IDEAL CRICKET TEAM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20716, 8 November 1930, Page 15

IDEAL CRICKET TEAM.

PROBLEMS OF BUILDING; :room for one slow batsman. LACK OF VARIETY NOWADAYS. BY ANDREW DUCAT. Every cricket .enthusiast is now talking of team-building. The side to beat the Australians is concerning some, whilo the best eleven to field against a rival club is worrying others. The lot of cricket-'sclectors is not so happy as it was until recently. A few years ago, in first-class cricket, there were more specialists than you find to-day. You had batsmen, bowlers, a few " all-rounders," and wicket-keepers. And, with tho exception of tho wicketkeeper. /'you chose them without much regard for their fielding. Nowadays " tail-ends " aro out of fashion. The Australians led tho way in this. The modern bowler is ambitious to ■wield a bat, and tho batsman probably practises a secret bowling trick in his spare time. Fielding—quite rightly—is taken into consideration more than before, and a player who cannot field well has small chanco of retaining his place in & representative side. Even tho problem of tho wicket-keeper is not so clean-cut as it was. " Tho best wickotrkeepcr—never mind his batting," used to be the maxim of selectors. If there were to-day one wicket-keeper standing out head and shoulders above all others, I think that maxim would still apply. /Itis a very wise one. But in these days few wicket-keepers are content unless thoy can add their quota of runs.

Slips and Seep Field. And so selectors have not only the of 'picking the best specialists, or those in form; they havo to consider the increasing claims of all-rounders. You must have good slip fielders in a team, too, and at least a couple of players who are outstanding in the deep field. It used to be a theory that if a bowler Scored runs, the sting was taken out of his bowling beforo he started. This no longer seems to hold good. Even fast bowlers knock up their fifties—and sometimes their hundreds—and then go on to take wickets. It is still advisable to give the bowlers the lightest tasks in the field. That means that a batsman has to keep himself fit for fielding where there is running to bo done. The question is sometimes asked whether a team composed absolutely of specialists would defeat one made up entirely of all-rounders. I should like first of all to ask how you would make up your team of specialists. You would necessarily havo four bowlers and a picket-keeper. If your captain also is to be a specialist in captaincy, you have room left for five specialist batsmen. Such a team as this might be ery useful when "on top of" the opposition, but on a bad day—and those days do come to the best of teams—there would not seem to be a lot of fight in it. If three or four wickets fell early, the rest of the batting would be a procession. If an obstinate batting partnership tired your fpur bowlers, the adversaries apparently could go on for ever. I hat is where the all-rounder justifies his •in the team. He may help to stop a batting rot, or as a change bowler he may introduce just the unexpected variety that gets a wicket. Wicket-keeper First Choice. Even so, a team composed entirely of ell-rouncfy wielders of bat and ball might just lack/the solidity in opening the batting, and the sting in opening the bowling, that makes a good combination. If I were choosing a team, I should first pick the very best wicket-keeper available —choosing him on his merits as a v. icket-keeper. If he could bat, that might influence my choice of the rest of the team. Then I should choose a fast bowler. A left-handed bottler could not. be left out, and if he added left-handed batting talent, so much the better; if not. I should introduce another left-handed batsman. My first-wicket batsmen "would be specialists, as also would be the \iext. two batsmen to go in. Of these four, at least two must be able to field in the deep. The captain would probably bo able to wield a bat well enough to stop a rot should one develop, and if he could lake the responsibility of fielding cover point, that would be an advantage. A change bowler who could send down a " wrong 'un " from time to time might break partnerships. A bowler of medium-fast " swingers" who can use the polish on tho ball would bo worth playing, even if ho could not bat at all. That, then, would be my choice: four batsmen,' a captain who could bat, a wicket-keeper, a fast bowler, a bowler of medium-fast swingers, an all-round left-hander, a googly bowler of batting ability, and one other all-round player—a bowler with ability to keep a length for hours at a stretch on any wicket, and go in seventh or eight for a merry knock. Yet, although I am all in favour of bright cricket, I' should not condemn a slow batsman. One such can be of the utmost value to » side. In fact, there is room in a cricket team for most temperaments. You cannot have too much variety. Most teams haven't enough.