SPIN BOWLING DYING OUT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18615, 17 November 1928, Page 7

SPIN BOWLING DYING OUT.

ENGLISH MAN BLAMES PREPARED WICKET. There can be no possible doubt that spin bowling is gradually becoming a thing of the past (writes Charlie Parker, Gloucester’s slow bowler). Why is this? is a question which I am so frequently asked, and the general impression seems to be that bowlers are deliberately ignoring spin and concentrating purely upon swerve. That, to a certain extent, is perfectly correct, but I usually support my reply to this question by asking still another question: “Why are bowlers concentrating upon swerve?” And it is rare, very rare, that I can get an answer from others than actual players. It is not that bowlers prefer to swing the ball rather than spin it. The whole secret lies in the fact that bowlers have to attempt the deception of batsmen long before the ball touches the wicket. You get spin on a ball and the batsman is tricked by the way in which it leaves the wicket, and to get that effect you must have wickets that are natural.

Prepared Wickets. There you have the solution of the dying art of spinning a cricket ball. Wickets are not natural, they are so prepared, made so easy for batsmen, that the ball will not turn.

Twenty years ago we had good wickets, but they were natural, there was life in them; to-day, once the ball touches the wicket the batsman knows exactly what will happen. The ball will go straight through. He can do just what he likes —there is not the slightest fear of trickery.

Big Scores. We have got to get back to natural wickets which are not made perfect for batsmen before we can really concentrate upon spinning the ball again. I think I may claim to some skill as a spin bowler. For years I have got more wickets by swinging the ball than I have by spinning it, and it has been so for a number of seasons. Every season sees the matter become more acute for the bowler. The great fetish to-day is big scores. What is wanted is batting skill, and every help is given to gain this end. Why then should criticism be levelled at the bowlers? You cannot have it both ways. If everything is done to make big scores possible, then it is obvious that bowlers are going to suffer. Lifeless Wickets. You have all heard that marl is used for preparing wickets. The use vof this stuff is bad enough, but it is not the cause of the trouble. It was found that marl did not have the effect of making wickets too plumb, and groundsmen got busy with other stuff, secret preparations which are still expected to spin the ball and trick the batsmen out—it can’t be done. Four or five years at Packer's Ground, Bristol, there was a really sporty wicket. Bowlers could spin the ball, and batsmen really had to bat to get runs. It was not better for one section of the game than the other. It was really cricket in the true sense of the word. Then came a change. Some sort of preparation was used, and today it is one of the finest wickets in the country—for batsmen. “Spin the ball! ” we are told by the critics. I tell you that one could spin the fingers off one’s hand, and it would make no difference, you’d never get a wicket. Heart-breaking. I sometimes read that certain counties are badly off for bowlers, and then I play against those counties and I soon find that it is not the bowlers but the grounds they have to play on that causes all th§ trouble. One such county and ground are Surrey and the Oval. You can hardly pick up any London paper without reading that Surrey need bowlers. My reply is that it is nonsense. Surrey have bowlers good enough for anything. Peach, Fender, Shepherd, and young Gregory would get some wickets if they played on natural wickets. But playing on the batsman’s paradise at Kennington is enough to break any bowler’s heart. You can take the finest spin bowlers in the world to the Oval and let them bowl half their matches in a season on this ground, and you v/ill soon find that they will give up trying to spin the ball; they will find some other method—possibly swinging the ball. Fighting to Succeed. It is said that every bowler is trying to emulate George Hirst by swinging the ball. That, of course, is rubbish. By swinging the ball, or trying to swing it, the bowlers are fighting for their existence. There is no sentiment in cricket, especially county cricket. If you don’t succeed you lose your place. If you can’t spin the batsmen out, then you try some other method. Things are not much better for the fast man. There is so little life in the wickets that speed men get no help; the ball leaves the wicket in a lifeless fashion and without any possibility of tricks. Therefore it is very easy to play. Now you see why we try to swing the ball. Swing is obtained in the air. The groundsman can’t mess about with the atmosphere, and we have, therefore, a slight chance. I tell you frankly that I keep on bowling swingers and shall continue to do so. I can’t afford to keep on trying to spin and seeing my efforts receive a terrible hiding. I have to justify myself. No Favouritism. If cricket is to be a game of batting pure and simple, then the present state of affairs is all right, but it should be clearly understood by everybody that bowlers are merely there to supply the batsmen with balls to hit. But if it is to be a battle between, batsmen and bowler, then it must be a fair fight. There must not be favouritism shown to either side. Believe me, I don’t want to see wickets made in favour of us bowlers. I don’t want artificial preparation to enable us to get spin on the ball. All I want to see is a natural turf wicket. Then we shall get back to the conditions under which cricket became so popular a game. I have said that spin bowling is dying. I repeat that, and will go a little further. Unless there is a _ radical change back to conditions which used to obtain, spin bowling will soon be as dead as the long-stop.