The Top Liner in Cricket

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 193, 30 July 1932, Page 8 (Supplement)

The Top Liner in Cricket

Dividing Line Between the Genius and Average Player

SHOULD TOSSING FOR CHOICE OF INNINGS BE ABOLISHED.

A week ago, full of courage and also full of hope, I suggested that with the arrival of summer weather we should be able to get on with the game. Alas, the words were no sooner written than down came the rain again, and since they were written there have been whole fixtures during which a ball has not been bowled: and there have been stories of pitches absolutely under water (writes Maurice Tate in a London exchange).

However, we can’t help this sort of thing, and we must hope for better treatment by the weather in the near future. When the really good weather does come it must be accompanied by evidence of an all-round desire to make up for lost time. During one of the waiting periods this week we fell to discussing a subject which turned out to be very interesting: a discussion of those things which make the difference between the top-notcher and the average player. It was perhaps the presence of Harold Larwood at Hove which gave rise to the discussion. I was talking with George Cox, our ever-cheerful coach at the Hove, and in another corner of the room, in ordinary civilian attire, there was Larwood. As Cox looked across at Larwood he used these words: “I never see Harold without marvelling that he should have become such a wonderful fast bowler. Look at him. Bather less than the average height, and giving the general appearance of a mere boy. Where he gets

the strength from to send them down at the pace he does is a marvel to me.” Other people have been struck with the same idea, of course, because, as Cox pointed out, all the other fast bowlers he remembers—and his association with first-class cricket goes a long way back—were big fellows; tall and most obviously strong even to outward appearances. So the question naturally arises as to whether even fast bowling is a matter of physical strength; whether banging them down at express speed is not something more than mere physical effort. A Matter of Timing.

I suppose it must be physical effort in a sense. Certainly any bowler who would keep on bowling regularly, and for any length of time, must have strength in his frame somewhere. Rut it does seem to me that there is some-

thing else: some other vital point in the make-up of a fast bowler. I suggested to George Cox that perhaps Larwood got his pace, that extra little bit which causes him to stand out, from what can best be described as the perfect timing of each delivery. Watch Larwood run to the wicket, working up to top speed. At the moment of delivery he is “all in”— every muscle, as it seems, legs, arms and all the body. That is where the speed comes from, not from the arm alone, and in regard to this particular bowler it seems to me that it must be just that perfect “timing” of the delivery which lifts him above the vast majority of his contemporaries. It is the timing which tells in the making of a stroke when batting; the timing and the carry through, not the physical strength, which determines the length of the golf drive—as I myself have discovered. Scarcity of Fast Bowlers. From Larwood the conversation naturally went to fast bowling in

general, and my friend George Cox was led to remark on the general scarcity of fast bowlers. 1 know that he himself has combed the County of Sussex, and given scores of trials to would-be county fast bowlers, without coming across the player for whom he was searching. Many other counties are in the same boat.

In the old days, as I was reminded, practically every county side had a really fast bowler. To-day, of course, the majority of them are without the express man. Perhaps we have made it all to clear in the recent past, that fast bowling is not worth fjiile. The top-notcher in bowling—the man who rises above his fellows—must have something extra, and the same remark applies to batting. I can’t tell you what it is which makes the Bradman, the Hobbs, the Herbert Sutcliffe, er the Wally Hammond. I suppose you could take 20 boys, all showing real cricket promise, and put them through the same school of coaching. One of those 20 would probably rise high above the others. He would be possessed of mysterious qualifications which would enable him to go ahead while the others would stop when they got to a particular point of efficiency. I could tell you of scores of cricketers to-day who have sadly disappointed their sponsors. They were so promising as lads; the sky alone seemed to be the limit for them so far as the future was concerned. But they are stuck among the ordinary players. The last little bit cannot be put into a player. That is my conclusion, anyway.

Temperament plays a part, of course, The capacity for study is another thing. Then, so far as batsmen are concerned, I believe that eyesight may have something to do with it. I have a feeling that our skipper of the Sussex side, K. S. Duleepsinhji, when at the wicket sees the ball from a bowler a trifle longer than most batsmen. The eyesight of the Indian people in general is remarkable. If in a batsman you get wonderful eyesight allied to al] the other virtues then you get the batting genius. Luck of the Toss. Among my correspondence this week is a letter from the reader who invites my opinion as to whether' the toss for choice of innings in cricket is other than a most crude arrangement which might be abolished, or at any rate changed, with advantage. I must say that I find myself in neal sympathy with the ideas expressed by this

reader. For a long time I have fel£ that this mere tossing for choice of innings as a system of deciding who should bat first could be improved upon.

Probably it can be argued that in th* tong run the luck of the toss even* itself out, but has it not been know* that the captain of a Test side has won the toss for a whole series of games, thus giving his side an advantage in every match? We have already played Notts twice this season, and on each occasion they have had the privilege of batting first. A rearrangement which might well be considered is that th* side which had the right in the first knock at the opening match of th* season between two teams should pas* on that right to the opposition—withe out the formality of the toss—tn th* return match. Sijch an arrangement would even things up a bit. Another Way. There is another way in which th* luck of the toss could be taken out of the game, and that is either for th* home side or the visiting side, in every case, to have the right of choice as to which side should bat. Personally, I have often felt that in the interests of the players, at any rate, the visiting side in a county game should have the right to the first knock. These county games involve the players in a lot of travelling, some of which has often to be done in the small hours of the morning.

Having spent most of the night hours in a railway train you don’t feel any too fresh the next morning. And as you get to the ground you get the cheery information that the skipper has lost the toss, and that all the trouble of getting opponents out has to be started again. Your prayers that your captain would win the toss have not been answered.

One possible objection can be thought of in connection with thi* right-to-bat business. The groundsman, who knew which side was going to havo the first knock on the pitch which he prepared might allow that knowledge to influence him in the preparation of the pitch But, for my part, ! refuse to believe that groundsmen in general would succumb to the temptation to prepare a pitch in the interests of their pct side. It wouldn’t be easy to do so,