CRICKET.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12570, 11 May 1904, Page 7

CRICKET.

Mr. P. A. Vaile, of Auckland, at present in the Old Country on a business visit, evidently,finds a little time to devote to sport, and his latest move is a suggestion to the Marylohono Cricket Club in connection with spinning the coin in test cricket matches, lire suggestion, which is to claim consideration at the hands of the committee of the M.C.C., is to the effect that in «ll future test matches the coin shall be Spun only for the first match, and that thereafter each side shall bo considered to have won the toss alternately. Mr. Vaile point,? out that this is more than fair to the winner of the toss in the first match, as in the event of the games being two all the winner of the first toss has the advantage iii' the deciding game. Indeed Mr. Vaile thinks it is a question if in that ease it would not be fairer to toss again. Cricket is supposed to be won by bat and ball, and we have lately had a most remarkable illustration of the mischief worked in tests by the vagaries of the " colonial Robert," whose spin on a bad wicket quite Upsets his brother colonials. The Suggestion has aroused much interest in cricketing circles in England, and it is not considered improbable that it will be adopted in future tests, which are really, as Mr. Vaile points out, one event. He also suggests the same rule for return county matches. ;i;

SOUTH AFRICAN TEAM IN ENGLAND. Outside the English county competition the most interesting feature of the season will be the visit of the South African team, under the captaincy of Frank Mitchell,' the wellknown Cambridge and Yorkshire cricketer. They are due in the Old Country day (May 7), but do not eater, upon their programme of 25 matches until the 30th of this month. This long delay in starting is due to the belief that the 1901 team suffered a good deal through playing before the men, who use matting at Home, had grown accustomed to turf wickets. The side, therefore, are to be given,a lair chance of doing themselves justice. v , <•■■■/' The Sou Africans will not attract the same amount of public attention as an Australian team, but the progress Of their tour will be followed with interest. All difficulties as to finances have been removed by tho generosity of Mr. Abe Bailey, who has made himself guarantor of the tour. _ Seven of the 1901 team are members, including E. A. Halliwell, the wicketkeeper, who made such a groat impression on that occasion; while the side also includes R. 0. Schwarz, who played for Middlesex, and is, perhaps, better known as a Rugby halfback. : Their most important match will be with on English eleven at Lord's on July 11, this being regarded as something in the nature of a test game.

L. 0. S. POIDEVIN ON TESTS AND TOSSES. In one's studious days ' the highest commendation for & noble thought or a clever composition, was to pronounce it ' fresh from the garret,'- says the* ex-Australian cricketer, L. 0. S. Poidevin, now in England, in an article contributed to the Daily Express on tests and tosses. That expression would invariably break from me now after the perusal of Mr. C. B. Fry's recent articles did X not fancy that sometimes the author must leave the top storey and ascend to the roof. For one who has not been to. Australia his inferences and deductions drawn from the series of test matches just ended were extraordinarily clever and to the point. The man in the street was content to take his cue from Fry. He could hardly do better. It was the expert's opinion, engaging and lucid, pleasingly expressed, t and well within the understanding and reach of all. But it may not be convincing always.: In an article that appeared the other day he seemed to take for granted that Warners team is superior to that of the Australians. Mr. Fry put his opinion on the subject moderately other, writers have allowed their itnanation to run riot, dwarfing altogether their better Judgment. '•'««» '-A : , This is what Mr. Fry says: " Clearly the Australian eleven is one that is not far below ours in strength." Now, I venture to say this is mere assumption. It is not proved by the facts of the case. The M.C.C. may be A better team than the Australian eleven. Ido not say that it is or that it is not. My point is that it has not proved itself the better side : that, so far as the recent tests, judged by the actual play, are concerned, the question of supremacy is as unsettled: as it was before the tour commenced. Whether one side is.better than the other is at best a matter of opinion. Personally I do not hesitate to vote for' the Australian, side; Mr. Fry thinks otherwise. His facts; are the same for both of us. The attitude of mind in which those facts are approached and the point of view taken no doubt determine the nature of the conclusions arrived

St. what are the plain .facts? M.C.C. has won three, Australia two, of the tests. Warner deserves all honour. Few people m England really realise what a Hifhcult tasiv it is to beat Australia in Australia. Let the ii|l ) frecly "admitted by all that three of It is freely admitted by all that three of those matches were decided by the Spin of the coin. Two of them went to Warner, tone to Noble. All three matches bear a striking resemblance. _ , ~ The side winning the toss batted all the first day under fine conditions, and, curiously enough, in each case the result of the day's play was only moderate for the- batting side. Raiii intervened, rendering the advantage thus gained easily sufficient to ensure certain . victory. You cannot adequately appreciate the hopelessness of those Australian rain-spoilt pitches, till you have played there. ... . ~ • „ The remarkable thing to mo is that so manv runs were scored on them, irom w to 80 is quite a good score for any side against, test-match blowing. None but the very " top-notchrrs" can get ahy runs worth mentioning, and then Only when they are blessed with extraordinary luck. hat magnificent efforts Triunper's and Tvldesley s must have been in the second match! Australia won her gift match by 215 runs; England her two by 135 and 157—-results very much aboift the same, and having no bearing whatever on the question of supremacy. Reverse the result of the toss and you reverie the result of the match, which must not be taken to mean, or even suggest, that England would have lost her two games had the weather remained ideal. , Such a reflection belongs to the realm or speculation; in this connection wo are dealing with actualities. ■ . . , , It. seems a greaf- pity that iin cricket matches winning the toss should be so allimportant. It is not so in other games. In lawn tennis, for example, you have an alternative—choice of service or choice of court. If you take the service your opponent chooses his court, and you gain very little either way. . , , , L , Tossing seems to be associated with every ball game, though it is, after all, if you come to think of it, a very one-sided arrangement. Only one person has a say in the matter. I toss the coin, you call; you either win or lose. lam passive m the whole business. It is incorrect for me to say I have lost the toss; I never had a Say it: the result at all . : , Any system of drawing lots is open to a, similar objection. However, one side must go in first. The difficulty is how to determine this, at the same time giving each captain an equal opportunity. . ■ Taking the choice of first innings m turn has been suggested, but when you toss it nearly always works out that way. It was so in this series. t w Warner is described as being very IUCKy in "calling" correctly. "As a matter oi fact, ho only won two out of the five, but in each case it" gave him the match. That was lucky. • . , ~ , t n*vt The only way of tossing with which I am acquainted that gives each of the two persons concerned an equal chance is the simple German triangulai " stone, scissors, ana paper" method. What a humorous five minutes - W.G." and Archie Maclarcn would have deciding who was to bat first by tins method ! But lam digressing. Of the other two matches England gained a brilliant and deserving victory in the first at Sydney. However, it was not the overwhelming defeat that many people seem to thinknothing like the "licking Maclaren's team gave us two years before-, indeed, it was a very close thing. The chief difference on the play lay in the superfine catching of one side arid the faulty work in that department by the other. The remaining match— at Adelaide, which Australia won so decisively, with absolutely equal conditions throughout — balanced the Sydney match. It was the only match of the series in which conditions were approximately equal. A" e y never can be quite the same, but they are hearer an 6<JUsllty for both sides with fine wesLthfer throughout than in any other case. A wet wicket seldom remain? in the same ndaditioa fox any length of time. It almost momentarily changing. Rain slightly interfered with the Sydney match mentioned above, if ttvythilig favouring the home sidej a fact which greatly enhances the merit of England's win tn that game. To pronounce any superiority for eithei team on those two matches is, in all fairness, out of the question. • • . Honours are undoubtedly divided. We cap do no more than ignore the other three; so whence comes this clear inferiority" of the Australian team? ,