CRICKET.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLII, Issue 21, 26 May 1909, Page 9

CRICKET.

tITE AUSTRALIAN XI. IN ENGLAND. Programme of Matches. MAY. tn— first TEST MATCH, at Blrtulnsbam. 81—v. Leicestershire, at Leicester. JUN®. Cambridge University, at Cambridge t—r. Hampshire, at Scnthamptcn. 10—▼. Somerset, at Bath. 14— SECOND TEST MATCH, at Lord a. IT—Vacant (probably Scotland). 21— y, Yorkshire, at Bradford. 24 —v. Lancashire and Yorkshire, at Manchester. . 28— v. Scotland (two days), at Edinburgh. JULY. 1— THIRD TEST MATCH, at Leeds. s—v. Warwickshire, at Birmingham. 8— v. Worcestershire, at Worcester. 12— ~v. Gloucestershire, at Bristol. 15— v. Surrey, at the Oval. 19—v. Yorkshire, at Sheffield. 22 — v. Derbyshire, at Derby. 26—FOURTH TEST MATCH, at Manchester. 29— v. Yorkshire and Lancashire, at Hull. AUGUST. 2— v. South Wales, at Cardiff. 5— v. Lancashire, at Liverpool. 9— FIFTH TEST MATCH, at the Oy«>. 13— t. West of England (Devon, Cornwall, etc.), at Exeter. 16— y. Gloucestershire, at Cheltenham. 19—v. Kent, at Canterbury. 23— v. Middlesex, at Lord's. 26—v. Sussex, at Brighton. 80— v. M.C.C., at Lord's. SEPTEMBER. 2—v. Essex, at Leyton. 6— V. An England Eleven (Mr. Bamford's), at Uttoxeter. 9—Scarborough Festival, at Scarborough. 13—v. South of England, at Hastings. xfi X OTH matches played last week by I'w the Australian eleven now in f a the Old Country were won by the English. Surrey beat the visitors by five runs, and Marylebone won by three wickets. The scores were as follow:— Match Against Surrey, SURREY —First Innings, 191. SURREY’—Second Innings. T. Hayward, not out . 98 J. B. Hobbs, lbw, b Armstrong .... 4 E. G. Hayes, e Hartigan, b Noble .« 4 A. Marshall, b Armstrong 4 J. W. Crawford, b Armstrong .... 20 W. J. H. Curwen, lbw, b Armstrong 5 A. W. Spring, b Whitty 5 W. Lees, b Macartney 13 \V. Hitch, e Macartney, b Whitty .7 11. Strudwlek. c Cotter, b Whitty .. 5 H. Rushby, b Whitty . 0 Sundries 15 Total 178 Bowling Analysis: Noble, one wicket for 35; Armstrong, four for 77; Whitty, four for 28; Macartney, one for 23, AUSTRALIA. —First Tunings. ■V. Trumper, b Lees ...... 2 W. Bardsley, o Strudwick, b Lees .* 41 M. A. Noble, b Rushby 26 W. W. Armstrong, o Strudwick, b Rushby 3 V. Ransford, c Strudwick, b Rushby 2 P. A. Maealister, o Marshall, b Rushby . 5 R. Hartigan, c Hayward, b Lees... « 0 C. G. Macartney, c Spring, b Lees .« 33 H. Carter, b Rushby 2 'A. Gotter, b Rushby .14 Whitty, not out .................. 11 Sundries <•..18 Total „ ..... 167 Bowling analysis: Lees took four wickets for 68; Crawford, none for 33; Rush-, by, six for 38. AUSTRALIA.—Second Innings. R. Hartigan, b Hitch 44 iW. Bardsley, b Rushby 5 M. A. Noble, n Spring, b Rushby. >sul 10 V. Ransford, b Marshall 41 W. W. Armstrong, lbw, b Hitch . 30 V. Trumpcr, e Hayes, b Crawford ~ 20 U. A. Macartney, o Strudwick, b Kushby , — , 5 P. A. McAlister, c Hitch, b Lees 19

H. Carter, e Strudwick, b Crawford 0 'A. Cotter, b Rushby .. 0 W- J. Whitty 4 Sundries 18 Total 207 Bowling Analysis ( Rushby, four wickets for 50; Lees, one for 45; Hitch, two for 68; Marshall, one for tfio; Crawford, two for 25. Australia ▼. Marylebone. AUSTRALIA—First Innings. R. Hartigan, c Gillingham, b Fielder 2 W. Bardsley, c Fane, b Buckenham 42 M. A. Noble, b Fielder 17 V. Ransford, b A. E. Relf 29 W. W. Armstrong, b Thompson .... 42 V. Trumper, b Buckenham 0 C. G. Macartney, b Thompson ..... „ 34 P. A. Maealister, not out 15 W. Carkeek, e Huish, b Thompson ,5 J. A. O’Connor, lbw, b Thompson 9 J. W. Whitty, b Thompson { 0 Sundries 15 Total 210 Bowling analysis: Fielder took two wickets for 65 runs; Buckenham, two for 60; Thompson, five for 26; Relf, one for 26; Tarrant, none for 28. M.C.C. —First Innings. C. B. Fry, e Hartigan, b Whitty .. 14 P. F. Warner, o and b Macartney .. 39 F. L. Lane, a and b O’Connor 22 H. K. Foster, c Hartigan, b Whitty 6 F. A. Tarrant, e Armstrong, b O’Connor 3 Rev. F. H. Gillingham, c and b Armstrong 20 A. E. Relf, b Armstrong 13 J. T. Thompson, c Hartigan, b Armstrong 20 C. P. Buckenham, b Armstrong .... 25 F. E. Huish, b Macartney 27 A. Fielder, not out 9 Sundries 21 Total 221 Bowling Analysis: Noble no wickets for 24, Whitty two for 44, O’Connor two for 68, Armstrong four for 48, and Macartney two for 18. AUSTRALIA. —Second Innings. P. A. McAlister, e Foster, b Relf.... 32 W. Bardsley, c Huish b Thompson 21 C. G. Macartney, c Relf, b Thompson 16 V. Ransford, b Relf 0 V. Trumper, b Buckenham 34 W. W. Armstrong, c Foster, b Relf.., 51 M. A. Noble, b Thompson 8 R. Hartigan, b Thompson 1 W. Carkeek, st. Huish, b Thompson. H 0 J. A. O’Connor, lbw, b Relf 2 J. W. Whitty, not out „ 4 Sundries 6 Total w . 175 Bowling Analysis: Fielder none for 19, Buckenham one for 52, Thompson five for 61, Relf four for 37. M.C.C. —Sesond Innings. F. A. Tarrant, b O’Connor t><3 P. F. Warner, not out 54 F. E. Huish, o Carkeek, b O’Connor 25 C. B. Fry, c Carkeek, b Armstrong.2 F. L. Fane, lbw, b Armstrong ...., 2 H. K. Foster, o Hartigan, b Noble ~ 0 Rev. F. H. Gillingham, o Bardsley b Armstrong 1 J. T. Thompson, b O’Connor .-«.■««« 7 A. E. Relf, not out c 8 Sundries 16 Seven wickets for .... 165 Bowling analysis: O’Connor took three wickets for 55 runs; Noble, one for 19; Armstrong, three for 43; Macartney, none for 14j Whitty, none for 18. The Present-day Standard of BattingBy P. F. WARNER (Captain ol Middlesex; Author of How "We Recovered the Ashes,” etc.}. TX's is the age of progress, and that cricket has progressed, and is better and certainly more scientifically played than it was. Is generally admitted. The game has advanced no much in popularity, and

so much more energy aud thought are given to it, that at a time when men were never less willing to take for granted the maxim of their predecessors, but rather wish to know the why and the wherefore of everything, it would have been strange if alterations of style and methods had not crept in. The Art of Baek Play. In batting there baa been little shore of a revolution. Roughly speaking, all batting may, so far as defensive strokes •re concerned, be divided into forward and back play; and while both the old and the modern school are agreed that in forward play it is essential to get the left leg ont to the ball, there has been a sharp disagreement between the two schools as to the best method of playing back. The old school contend that the right leg should never be moved in playing back, while the modern generation maintain that a quick movement of the feet is the very essence of sound back play. The contention of the old school may be all very well as an elementary principle for a boy who is just starting cricket, but experience has proved that it is altogether wrong when applied bo eno who has got over the initial difficulties of the game, and, for myself, were I coaching a boy, 1 should tell him to move his right leg in playing back, though, of course, I would not allow him to move it away from the wicket in the direction of the squarf leg umpire, unless to hit an atrocious long hop on the off side. With a moment's thought it will be seen that a batsman who moved his right leg towards. the wicket must have a better chance of playing the ball correctly than one who stands with his right leg glued to the ground. In the first place, by moving back towards the wicket, he makes the ball he is playing at shorter by the distance which he steps back, and he has more time to watch it from the pitch. By a forward movement the batsman can alter the length of a ball; why, then, should he not ba allowed to alter the length of a ball by a backward movement? The late Arthur Shrewsbury used to move so far back that on occasions one wondered why he did not tread on his wicket. Secondly, just as in forward play, the golden rule is .to get the left leg well forward in the direction the ball is taking, with Gio bat well up to the leg, so in playing back the right leg should bo placed in the direotien the ball is taking, with the bat as near as possible to the leg. The nearer the batsman’s body is io the ball the more likely is he to make a correct stroke, for the reason that his eye is nearer to the object he is strik.iug at. Dealing With Breaks. Supposing the ball pitches on to or just outside the off stump, the batsman will assuredly play that particular ball more correctly if he moved his right leg across the wicket in a line with the off stump than if he keeps it firmly planted just off the leg stump; for it stands to reason that if he moved his right leg across the wicket in a line with the ball he will be nearer the direction the ball may take after pitching than if ho adhered to his original position. Again, should the particular kind of ball we are discussing break an inch or two from leg, the odds on his being caught at slip or the wicket are very great, should no not move his Tight leg across the wicket; whereas should he bring his right leg across to the off stump and watch the ball closely after it baa pitched, he will stand a far better chance of playing that ball in the middle of the bat than if he had remained with his right leg rooted to the earth. Then, should the ball breaM back, the batsman is equally well prepared for it, for he is well over the Lail, and better able to contend with the break, because more easily able to get into position to play the stroke than if ho were standing firmly fixed on his right leg. An Unnatural Position.

Let any cricketer compare the two methods of playing bock. If he follows the advice of the old school he will find that he feels most uncomfortable and unnatural, in direct contrast to the easy natural movement of the feet which the present generation hold is the essence of successful batsmanship. It is curious that those who deny the necessity of moving the right leg in playing back ar© very strong on the left leg out to the ball maxim in iho case of forward play. The old cricketer thinks that an action for trespass should lie against those batsmen who place their lego in “ th© bowler's

territory " meaning thereby the epact between wicket and wicket- but be forgets that in forward play the left leg is moved across the wicket right down the line of the middle aud off stump. If the principle of moving the body as near as possible to the line of the ball applies to forward play, there would seem to bo good ground for applying the same principle to bock play. Though tliey all have this in common that they move their right leg both back and across the wicket in playing back, different batsmen p'ay back in different ways. Home walk right in front of the wicket, fare ths bowler, and push the bat out In front of them somewhat stillly with the hands wide apart. This is a good, though somewhat ungainly method of defence on good fast wiekets, and on those w hleh are slow and easy, but when the ball is turning quiekly and occasionally getting up, those who use it are rad her at a disadvantage as they have not their wrists in reserve for sudden emergencies. Others again frequently play back with the weight on the right foot entirely, and the left shoulder pointing straight down the wicketA third class have the power of playing their stroke at the last possible moment), which enables them to deal with each ball On its merits. The old school complain that batsmen like Hirst and Hayward having ones determined on a defensive stroke allow the bowler to see very little of the wieket, but genius must have full scope, and every man must decide for himself which method is likely to bring him most success. Marks of Progress. On a difficult wicket lack play is everything; in fact, it may solely be said that a good rule to bear in miud on a sticky wieket is to play back or hit. Quick movement of the feet and an appreciation of the fact that a ball which pitches off the wicket cannot get a batsman out lbw has improved batting on difficult wickets immensely, though the modern cricketer steps in front of his wieket to the breaking ball, more in the belief that his so doing is the better way of hitting that particular ball in the middle of the bat than with any idea cf deliberately Btojf ping it with his legs, though he would be the first to admit that his legs often form a very strong second line of defence. Fifteen to twenty years ago the strongest County elevens used to be got rid of on difficult wickets for totals of 40 and 60, man after man being clean howled in playing forward at the good length ball; and I remember seeing Parris and Tate, get Kent out for something like fifty runs on a sticky pitch no doubt, bat on© on which Kent to-day would probably score at least 150 or 160 runs; and as back play goes on improving the time will come when a total of 250 on a sticky wieket will not be beyond the strongest batting elevens. It used to be thought that “ get out or hit” was a sound maxim to adopt when the turf was false, but this idea has of late been knocked on the head, and the good back player with, of course, some hitting power may confidently expect to do well under these conditions. But while the improvement in back play is the reason why many more runs are made nowadays on sticky wickets than used to be the ease, there is some danger of this line of defence being overdone on hard true wickets; aud I have seen batsmen, and good batsmen, too, clean bowled on a perfect wicket through playing back at balls which they should obviously have gone forward to. Forward play is stilt a very important weapon, both of defence and offence on easy wickets, but quite apart from this, it would be the greatest pity if so attractive a stroke as the forward stroke were to die out.