Great Fast Bowlers Of The Past Attacked Batsman’s Defence

Manawatu Times, Volume LVI, Issue 7066, 27 January 1933, Page 4

Great Fast Bowlers Of The Past Attacked Batsman’s Defence

FAMOUS AUSTRALIAN UMPIRE TELLS STORIES OF "EXPRESS” MEN

LTH OUGH I have seen fewer than a dozen intcrCrWUM&O national fast bowlers, 1 believe 1 have seen the rHHy )cst game has P ro * duccd (writes R. M. Croc- • kett, ope of the bestknown of Australian cricket umpires, but now retired, in the course of an articlo written for the Melbourne “Herald”). To name the men I have been associated with, there were Tom Richardson, W. H. Lockwood, and Arthur Fielder, of England; and for Australia Ernie Jones, Albert Cotter, Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald. Here was talent that might have overawed any batting list, but the contemporary batsmen accepted fast bowling as part of the game. Batsmen were hit very olten, but there was no outcry; and many a sound pasting the bowlers received t I recall a game in South Australia, when Victoria was the visiting team, Ernie Jones was rolling them jn at his top pace, but was meeting with little success. Jim Giller, who can be found still at the South Melbourne Cricket Ground, was piling up runs at the expense of “Jonah.” Ernie had been hit to every part of the Held, and after such an over lie could contain himself- no longer. “Bob, this chap is making me look like a school boy. What am I to do?” he asked. Fastest Bowler of All Time.

Now, Jones was the fastest bowler of all time, and a good bowler at that. He was yards faster than Larwood; yet the batsmen of his day played him with confidence, and more often than not hit him about. . . “Jonah” hit many batsmen, hut he scorned the suggestion that it was •'deliberate. Nor would any batsman ot that day have believed thaat Jones was howling at his body. Both accepted the knocks as part of the game. On one occasion in England Jones hit the Hon. F. S. Jackson, the English captain. While Jackson was writhing in pain the late Harry Graham went across to Jones and asked, Where did you hit Mr Jackson?” He laid a slight emphasis on the Mr. That was Jonah s cue. “In the stomach, of course: where did you think I would hit the Honourablc*Mß Jackson?” The Englishman Lockwood was _ a dcvil-may-carc fellow'. On one occasion, to win a wager, he jumped oft a boat into Sydney Harbour, and tried to swim ashore. . , , , <• Tom Richardson had plenty of pace but here is a secret. 1 always hao a suspicion that he threw his fastest hall. I was never sufficiently sure to no-ball him, but I never ceased watching his delivery. To illustrate what I mean by the initiative of old-time batsmen, rlariy Graham and Albert Trott were forced to face Richardson on a damaged wicket in Sydney. It was dangerous-work, and many a resounding clout both batsmen received. The Little Dasher, as Graham was called, made light ot the bowling, and knocked up a sound 100. Albert Trott was not out for (b. the Englishmen were very disappointed at not having captured Trott s wicket, and Brockwell remarked, We have ne'ei been able to get Trott out in a lest match.” ..... Wasted Little Time. The tactics of the fast bowlers of the past varied according to their natuial swing; however, they wasted little time in bowling outside the stumps. They attacked the batsman’s defence all tho time. Fielder, whom I consider to he the best fast bowler I have seen, would pitch on the stumps, but his out-swerve would carry the ball away outside the off stump. Fielder lacked concentration, ■but for this I blame his captains. They allowed him to maintain a general plan of attack. Often the field was not set for a surprise move by Fielder, and his figures suffered. Had his-captain made him concentrate as M.'.A. Noble or W. W. Armstrong would have dope, the field and the bowler would have worked in harmony and with .greater • success. Fielder was a right-hander with a -high delivery. He rail a fairish way, and the delivery of the ball was full of body swing. His ability t.o_ make the hall' swerve and nip made him dangerous. - . _ As I have already said, Ernie Jones was the fastest bowler I have seen. He took a long run and threw his whole weight into the delivery. Jones, although bowling with such pace, was able to turn the ball back from the off. lie was a great comedian —a man with whom it was a pleasure to play. Nevertheless, he played the game hard, and would never apologise if he hit a batsman. He just smiled, and made ready for the next delivery. Jones believed that it was the batsman’s fault if he were hit. It was a view the batsmen hurried to accept themselves. We could do with a little of that spirit to-day. Cotter Kicked High.

Albert (“Tibby”) Cotter, in some respects, resembled Jones, but his delivery was lower. The manner in- which he made the ball kick up at the last moment always puzzled me. Cotter kicked higher than Jones, and on one occasion R. E. Foster and Johnny Tyldesley were having a hot time. Foster said to Tyldesley, in my hearing, “It is not worth while trying to play this fellow’, Johnny; look after yourself.” I mentioned the conversation to several of his team-mates, and they were disgusted with Foster’s attitude. “Haven’t we had to play Tom Richardson on worse wickets than this?” asked one. Anything savouring of a squeal was discountenanced by the pre-war batsmen.

The greatest fast bowling attack either country has sent into the field was that supplied by J. M. Gregory and E. A. McDonald. They were great bowlers here, but in England were almost unplayable. The manner in which Gregory made the ball kick and the immaculate length of McDonald made the combination ideal for unsettling opening batsmen. Yet I have never thought for a moment that either bowled at the man. Both hit batsmen and hurt them, but it was all part of a Test match. Neither man, however, placed a leg-field. Great as Larwood and Voce might be, Australian batsmen have met even greater without flinching. The only lefthand bowler comparable with Voce was F. R. Foster. Foster was a really dangerous bowler, and in Adelaide pitched outside the off-stump and repeatedly hit Trumper on the legs. For a moment Trumper %vas annoyed, and accused Foster of bowling at his body. _ When I pointed out that Foster was pitching outside the stumps and that it was his swing that was doing the damage, Trumper was satisfied and apologised. Foster swung the ball so much that I never gave an lbw decision in his favour.

One of the most promising fast lefthanders Australia has produced was 11. J. A. Massic, of New South Wales. War injuries ruined what might-have- been a brilliant career.

Must Be Intelligent,

bogey to excuse mediocre howling by blaming the wickets. A good howler is a good howler on any wicket. A fast howler is essential, but previously the main line of attack was the spin howlers. The'fast howler should He considered in the light of an unsettling influence, and any team that relics solely on fast bowling, is a weak team. I consider Ironmonger to he the best bowler among the English or the Australians. He is a terror in any conditions, but if the wicket is damp or worn Ironmonger is almost unplayable. Some have questioned his delivery. I have taken particular pains to study Ironmonger’s action, and have no doubt as to its fairness! It is absurd to question his bowling.

If you are searching for the ideal fast bowler, you must find, a man who has strength and stamina. His delivery should be high and his nip from the pitch a feature. Above all things he must be intelligent father thay mechanical. To-day cricket is replete with bowlers who are mechanical, but who lack cricket instinct. I think it is a

The batsmen of to-day rank with those of other years, but I would qualify this by pointing out that the howlers of to-day arc not nearly so good as the howlers of the pre-war generation. Further, to-day. some really good batsmen, arc content to allow the runs to conic along as opportunities arc presented. They lack initiative. Their forefathers made the opportunities that presented them with the runs. Our batsmen should master their footwork and not be content with the repertoire of two or three scoring strokes. Too often I have seen howling that'has been anything hut Hostile treated with great respect. Batsmen of to-day should gift to the ball more quickly and steer it through the unguarded places in the field. There is nothing like hatting enterprise to unsettle a strong attack.

It is said that never before at a cricket match had there been such an array of ambulance men as there was to treat the fainting hundreds in the densely-packed crowd at tile Melbourne Test.

■ERE conviction lacking until then, any cricket enthusiast who saw any two of the recent matches ,in the Plunkct Shield series must have been convinced that-a greater effort than has been made yet to improve the general standard of bowling in the Dominion is necessary. Looking at it on the whole, and without paying overmuch attention to two or three individual successes, the bowling in those games was not of the quality that there should be in New Zealand’s own firstclass cricket. It is well for New Zealand that its matches with the M.C.C. team, in March, will not be of more than three days each. What bowlers have we to get the English batsmen out if they are playing “for keeps” on a hard wickctV The question echoes. When the Englishmen arc here, two of the most successful bowlers in Plunked Shield thatches, W. E. Merritt and I. B. Cromb, will be on the high seas, on their way to engagements, with Lancashire Cricket League clubs. In England, in 1931, Merritt, Cromb, and H. G. Vivian were the most .successful three bowlers of the'New Zealand team:

For the purposes of a couple of threeday matches in the Dominion Cromb’s place may be filled, fairly well, but, on pvcsent.appearaiiccs, by ah older howler, not a younger one. There is, though, a big difference in quality between Merritt and the next-best right-hand slow bowler, in. the Dominion, at the, present time—who ever that next-best may he! I am not concerned, just now, with trying- to ■ forecast the personnel of the New Zealand side for the matches with the M.C.G. team; time enough for that when the Plunkct Shield.scries lias finished. Besides, it is foreign to the purpose I had in mind when I entered upon these rumblings this week, which was simply to note some deterrent influences on the development of firstclass howling in the Dominion.

WITH rare exceptions, young cricketers are imitative. The ambitious generally model their style of hatting or howling on that of tlic older players who are their heroes. Not infrequently they are too imitative of a fashion of the day and too neglectful of the . lessons of cricket history. For the time being, New Zealand batsmanship has come more or less to a halt in its progress, because too many members of the New Zealand team which went to England in 1931 adopted the fashion prevailing there of moving across the wicket to almost every ball and trying to push it to the on-side. Some of them got the notion that this method, with its repression of off-side stroke-play, was safer; they could.not, having fixed the notion, see that it is not.; (Goodness knows why New Zealand players sought a “safety-first” method!) Others followed them because of tlicir imitative instincts. A few of the New Zealand representative batsmen arc beginning to break away from this fetish of on-side play. If a visit from a first-class and enterprising Australian team, next season, could be'arranged—and there are high hopes that it can be—more could be done toward breaking away from this temporary thralldom. In the meantime, it seems to me that repression of offside stroke-play is helping to make some of our howlers look rather better than they actually are, even though the. standard of slips-fielding is not as high as it should be. While fast-medium and medium-paced bowlers in New Zealand