CRICKET

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 6 November 1926, Page 12

CRICKET

TUITION IN CTUCivKT. NEW COACH FOll AUCKLAND. | HELPING PROMISING YOUTH, An indication o-f the system of coaching to be followed by the Auckland Cricket 'Association's recently-engagei! player-coach, E. H. llowley, of Sussex was grfen at a, recent meeting of the Management Committee of the association.. 'the primary schools were willing to fall in with the association’s proposed times table, Mr. Hay .said, by granting boys leave to attend coaching at hours convenient, to the association, ft was •proposed that the coach should attend at,'.say lvden ‘Park, the Domain, Victoria Park and North Shore on definite mornings. It was desirable that at leist. one boy from each school should attend ' to be coached, although the, number front one school would probably not exceed two. except where exceptional promising talent was offer rug. » The position as affecting the secondary schools had not been finalised. Fbr the coaching of other players Rowley would probably attend at flic same grounds on certain afternoons. The elubs would in the first instance nominate players, including promising juniors, for coaching.

GREAT AVERAGES. It is a. wonderful tribute to the older generation of cricketers in England that Rhodes practically heads the bowling averages for the season, with 115 wickets at an average of 14.£6 and has scored 1132 runs for 36 innings, and that Hobbs stands out far aboveall others with .the wonderful batting figures of 2949 for 41 innings, easily the largest aggregate also. Next _to him comes his co-all-Englander. Sutcliffe, with 2523 for 49 innings. FAMOUS CRICKET GROUND. The old Kentish cricket ground at West Mailing came, as was feared, under the auctioneer's hammer recently, with about 970 acres of land in the neighbourhood. Rut at the last moment it was saved from the builder. Immediately following the auction it was announced that “a great lover of sport, especially cricket,” had bough* the cricket ground, in order to ensurw that henceforth the 12 acres would devoted . solely to cricket and other (rames. The buyer modestly prefers that his identity should not be disclosed His aeciuaintanee with the Mailing ground is a" long one, and he recalls that, when he was seven years old, he, saw -Dr. W. G. Grace knock up a een tury on that spot. The thanks of the public are due to the buyer, and to Mr H. G. Oliver and others, who have interested themselves to save a cricket around which, some maintain, was the original of Dickens’s ‘‘Dingley Del_l v. All-Muggleton” match, in ‘‘The Pickwick Papers.” It is a beautiful piece of Kentish turf in a typical Wealden Getting.

TWO EXTRAORDINARY incidents. A curious incident occurred in the match between Essex and Somerset, says the Times. With one wicket to fall Essex had equalled Somersets total, but before their last man could reach the wicket it was time. Was the match a tie or a draw, to be decided on the first innings? Nobody seems to know for. certain, and the M.U.U are to give a ruling. The critic adds : “I. say that it is a tie, but many people are convinced that it is not anything of the sort. It seems strange that such a thing has never happened before; at any rate, no trace of such a thing can be found in Wisden’s, where it 'would certainly be recorded if it had ever happened.”

For both bails, to be knocked out of their grooves by the ball and then fall back again is a freak so extraordinary that it is probably unique (says a London paper). This actually happened in a cricket match at Leigh (Lancashire) a few weeks ago. The incident most nearly resembling this occurred a good ■(.many years ago in a match at Hong Kong. ' The middle stump was bowled down, but the two bails remained in their original position. The da.y was intensely hot, and the varnish had melted in the sun and glued the bails together. In a match played thirty years ago between Eling and the tradesmen of Totton, a ball hit the wicket sufficiently .hard to make- one bail fly up two or three inches into the :air. But Ihere. as in the recent case at Leigh, the bail fell again into its proper place and the batsman was “not out.” In a match between Manchester and Old Trofford, F. Jones, who was bowling, hit the off .stump so hard that the bail fell off the middle stump but lodged l horizontally between the middle land off stumps, and stayed there. A similar thing happened in 1896 during a match between the Australians and the Midland Counties played at Birmingham. G. H. S. Trott was batting and Hulme was bowling. The ball hit the leg stump and knocked the bail off, but the bail stuck fast between the two stumps. There is one case on record of a match being played without bails. This was in 1864, 'when an England Eleven played twenty-two of Scarborough. The wind blew so hard that the bails would not remain in position. and finally had to he dispensed ■with.

THE AUSTRALIAN TOUR. REVIEWED BY M. A. NOBLE. Mr M. A. Noble, writing in the Christchurch Star of the last Australian cricket tour of England, asks what of the future and answers his own question pertinently. The old brigade must give way to younger blood, and it is the duty of those in charge of the game to find and encourage youthful bowlers. Australia has lost the Ashes, yet the team has created a record in losing only one match during the tour, although, unfortunately, it was the vital test

match at the Oval. Now that the tour is finished, one can say wihout prejudice, how the various members of the team appear to have fared. Undoubtedly. Wood full lias been the team’s preeminent success. Youth, inexperience of tests, and the strange conditions of English wickets, have been not only overcome. i»nt --onvert.ed into partial assets. He has developed considerably as a batsman. When he left Australia every lover of cricket regarded Woodfull‘ns a slow, stodgy, ungainly and generally uninteresting batsman. During the tour, except for a bad patch in the middle, Woodfull has intelligently concentrated on improving his style, versatility and aggression. He has increased his repertoire of strokes, and, although he still does not hit with great freedom, he increases his score by .frequent ones and twos, with an occasional hard drive to the boundary to add variety, thus almost keeping pace with supposedly much faster batsmen Sometimes one is inclined to think him slow; a glance at the score-board gener.nllv astonishes us by showing that he is not far behind his partner at the other end. Woodfull's almost unparalleled success as a new-comer to England is enough to turn the head of many an older man, yet ‘‘Bill” remains the sameunassuming, modest, likeable chap as when he arrived. _His batting success has only altered him personally by developing his character, adding greatly to his quiet confidence and increasing that "■enial personality which his friends know so well. Woodfull will certainly he one of Australia’s mainstays of the future. With the young Victorian as the outstanding success of the tour must be bracketed the names of Oldfield, Macartney, and Mailey. All have increased their reputation. There is not a single English cricket expert of note or experienced judge of the game who would not place Oldfield as the premier keeper of the world to-day. He is not only safe, quick and clean, but every movement is that of an artist. Oldfield is almost dandy-like behind the sticks. He is the perfect stylist, with that ability which makes style not only excusable, but attractive. Macartney, famous before Woodfull was out. of knickerbockers, remains the world’s most daring batting attraction. I f .1926 js really to be. his swan song in English "cricket, then Charlie has made everyone dance it to some tune. That innings at Leeds alone, even If it had not been one of seven glorious centuries made during the tour, would have been enough to have placed hint among the immortal centurions like Trumpet' and Ran.ji. Although Charlie was one ot the men who many people tlioijght. too old for another trip to England, he is still making shots which modern youth never dares unless it be the tail-emlers of a team, who. rushing in where angels fear to tread, dare, but never succeed. The ‘‘Governor-General” forms the third part of Australia’s great quartet. Picked as a batsman, he has time and time again saved his side by his bowling*. What a tragedy it was that Australia was forced to work/him to death at the beginning of the tour! The wonder is that Charlie’s batting did not also suffer. ' The fourth member of the quartet, Arthur Mailey, has been to Australia’s bowling what Woodfull has been to her batting. From first to last ho has borne the brunt of Australia’s attack. He has never faltered, and has never become really mastered. Arthur has established himself as the greatest bogey-bowler of all time. On wickets seldom suited to him he has, by sheer head work, captured the opposition’s stars and rabbits alike. Mailey may have been hit pretty hard, but thero has always been a purpose behind that apparently self-inflicted punishment. How many ;full-tossers, how many long hops, has Arthur sent up, simply asking to be hit, and bow many batsmen have realised as they are walking back to the pavilion that it was not the actual fatal ball, so much as that stinging four or glorious six preceding it that caused their downfall. Most bowlers now-a-days attack a batsman ball by ball, each definitely destined to got a wicket. Mailey bowls in overs, each ball dove-tailing into the other, each an inter-dependent factor in a general scheme he is working out. There may be better bowlers, but there is no better bowling brain in the world today. Grimmett almost, although not quite, converts Australia’s quaret into a quintet. He just falls below their standard; yet, like Mailey, Grimmett has been called upon to bear far more than his fair share of the attack. On wickets unsuited for his bowling he has not repeated 1924’s sensation, yet Australia would have missed him badly. Clarry is always a trier, and always willing to learn.

Of the others, Collins has added to his reputation as a cricketer, but perhaps not to his prestige as a captain. His innings at the Lord's and Oval tests were worthy of the greatest of Australian fighting traditions. They were full of pluck, resource, and stamina. Incidentally, they were the most stimulating example to his followers, yet,, as a captain Herbie lacks that something ensuring necessary dominance. Physical size is not a necessary adjunct to personality, yet it is a great help, and Collins certainly does not attract notice immediately he steps on to the field, as did some of Ms predecessors, notably Warwick Armstrong. Collins as a captain seemed to lack concentration. He changed his bowling well until the fifth test, when he allowed Richardson to peg away at the leg stump until the ashes were lost. Also, during the tour, when the English batting was mastering our bowling, Collins lost Ms grip of the game. He seemed waiting for something to turn up, and allowed the field to get out of control. He is certainly not an orthodox captain. Yet, Herbie's original moves, although sometimes successful, generally seem more in the nature of gambles than brilliantly conceived ideas born of experience. Originality, if successful, should be the outcome of some logical scheme. We must remember, however, that Collins suffered severely from illness, which was hound to interrupt any captain ’s continuity of organisation and control over his” followers. Nevertheless, he will he remembered rather as one or' the greatest and dourest fighters in an emergency than as a brilliant captain. Cricketers will talk glowingly of the man who fought Australia’s way out of extremity in that first innings in the fifth test, when Collins’ captaincy is forgotten. Bardslev is another who cannot in any wise be regarded as a failure. He certainly is past Ms prime, and does not sec fast bowling like he used to. But the great Australian left-hander has certainly justified his selection. His not-out innings at Lord’s in the second test must Tank for all time among foremost Australian triumphs. As a captain Bardsley justified his apopintmenl. There was little originality about his methods. He relied on experience

gained in vastly different schools, yet just a touch of additional personality 'would have improved his leadership. Both at Leeds anfl Manchester Warren lost golden opportunities, in the first case by not insisting on the team hammering home- Macartney’s and Wood full’s great start with brisk scoring, no matter how many wickets fell in doing and, in the second case, when he did not declare at Manchester on Monday evening when there would have been a chance of England losing several valuable wickets and having to light, for her life on the last ‘lay. Ido not say that Australia would have won either of these tests, yet at least she could have tried, and* if England had been forced with her back to the wall, in both these matches, it would have had an undoubted moral effect on the fifth test. Again-, we must remember that Bardsley, as vice-captain, may- have been hesitant about taking any risks during his captain’s absence, preferring to rely on draws until Collins could take over control. Certainly, ‘here was nothing of Nelson’s blind eye about Bardsley’s captaincy. Yet he kept the team together in a difficult time oi sickness, and insisted on invaluable discipline on the field. Neither Australia nor Warren can grumble at what will, perhaps, be the latter’s farewell season in big cricket. Others of the team mostly worked hard, some successfully-, some vainly. Gregory, the greatest personality of the team, if chosen purely- as a, bowler, could not have justified his inclusion. He was worked over hard at the beginning of the tour, but his best performances have been with the bat, for his fielding, although still pre-eminent, is not that of the Gregory of 1924. Ponsford was unfortunately handicapped by illness, yet although his English trip has not fulfilled his previous promise, he has been an invaluable member of the team. His innings at Glamorgan, which was the first time he found his form after his illness, was one of the greatest of the tour. On a bad wicket against bowlers trained to take every advantage out of such con ditions, Ponsford carried bis bat through the innings and showed he has the qualities of a great cricketer, able to adapt himself to English conditions. Andrews’ fielding was one of the features of the tour. How many runs he saved at silly point, how many batsmen he frightened into fatal over-caution, it is impossible to conjecture. As a batsman Tommy was generally brilliant, but he just missed being consistently brilliant.

Richardson and Ryder, particularly as bowlers, must unfortunately- be classed as big disappointments. The former began bowling promisingly, but gradually deteriorated until ho became innocuous, actually doing as much in the fifth test to give England the Ashes, as Hobbs and Sutcliffe. Richardson is not a second Root. The real Richardson should not want to be a second Root, yet he persisted in that leg-stump bowling when it was obviously futile. Ryder lms also forsaken his natural game on big occasions. He tried to become a good batsman instead of a good forcing batsman. When Jack hits, as he did often in minor matches, he hits hard and well, but when Jack tries to become versatile, he succeeds only in jioking aimlessly. As a bowler he was merely the straight up and down the wioket variety, unlikely to trouble many batsmen. Further, both Richardson and Ryder fielded badly. Everett never attained international standard. He proved a better bat than a bowler, and, as a bat, he would hardly be included in an Australian interstate team.

Ellis filled the position of reserve wicket-keeper capably, and made runs consistently- when »uu2 were badly wanted.

Hendry, owing to his long illness, cannot be discussed, although his Folkestone innings showed what a loss his absence was to the team.

Last, but not least, we come to Taylor, perhaps the greatest disappointment of the tour, because it was lack of neither brains, pluck, hard work, nor ability which caused his failure. It may have been due to the English light; it may have been due to bad health, which seems to dog Johnny in England; but personally I believe that, despite any such handicap, Taylor could have become the real Taylor if he had been handled properly. Such in judicious handling was due to the selection of sixteen players in Australia rather than to any bad control in England. That selectiqin was the biggest mistake of 1926. Collins was forced to give everyone a trial, thus making good batsmen fight for their places in the team and giving them insufficient matches in which to bat themselves into form. Further, the necessary dropping of five players in each match creates needless irritations, and such conditions themselves enhance the chances of illness and low .spirits. Never throughout the tour was there that proper spirit of cohesion which is such an important factor in the sum total of success.

A team of fourteen players with a less crowded tour, even with a fortnight’s complete rest 1 in the middle, should be sufficient for any touring side. I have spoken of Taylor’s disappointing bating. It is with pleasure that I can speak of Ms fielding. Johnny, cutting off an apparently certain boundary or throwing in hard, straight and true to the wicket, was one of the delights of the tour.