at choir- who really do understand ' tt. who look for the pitch of every ball, w!m keep their own analysis of the- linwling. 'and who have developed through a course iif cricket, spread over many seasons into really capable- critic.* Probably, too. in their d'iiv they were- players themselves. But in speaking* ot the nature of a crowd ore speaks of the majority, though .sometimes it i> a lioisv minority that gives one .1 mistaken view, and after all, we only know a crowd by its expressed views-. 'Hie applause of the spectators is over- ;> nerous where, a hc.tsmau ]"•: cone-etned ; %ny stroke that gtts runt; is a hit and not unnaturally, but mistakenly, does the crowd love a long and lofty drive better than tiv> dtisy-cutt.ing punch that skims all along the carpet. The delicate strength of a, late cut is not always preferred to a well-timed half-volley ou the log; side, arid the crowd oft-m shows its ar-tive displeasure at th- '" le.-ve it alone" principle to bumoing halls on the off. All this is voiy natural, lut cricket is_ art, not nature. It. is much easier to hit a half-volley to lc than to place effectively a. late cur ; The lol'tr drive looks well but, is generally dangerous, '.vhile it is rank fully to have ''a. so" at short and fast oi;e.s on the off before the eye is in, and when the. bowler is praying that you will, and' Juts a, whole array of .dips ready for any fault of nervous timing. And then how the spectators love a cent hit —and how natural it is that ihev should;* 97, 98, 99 are good, but not in 'it- with the hundred. 'lliey aro like, the short head -which loses- the- Derby and makes of a horse a creature of comparatively small importance instead of an * ermine' hero. —Feats of Bowling.— t'eata of bowling never have and never will command the admiration of spectators in the way that they should. They look well in the papers next day and bring their reward/ but they are not greeted with the eame enthusiasm as aTe feats with the bat. Again it is very natural; good bowling as against good batting is not always evident except to the expert. On© cannot see the working of a maii'jbrain or uiideretaxd always tha subtlety that prompts him to keep pegging ■ away at an" opponent's weak, epot, or the- genius vbids &ata* him at times to bowl on pur*

pose a really bnfl "ball. And truly it. is. often very difficult to s« the. work on the ball and to appreciate excellent bowling unless one lias an ocular demonstration of laUing stumps or frequent- catches going to the fielders.

And.. although the latter generally charm, the eye" of the crowd when they aw> smart and quick and clever, tho spectators are not too kind to the dropped catch, though by now they should have learned that most catches a"re difficult before so many watching eyes. Xeither ;s it always the swift, sharp catch that kindlv sticks in one hand that is ever the hardest to hold, but the long. high. dropping one that looks so easy but reouires much judgment and most of all — waiting for. I often think, too, that tho wicket-keeper is most unjustly neglected by this spectators: he. is the'best of all fielders, always at highest tension. He is always stopping good ones, but he gets little, measure of 'applause when he stops a certain boundary from a bad ball on the leg si do Most of the spectators' mistakes than I have touched upon are natural and venial, but there are some which are not. The barracking of a slow bat<utan is a cruel and unsportsmanlike performance. for every player who has risen to tho dignity of county cricket has a right to play the Same a**"it suits his side and himself best. And so lon<; as cricket is cricket players have every right to play for a draw, and it sometimes requires no little coinage and skill to beat the elowly moving clock. In any case tho voicing (if its displeasure_by the ero'.vd has no defence of any _ kind whatsoever either in circumstances of this kind or when rival, captains and umpires decide that- tha pitch is unfit for play or the failing light not good enough. Loyal as the spectators are to their favorites, even. in. thovv Lou vs. of. ill-success, they occasionally take unreasonable dislikes to those- wlio somehow do not- please them. The baiting o! a player is .never anything but cowardly. But speaking generally, in all faimegs, one would have to go far before, one, found a- natter disposed or more orderly assembly than that which gathers round" the green turf watching 'the long drawn out contest between bat and hall.