NO DISCREDIT TO GAME

Southland Times, Issue 23675, 25 November 1938, Page 16

NO DISCREDIT TO GAME

COMMENT ON CRICKET TEST AT OVAL DISCUSSION ON TIME LIMITS It was pleasant to read the sane commentaries of Macartney and Jardine on the Oval Test match, because, extraordinary as the match itself was, its reception by some of the critics seems to me to be more extraordinary still, writes a special correspondent in The Observer. Some writers seem to think that it brought discredit upon Test matches, and upon cricket generally, and, what is more unfortunate still, that it was all our fault .for making 900 runs. It was not, you will observe, the fault of the Australian bowlers for not getting our batsmen out. They, we are told, toiled with noble perseverance hour after hour while the score mounted up; it was the fault of our batsmen, who in the most inconsiderate way refused, when they were well set, to throw away their wickets by showing off to entertain the crowd. Instead of hitting sixes, which would have been amusing, or hitting up catches to the longfield, which would have been more amusing still, they actually bore in mind in their dull way that time was of no importance, and determined not to get themselves out, but to let their opponents get them out if they could. Two factors are discovered to be at the root of this lamentable state of affairs. One is the time-limitless match, and the other is the easiness of the wicket, which is described as overprepared, or, if you want to introduce more sinister suggestion, as ‘doped.” Very few people have any idea how wickets are prepared, or what doping I a wicket means, but that does not prevent them expressing their strong disapproval of the process, whatever it may be. DIVIDED VIEWS To take time-limitless matches first, this, is a controversy on which there is much difference of opinion. Some favour the idea of playing Test matches to a finish, while others are against it, and the view taken in some quarters is that this latest Test has furnished convincing, or even unanswerable, arguments to those who consider timelimitless matches are not wanted in this country. The pros and cons of the question generally are too familiar to need repetition. But what is difficult to see is now the incidents of the Oval match affect the discussion one way or the other. Games without a limit of time are, so we are told, not popular, and nobody will go and look on at them. Well, at the Oval there were 90,000 spectators, who, whether or not they enjoyed what they saw when they got there, knew that it was a time-limitless match which they were going to see. One great argument against this kind of match is that, with time of no consequence, it furnishes a strong temptation to slow batting, arid the charge freely made against our batsmen in this game was that their run-getting was so slow as to be dull to watch. In point of fact our mammoth total was compiled at the rate of 59 runs an hour, or almost exactly a run a minute. This pace is quite as good as you get in many three-day first-class matches. If you look at the scores of county fixtures you will find that 350 runs for a day of six hours’ cricket is about the ordinary figure. Our Testmatch batsmen at the Oval were confronted by bowling that remained remarkably accurate, and with a defensive field set with the special object of stopping boundary hits. So that their progress was rather creditable than other-’ wise. TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING The unusual length of the English innings, which lasted for nearly three •days, and even then was not finished, came under review both in the timelimitless match question and in the easy wicket question. On the Monday evening, when we had scored 634 with only five men out, there was a feeling that if Bradman were to get going, and the Australians were going to make a reply of equal magnitude, the match might go on for nearly a fortnight, and that this would be too much of a good thing. As it turned out Bradman injured himself, and the Australians, though the wicket was understood to be as perfect as ever, made no sort of reply at all. The absence of two of their leading batsmen was, from every point of view, a sad misfortune. For one thing, inspired by their leader’s presence, the Australians might have made, and would no doubt have made, a lot more runs. We should then have seen, what we have never seen in England, a really long-drawn-out first-class match lasting, perhaps, seven or eight days, and would have been able to see more clearly what the cricket-lov-ing public thinks of such a match. If towards the end of the first week there were no spectators left, we should be justified in asserting, on better evidence than we now possess, that timelimitless games are not popular in this country. This forecast, which is by no means fantastic, brings us to the question of the wickets upon which the modern Test match is played. While we may still be marvelling at our score of 900, there are one or two facts and figures which we must bear in mind. The main point is that the general advance in batting strength of Test-match elevens has caused the progress of run-getting to be gradual, but perfectly regular. Totals of 500, 600 and 700 have become comparatively common, and it was almost inevitable that sooner or later, on some day when there were seven or eight powerful batsmen all in form together, there should be an advance to a phenomenal figure.