CRICKET NERVES

Greymouth Evening Star, 10 February 1934, Page 2

CRICKET NERVES

ARTHUR MAILEY’S OBSERVATIONS My friend Sinks has never played cricket, even in its most primitive stages.' In fact, I don’t think Binks has ever played any game (writes Arthur Mailey in a Melbourne daily). Consequently; you can appreciate the shock I received when this unathletic person, apropos of nothing as far as I can see, fired the following question at me:—■

“Is there a psychological side to cricket, and, if so, do cricketers exploit it?” I never expected such a nerveracking question from Binks, whose interest in cricket compared' favourably with the interest in a cocktail party by a bowl of goldfish. Still it provided me with food for thought, and I. found . myself asking myself questions. Do cricketers try to analyse the mental emotions of their opponents? Are cricketers born or self-made? Is the desire to become a Test cricketer a life’s ambition or is it just a passing impulse?

To me the ambition to become a cricketer came long before I had reached my teens. A second ambition was to become an artist, not a newspaper cartoonist, but a real artist. One that had intriguing studios and' employed models and things. Strange to say, a third ambition came from a different direction. I had’ a burning desire to own a, private shaving mug in a suburban barber’s shop.

I got within striking distance of the first two ambitions, but the shaving mug one was never realised. I always thought the ownership of a private mug gave one a certain social standing down Waterloo way. Still, the purpose of this story, the desire to become a cricketer, is a far more important subject.. Some cricketers are born and others made. Those who are born do things automatically, and as a rule gracsfully, while the self-made cricketer is usually stodgy, tradesmahlike, and uninteresting. The latter probably finds the game more interesting than the former, because **<sT the amount of thought he has put into his own education, but his technique or style does not appeal to anybody except the most studious follower of the game. These self-made cricketers are the real psychologists of the game, simply because they lack the natural attributes. The one exception to this rule was the late Archie Jackson. Here was the artist, philosopher and psychologist combined. So great was Jackson’s natural ability that he had no need to reason things out, yet he did so, and was never tired of trying to fathom out the mental emotions of the bowlers opposed to him. On one occasion he hit a certain bowler twice into the outfield off successive deliveries. The ball went very close to a waiting fieldsman. The bowler then took that fieldsman away and bowled a. similar ball. Jackson never really found a reason for this extraordinary movement, and the fact that he lost his wicket to the third’ ball annoyed him beyond words. The recent testimonial match was an objectlesson in psychology.

THE SELECTOR’S EYE. I could see perspiring and nerveracked batsmen crouching in the shade of a menacing figure with red eyes and blue smoke coming from his nostrils. When the match was all over and the same batsmen had recaptured their normal complex that menacing figure turned out to be a quite sociable, tolerant Australian selector sitting placidly in the shade of the members’ stand.

How often have batsmen pressed a •nervous bat to a half-volley because the ball was served up by a bowler whose reputation is world wide? If Binks has bowled the same ball in the annual office match Joe, the inquiry clerk would probably have dispatched it to the next county. I may be forgiven if I mention a personal experience. I believe I had a “hoodoo” over pooi’ Johnny Douglas. Here was a fine defensive batsman, possessing more physical and moral courage probably than any cricketer I have met yet. This plucky cricketer seemed to develop a different complex every 'time I went on to bowl. I obtained Johnny’s wicket with

some of the meanest “tripe. I was almost ashamed to take the credit of a wicket, but having no control over the lads in the scoring-board, the fact was recorded. This .ridiculous battle was continued almost the whole of the season, then suddenly Douglas found the real Douglas in himself. He found the Johnny Douglas who had made himself the British Empire boxing champion and I suffered accordingly. In my last match against Douglas it was I who had developed an inferiority complex. We all have these experiences. I would never bowl against Charlie Macartney. I always felt that he was much too good for me and was never happy when this delightfully arrogant. batsman was opposed to me.

And so psychology and the ability to analyse an opponent’s mental emotions plays a big part in every sport and’ mostly I think in cricket. We don’t like to admit that so and so had a “hoodoo” over us, but a series of failures under similar conditions is too convincing to be merely passed off as being coincidental.