The Value of the Unorthodox.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLI, Issue 5, 29 July 1908, Page 14

The Value of the Unorthodox.

(By

L. O. S. POIDEVIN

(Of the Lancashire County XI.). Cricket as a game iooks back through a fairly long period! of authentic history which, though characterised by a stream of tendency more or less continuous in certain directions, is studded with many changes of more or less magnitude. The change from under-arm to round-arm bowling, for instance, and the subsequent evolution of the over-arm methods, may be regarded as sufficiently illustrative of this general truth. There was a time when round-arm bowling violated the practice of the game, and so it is in our time, that many things not in accordance with the earlier teachings of the game, and which we, perhaps, regard! as unorthodox, will sooner or later become integral and settled features of the game. It is with some of these features that I propose to deal. There are, of course, some kinds of unorthodox cricket which are based upon no principles, and which are perfectly valueless; I leave such out of account.

Now, cricket is a game of many-sided activities, general and particular, batting, fielding, bowling, wicket-keeping, and so on; let us first turn our attention to batting. “ KEEP YOUR LEFT SHOULDER WELL FORWARD.” used to be until recently and undisputed precept for the right hand batsman preparing to receive, and playing forward to the ball. It kept his bat pretty straight, but it, from the nature of the attitude assumed, ■was a one-eyed method —the left doing nearly all the “ sighting ” for the righthand batsman, and the right eye for the left-hander. The most modem attitude is one free from constraint with the feet, body, shoulders, and head in such a position as to ensure a two-eyed view of the ball all the time. Usually the bat is not quite straight, and the face of it turns rather to the batsman than to the bowler. It is difficult to say whether His Highness the Jam of Navagauar or anyone else started it, but there can be no doubt about the tendency. Its value, too, is equally certain and obvious. It combines perfect freedom of movement with a good and continuous sight of the ball—two things lacking in the old method. It does away with what used to be called the “ Blind Spot.” To the old school this was a troublesome reality, as it is to-day to a certain class of players. The expression was meant to refer to some spot on the pitch on striking which (or thereabouts), the ball was lost to sight; in reality it should have referred to the “blind spot” i nthe batsman’e eye. There is a “blind spot” in the retina of every eye; it is the point of entrance of the optic nerve into the retina, and is deficient in the parts capable of reacting to the stimulus of light. It is insensitive to light and therefore called the “ blind spot.” Thus light impressions from the ball on its course to the batsman “sighting” it with his left eye (the nose shutting off the right) suddenly fall upon the blind spot, and therefore the ball is actually lost eight of till it moves into a position from which these light impressions strike, WHY IT WAS ABANDONED. Bowlers tried to find! this spot on the pitch; experience showed it to be some few feet outside the batting crease about on a line with the batsman’s legs, or between the leg stumps at opposite ends. Similarly experience taught the best old-school batsman that in playing they must face round to the ball when they judged it was likely to find the “spot”;they got both eyes to the approaching ball. The modern method keeps both eyes on the ball from the beginning (one or other can be the “ master,” it does not matter), and renders possible a greater variety in outside play with increased certainty and finish. The practical point is—don’t be a one-eyed batsman. NEW—OR UNORTHODOX STROKES. The strokes which above all others are still almost universally regarded as unorthodox are the “ hook” and “ pull.” One immediately thinks of George Hirst in this country and Victor Trumper in Australia; both players in making them set at defiance the old precept about “keeping your bat straight.” One has seen some old enthusiasts quite shocked at the Yorkshireman’s methods and others profoundly amazed by the elegant daring of Trumper. These two players are not by any means alone in the use of such strokes; I merely take them as convenient examples. To George Hirst they form his chief means of scoring runs; how effective they are may be judged from the fact that despite many reinforcements to the fielding strength of the on-side, Hirst probably gets 80 out of every 100 of his runs there. THUMPER’S UNORTHODOXY. In the hands of Victor Trumper they arc- something more. By their use he gets runs in plenty; but when “on the go,” the field has to be strengthened on the leg-side, and Trumper then takes advantage of the weakened off-side field. It can readily be seen then that the judicious employment of these unorthodox strokes, apart from their rungetting value must be very disconcerting to the bowlers and very disorganising to the fielding side. The effect of an innings by Trumper is often reflected in the scores of his comrades. The only fly in the ointment as regards their universal employment is the tact that they are risky, dangerous, and difficult to do.

UNORTHODOX BOWLING. “ The South Africans gave us a sample of unorthodox bowling; the so-called “googley” element was a big factor in the sum of their bowling success. Where the term “Googley” originated one cannot say; ever since I can remember it has been used in Austrdlia to signify the ordinary leg break bowling, but somehow or other its meaning has been transferred so that it now specially means bowling of the leg-break offbreak type. Lest any reader should be unfamiliar with the meaning of the expression, let me explain that it means an off-breaking ball with a leg-breaking action—and a heart-breaking effect. Bosanquet was the first to make use of it, and Schwartz, Faulkner, and Vogler were the chief exponents in the South African team. It all amounts briefly to this. THE “GOOGLEY.” The ordinary leg break (the ball breaking from the legside of the wicket to * the off-side) and the ordinary off break (“turning” iu the opposite direction) in the hands of the ordinary bowler are obtained by such an obviously different hand, arm and wrist action that the observant batsman can tell the moment the ball leaves the bowler’s hand whicß break to expect. That is most useful] and indeed almost essential information for the batsman. Now, the “Googley” ball is bowled with a leg-break action; the batsman expects a leg-break; he prepares to deal with a leg break, but he is quite deceived, for the ball brea'cs sharply from the off. Let us suppose nothing disastrous happens. The next ball is bowled with a leg-break action. “Once bitten, twice shy” seems appropriate; so the wary batsman thinks, but wait! He sets himself to deal with the approaching off-break; the length is not very good so he “wants” a certain fourer, but this time it breaks from leg. And that’s the puzzle. It is practically impossible to tell from the action of the “googley” bowler which break to expect. You have an idea sometimes from several indications, but you can never be quite certain. Uncertainty is fatal. This is not the place for me to explain how the “googley” is produced, how it can be detected. and how its difficulties should be obviated. I have said enough to indicate its value in capable hands. Anything new or unorthodox in the hands of a good bowler always has a special value. This “googley” stuff has the supreme value that even when the paint of novelty has worn off there still remains a solid, a permanent nucleus of perplexity for batsmen. It is the latest development in bowling. The requisite spin is not difficult to understand; it is much more difficult to impart the spin and keep the length. There is a great field for its development by English professional bowlers. NEW POSITIONS IN THE FIELD. Unorthodoxy is not confined solely to the batting and bowling departments of the game. The developments in batting and bowling already mentioned necessitate new and unorthodox placing of the fieldsmen. Cause and effect obviously; I will say nothing of the alterations of the old-fashioned positions in the field, but content myself in this connection with a reference to the use and value of the unorthodox short thirdman position to fast bowling particularly as exploited by A. O. Jones. Quick, clever with his hands, and daring he is an ideal man for the position. Under ordinary circumstances, there is a fairly wide gap between point and third slip through which most batsmen are content to steer the fust ball getting up a bit, without any very special care as to keeping it close to the grourfd. Now with a clever third-man standing close in the batsman is obliged to be careful. He has to get the ball short to the ground in front of the fieldsman or avoid him altogether by placing “squarer” or “finer,” all three enormously increasing his risk of making a mistake. He may even be tempted to try to do something quite foreign to the demands of the occasion. That’s tha value of this position. UNORTHODOXY IN TEAM SELECTION. “ Tho whole subject of the unorthodox in cricket is an extremely interesting one and opens up a wide field of speculation. I have dealt with but a few of tho salient features; there is just one niore point, however, I would like to mention. It concerns the orthodox selection ol left-hand bowlers and their manage-

Meat when selected. The first point was well illustrated by the selection of one of England’s teams last season and Che second is all too frequently illustrated. They overlap. Given a strong probability of a left-handers’ wicket; one is selected along with the orthodox type of bowlers some of whom are of no earthly use on such pitches. It is well known that in such cases the lefthander is the dominant factor; well—why not two? The orthodox management, is a right hander at one end and a left at the other; the former provides the batting side with runs, the latter gets the wickets. Why not two left-handers and get wickets at both ends. Next week “Cricket Sidelights,” by P. F. Warner.