CRICKET.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLII, Issue 25, 23 June 1909, Page 10

CRICKET.

THE AUSTRALIAN XL IN ENGLAND. Programme of Matches. JUNE. 24— v. Lancashire and Yorkshire, at MaaChester. 23—v. bcctlruid (two days), at Edinburgh. JULY. 1— THIRD TEST MATCH, at Leeds. s—v. Warwickshire, at Birmingham. 8— v. Worcestershire, at Worcester. 12— v. Gloucestershire, al 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 Oval. 13— v. West of England (Devon, Cornwall, etc.), at Exeter. 16— v. Gloucestershire, at Cheltenham. 19—v. Kent, at Canterbury. 23— v. Middlesex, at Lord’s. 26— v. Sussex, at Brighton. 30— v. M.C.C., at Lord’s. SEPTEMBER. 2—v. Essex, at Leyton. 6— v. An England Eleven (Mr. Bamford's), at Uttoxeter. 9—Scarbprough Festival, at Scarborough 13—v. South of England, at Hastings. The Second Test. Australia made honours easy by winning the second test match with nine wickets in hand. ENGLAND. AUSTRALIA. ] A. C. Maclaren(capt) M. A. Noble(capt)' J. B. Hobbs. V. Trumper T. Hayward. C. G. Macartney. J. T. Tyldesley S. E. Gregory. George Gunn. W. Bardsley A. O. Jones. 11. Carter. J. H. King. A. Cotter. George Hirst. W. W. Armstrong. A. E. Relf. P. A. McAlister A. A. Lilley V. Ransford. S. Haigh. F. Laver. Following were the scores:— ENGLAND.—First Innings. G. B. Hobbs, c Carter, b Laver .... 19 T. Hayward, st Carter, b Laver .... 16 J. T. Tyldesley, lbw, b Laver 46 Geo. Gunn, lbw, b Cotter 1 King, e Macartney, b Cotter 60 A. C. MaeLaren, c Armstrong, b Noble Ti A. O. Jones, b Cotter 8 G. Hirst, b Cotter 31 A. E. Relf, e Armstrong, b Noble .. 17 A. A. Lilley, e Bardsley, b Noble .. 47 S. Haigh, not out 1 Sundries 16 Total 269 Bowling Analysis: Laver took three wickets for 75, Macartney none for 10, Cotter four for 80, Noble three for 42, Armstrong none for 46. AUSTRALIA. —First Innings. P. A. Macalister, lbw, b King 22 F. Laver, b Hirst 14 W. Bardsley, b Relf 46 W. VY. Armstrong, c Lilley, b Relf.. 12 V. Ransford, not out 143 V. Trumper, c Maclaren, b Relf .... 28 M. A. Noble, e Lilley, b Relf 32 S. E. Gregory, e Lilley, b Relf .... 14 A. Cotter, run out 0 C. A. Macartney, b Hirst .......... 5 H. Carter, b Hirst 7 Sundries 27 Total ." 350 Bowling Analysis: Hirst took three wickets for 83, King one for 99, Relf five for 85, Haigh none for 41, and Jonea none for 15. ENGLAND. —Second Innings. J. B. Hobbs, c and b Armstrong . . 7; T. Hayward, thrown out . 6 J. T. Tyldesley," st Carter, b Armstrong ....... 3 Geo. Gunn, b Armstrong .......... 0 J. H. King, b Armstrong 4 A. O. Jones, lbw, b Laver .......... 26 G-. Hirst, b Armstrong .. . 1 A. C. MaeLaren, b Noble .......... 24 A. O. Lilley, not out ............24 A. E. Relf, b Armstrong .......... 3 S. Haigh, run out ................ 5 Sundries . 16 Total .... 121' Bowling Analysis': Laver took one wicket for 24, Cotter none for 34, Nobl* one for 12, Armstrong six for 35.

AUSTRALIA. Second Innings. W. Bardsley, c Lilley, b Relf 0 F. A. McAlister, not out 19 K E. Gregory, not out 18 Sundries 4 Total for one -wicket 41 Bowling Analysis: Relf one for 9, Hirst none for 28. The Australians have put up a great performance in winning the second test by so substantial a margin. Their victory was due to sheer merit, and has effectually dissipated the fear engendered by their showing in the first- test that they were outclassed by the Englishmen. All through the Australians have shown to advantage, their bowling was good, their fielding, although a couple of chances were missed, was described as bril•liant, and their rate of scoring at the wickets was much ahead of that of the homo side. When the bare scores were first cabled through, one naturally thought that the wicket must have been sodden and in favour of the bowlers, but the detailed account showed that it was all the other way, and the dismissal of so strong a batting side on a plumb wieket for 121 runs is a remarkable performance, for which the main credit must be taken by Armstrong, who has proved of immense service to his side all through the tour. -'The third test commences on July 1 at Leeds, while the fourth will be played at the end of the month, and the fifth on August* 9. The last will be played to a final should the teams have an equal number of wins. The Australians have now played twelve matches, winning five, losing three, and drawing four. West ot Scotland Beaten. West of Scotland, in the second innings against the Australians, made 144 runs, and the Australians won the match by an innings and 188 runs. The weather - was fine and the attendance numbered 6000. The Effect of Visiting Teams on English Cricket. (By H. D. G. LEVESON-GOWER, of Surrey.) To express one’s view on the above subject is not altogether an easy task, rendered none the less easy for me personally from the fact that I have never had the advantage of a visit to Australia, so I am unable to say anything on that score: I can only form an opinion from what has appeared to me to be the effect of foreign cricket tours to this country on cricket in England. To my w T ay of thinking, there is no doubt at all in the imperial value of these tours. I am sometimes afraid that we in England are rather inclined to be too insular, too narrow minded in our outlook, and with all our much vaunted love of good sport and fair play we are not, taking one huge cricket crowd with another, always ready to allow that England or English sides have had luck, whilst we are not slow to notice if a shower of rain or perhaps an obvious mistake 4n umpiring has advanced the cause of the visiting team. Clannishness and. Pride.

of one’s county or country, which are much the same thing, are excellent in their way, but they can be carried too far when allowed in cricket, or other games, to overrule one’s sense of fair play, or to usurp the place which by right ought to be occupied in the mind of every Briton by a strict feeling of impartiality. During visits of foreign teams we find that however good we may previously have thought ourselves there are others just as good if not better. Once one has recognised that fact a good thing has been accomplished. For it is very true that -we do not sufficiently recognise that we who have for so long led the whole world in sport and in games eannot hope to do so for ever. Other and younger nations, as far as sport is concerned, must of necessity improve, and we have as time goes on to fight accomplished performers, and not noviges. That we are often beaten does not mean either that we are one whit worse players than we were, or that the visitors have had all the luck, but it means that the others have profited by the lessons we gave them in past years. I do not think all the writers on games in the columns of our sporting papers quite realise this. These tours help to broaden our views, and that most certainly assists the game generally by inducing a more generous

spirit of appreciation of the deeds of the visiting team, whether it be from Australia, South Africa, or America, or whether it be that of a neighbouring county. Generous and healthy rivalry is one thing, that engendered by the horrible atmosphere which surrounds a crowd of “barraekers,” and non-sports-men of that kind, is quite another thing. Better and finer cricket) or football for the matter of that, is played when the rivalry is a healthy and a sporting one. The reverse is the case when there is the slightest semblance of acrimony both in the J’ress and among the cricket following publie, and my view of foreign tours in this country is that they tend to reduce that sort of thing to vanishing point, and by doing so do the game generally ever so much good. Lessons We Have Learnt.

Now, as to the good done to the game itself cricketers have no doubt whatever upon this score. Both the Australians and the South Africans have taught us something. Placed under separate heads I may enumerate the various teachings of the two cricket powers as follows- The “Australians of course come first, just as they came first to our shores, but I am not sure that the South Africans have not taught us the best thing of all. That, by the way. Here are the things these foreign tours have taught. (1) The Australians showed us the value of fast breakbowling. (2) Of how to place the field. (3) Of doing away with the longstop, thereby having another fieldsman to place elsewhere. (4) The South Africans showed us the real efficacy of good “googlie” bowling, which before we had only half suspected, and had regarded only as freak bowling, a passing fancy which would retire from the game with its inventor.

Dealing with these seriatim—there is no possible doubt that until the appearance of Spofforth we in this country had not realised how much deadlier good fast break-bowling is than slow break-bowling. The late Alfred Shaw, the emperor of slow medium right hand bowlers, as an admirer not inaptly had termed him, was good enough in all conscience, but for sheer deadliness his slow break-bowling was not to be compared with that of the faster Spofforth, of C. T. B. Turner, and later W. Lockwood and T. Richardson. Naturally the physical wear and tear being ever so much less, the slower bowlers had longer careers than the fast, but given both at their very best for a given week there is no question but that the fast break-bowler who was practically unknown to us until Spofforth’s arrival (though he was never a fast bowler like N. A. Knox, W. Brearley, Lockwood or Richardson) would, always beat the slow against good batsmen.

Scattering the Field. Secondly, we had a fair idea of how to place our field before the Australians began to win test matches, but they undoubtedly showed us many wrinkles in the art of placing men where most likely to be useful. It is said that in the back-blocks of Australia the usual word of command of the fielding captain on arriving at the pitch is: “Now, then, boys, scatter.” But, believe me, that is not the way W. L. Murdoch or J. J. Darling used to place their field, nor do I expect any of our umpires will overhear M. A. Noble start operations in a test match this year in this delightfully inconsequent fashion. Australian captains study the batsmen very closely, even down to noticing that the noil-striker is either a very bad ar over-eager baeker-up—not a single thing escapes them. They are, one must say, most admirably seconded in their efforts by their bowlers, who not only bowl to orders, but may be trusted far more to bowl to orders than is the ease with many of our bowlers in county cricket. In this connection, I can recall one of the best bits of captaincy seen on an English ground for many a year, that of Darling at Lord’s in 1905. The unobservant critics were caught napping very badly that day. As a natural result, C. B. Fry and Hayward came in for a severe criticism for slow play, which was quite undeserved. On a slow easy wicket Darling had Armstrong bowling wide to leg at one end, and McLeod bowling round the wicket, going away very wide to off, at the other. Both, Armstrong especially, kept a superb length, while Armstrong’s “width,” which barely received notice by the critics, was such that scoring was in any case difficult. But with the (close in-field Dhrling had it

became to all intents and purposes impracticable. Whether tr.rs was a good match-winning taetic is not the point here. It was unquestionably good captaincy if the object of it was, as there is sufficient presumptive evidence to assume it was, to tire out the batsmen and so secure a good start—that most invaluable asset in all big cricket. But opposed to these tactics we had two of the most imperturbable batsmen of all time. Hayward far too stolid and steady to bo drawn, and Fry ever so much too far seeing and calculating to ever be guilty of throwing his wicket away merely because his principal scoring strokes were blocked. It is in all such examples as these that the Australians have taught the art of placing the field to any who will learn.

Thirdly, J. McCarthy Blaekham came and shocked the cricket proprieties by standing right up to the stumps and “taking” all bowling alike. Since then we have had a long line of stumpers—in fact, and not in name only. Men like Lilley, 11. Martyn, Strudwick, Humphries, Board, and Butt, among whom the professionals do net stand close up to the extra fast bowling, not because they eannot, but because in nearly every case their captain orders them not to. “ Googlie ” Bowling,

Fourthly, and finally, the South Africans—R. O. Schwarz, G. A. Faulkner, A. E. Vogler, and G. C. White—created a marked sensation during 1907 by th.pitch of perfection to which they had brought the delivery of the off-breaking ball, delivered with a leg break action, which was first bowled by B. J. T. Bosanquet. Right through their tour only one man could we find who can be said to have really played their bowling, and that was C. B. Fry at the Oval in the third test. Hardstaff played a good innings against it at Nottingham, but for some reason or other Braun! had very little of it . to play during the first test match at Lord’s. Though Vogler was unmistakably the best bowleron the side, G. A. Faulkner was the best purely “googlie” bowler of the four, as he could break both ways at a good pace. The effect of that tour on cricket generally was to awake us to the fact that we have not yet by any means plumbed the depths of the bowling art or sapped its treasures. There are now many votaries of the art of “googlie” bowling all over England. Schoolboys practise the thing almost daily, and to my way of thinking the test match side of the future is incomplete without a “googlie” bowler. It is futile to argue that this particular delivery will be mastered in time by batsmen. May 1 ask, Has the good off-break or leg-break delivered in copy book way ever been truly mastered? There are people to be found still who argue that “googlie” bowling is only freak bowling. They are wrong, I think. The “googlie” is a distinct addition to the bowler’s battery*, and is, in fact, his most deadly weapon, no defence being invincible against it.