PROFESSIONAL 1-DAY CRICKET

Taranaki Daily News, 14 October 1933, Page 5 (Supplement)

PROFESSIONAL 1-DAY CRICKET

OPERATIONS IN QUEENSLAND. “SCHEME BOUND TO FAIL.” Bold efforts .are being made to induce well-known cricketers to. liitch up with •the new professional movement sponsored by Professional One-day Cricket Ltd., writes’ W.’ M. Rutledge in the Referee. The company began operations in Queensland some weeks ago, and it was announced that at least two interstate players, A. Waterman and W. Rowe, had joined up, though later Rowe denied that he had done so. Since then the company has sent “feelers” to other States, and it is known that at. least nine i prominent present and past players have been approached, or are about to be approached.The nine “favoured” ones are Warren Bardsley, •- Victor Richardson, Clarence 1 Grimmett, Charles Kelleway, Edgar Mayne, Arthur Mailey, Sam Everett, Andy Ratcliffe, and Les Gwynne. Most of them. are not very impressive, for they are definitely “has beens.” Indeed, the only ones who would be likely to “draw” at all are Richardson and Grimmett; and with the lure before them of another possible trip to England next year it is very doubtful if the two South Australians would entertain the proposal for one moment. The others don’t matter now, as brilliant as they were years ago.

One cannot see how Professional OneDay Cricket Ltd. can succeed, particularly in view of the near approach of the English tour, on which t#ie eyes of all the prominent players .in Australia are focussed. No inducement that a proprietary concern can offer would cause those cricketers seriously to consider tne casting aside of such a prospect. An English tour and the honour of representing Australia are the goal of every young player’s ambitions. And they are therefore not likely to be led away by a proposition, no matter how glamorous, that entails the forfeiture of that . goal. Moreover, the scheme has more chance of failure than of success, and is not alluring as a business proposition. .Popular fancy is not at all likely to be tickled by teams of “has beens” playing each,other, particularly in the absence of a real competitive spirit. If cricket to-day were being conducted upon an unsound basis and had lost public confidence, there might be some justification for a change; but it was never upon a safer foundation and public interest was never so great. This new scheme, therefore, is bound to fail so far as the roping in of the best players is concerned. The other day it was announced that it was proposed to play a series of matches on the Sydney Showground, bn similar lines to the Lancashire League matches. Apart from the unsuitability of the Showground for high-class cricket it is erroneous to say that professional cricket in Australia will be run on lines similar to Lancashire League cricket; for in Lancashire only one professional is permitted in each club. The whole scheme is Gilbertian, and will not be taken seriously by public or players. The'time is not ripe for it. It probably never will be. Cricket and its traditions are a heritage handed down over the ages to the youth of to-day. It 1 is, to a large extent, commercialised now, but the same spirit pervades its players, whether in a Test niatch or in a backyard game. It cannot be exploited by a proprietary concern whose main object naturally enough is to make profits. That kind of sport does not appeal to Australians, though the promoters evidently believe that it will. Otherwise they would not have registered a £lOO,OOO company to carry out the project. They must have great faith in the willingness of the public to shell out good money to watch a number of old-timers “playing ball.” '

Now . for the personnel. It will come as an immense surprise if any of the nine players mentioned take the bait. I do not think that any single one of them would contemplating becoming a proprietary professional. All are steeped in cricket traditions, and they play the game now only for the game’s sake. And I cannot think of anyone in the top flight of cricketers, past or present, who would be anxious to join up, unless it were for mid-week matches, in which case public patronage would be so small as to render profits almost impossible. Why, it is difficult enough now for clubs, which have no shareholders to provide with profits and do not require to find bonuses and other payments to players, to square accounts for the year. Even inter-state matches frequently show very heavy losses, though players are paid only a small allowance. How on earth, then, can dividends be expected from cricket matches played by second or third-raters, or “has beens” who are promised 10s for each six hit, 2s for each four, £3 for a “hat trick,” as well as 20 per cent, and 10 per cent, of net receipts for the winning and losing side respectively ? The whole scheme is ludicrous.

An advertisement of enticing phraseology appeared in metropolitan newspapers the other day announcing that Professional One-Day Cricket Ltd. wanted 60 players immediately to make four' teams and reserves, selected players to receive “£5O in preference shares in the company for their' assistance.” If the company gets six, instead of 60, it will have done well. It is also declared that inter-state and international matches are to be arranged “as early as possible, carrying increased remuneration toplayers chosen.” It may be taken as a conservative estimate of time that “as early as possible” will not be this side of the Millennium. As for the “increased remuneration,” the balance sheets of the Queensland Cricket Association in Brisbane, the home of this professional body, will afford ample evidence against such a probability. Between now and the aforesaid Millenium, Australia will watch with amusement this or any other attempt by proprietary interests to start professional one-day cricket in Australia.