Question Whether Cricket Needs To Be Brightened

Taranaki Daily News, 15 October 1934, Page 11

Question Whether Cricket Needs To Be Brightened

OBSERVATIONS OF ENGLISH CRITIC

WHAT,is the fascination of cricket? 'V William Pollock (“Googly,” .of the London “Daily. Express”), who has played a great deal’ of good-class cricket, and whose writings, upon the game are permeated with a sincere love of it, tries to answer that question, in his recently-issued book, “The Cream of Cricket,” but his answer is not complete. The incompleteness of his answer is no blemish upon his book, though, for famous players of the game as well as other noted writers upon it have failed to analyse fully the .fascination of cricket. The indefinableness of the charm is part of the fascination; were this analysed readily the game would not have so much appeal to the senses. However, the question has led William Pollock on to a discussion jsf suggestions that “cricket wants brightening up.” On this, point he makes some timely observations. * « * Here is one extract from Pollock’s remarks: ' ' ' • -' There is nothing wrong with cricket, as cricket, and neither the laws nor the im* plements require much, if any, tinkering with. If we ever do try to change the nature of the game those who understand and appreciate, and love it will be driven away from it. Any attempt to stunt or to clown cricket would be mad and fatal, it is a heritage. . .. _ No, it is not the game, but some of those who play it that are sometimes wrong. 1 could name two or three young cricketers in most county teams to-day who should be very bluntly told by their captains and committees that if they persist in needlessly pottering about at the wicket instead of getting on with, the game they must get out. It may be their own stupid fault, or the fault of older players and coaches who drum into them that they must not go out and hit bowling, but it should not be tolerated. * * * An old cricketer who had been very famous as a batsman for England told Pollock that when he expostulated about the way in which some of the moderns bat, covering-up and moving the right foot back to almost every ball, another player who also was once very famous as a batsman said to him: “You don’t know what you’re talking about. If you tried to bat in presentday county cricket you would be a failure. All this swerving and googly bowling has completely changed batting. You could not possibly bat as you did in your day.” Pollock comments that he wishes he had been there; he names many modern batsmen who show that modern bowling can be played out to, can be hit in front of I the wicket. Among these players are C. F. Walters, Maurice Leyland, W. R. Hammond, and F. E. Woolley. Pollock’s book was completed just before this

year’s series of Tests between Australia and England was played; otherwise he could.have, put more emphasis on his citation, of. .Walters and Leyland-and also E. Hendren—as showing in Test as well as county cricket, and on his citation of Hammond and. Woolley as showing in • county •if not in Test .cricket, how both swerve and googly bowling can be hit in front of the wicket.

It is strange that' some old Players should think that bowling has changed so much. Both swerve and spin bowling are old in the. game; the only difference that googly bowling has made> is in causing some bowlers to acquire the power of bowling the old-fashioned offbreak with a leg-break action. The modern batsman has, however, the advantage that although the best wickets are no better than the best wickets of 30 or 40 years ago, there is now a larger number of plumb wickets, ana therefore less excuse for so much covering-up.

The literature of cricket grows steadily in volume, and in general it is improving in quality. William Pollock’s book, a review copy of which I have received from the publishers, Methuen and Co., Ltd., London, is a welcome addition. It represents the cream of the experiences and thoughts of a devout lover of the game who has played and seen a great deal ot cricket. He discourses on many aspects of cricket, but never becomes prosy, and he often has a. good story to give point to his observations. Much ot what he writes is very pleasant, some is provocative—though • not too provocative—and there is much shrewdness in his comments on the technique of the game and on its players. His “characters” of several noted cricketers are excellent. “The Cream' of Cricket is well worthy of a place on the shelves allotted to cricket books which are read through attentively and then dipped into often. It is not an expensive book, but it is well turned out, and has excellent illustrations. When another edition is called for, though, a misprint in a reprint of an article that Pollock wrote after a conversation with K. S. Ranjitsinhji should be corrected. In the course of this conversation Ranji remarked that there is nothing new in swerve, and he named several bowlers who were among the regular swervers when he was playing. One of these bowlers is named as “Shackleton, of Notts.” The bowler referred to is F. Shacklock, now of Christchurch, who first played for Notts in 1881; no cricketer named Shackleton ever played for Notts. A.L.C.