CRICKET TACTICS

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 280, 20 August 1921, Page 13

CRICKET TACTICS

WHERE THE AUSTRALIANS OUTPLAY THE ENGLISH

TWO CAPTAINCY STORIES "A Former County Player,” writing in the London "Observer," says: It is not only in the mutter of superfor playing ability that the Australian team has, in the language cf players, "got England stiff," but, so for as the evidence of the first two Test 'matches goes, they are winning through), by superior tactics on. and off the' field. They are much more thorough than; our fellows, and, above all, are never too old to learn. Hence there was more than a mere desire to have a chat with their friends sitting in the seats specially reserved for the latter when members of the Australian eleven wore seen at Lord’s going round to where they could best study the English bowling, from the best possible position, which is from some spot at right angles to the ; wicket. All that u cricketer wants to know at the outset is the ■ length of a laowler. That is what matters most.' ,If he doesn’t pitch a good length It mslttors little if ho can break or swerve the ball. Having reconnoitered the length question the cricketer next watches for break. This, too, can be well seen from spot at right angles to the pitch by anyone with half an eye from the way the stroke is played, and from the movements of the wicket-keeper, especially which way his hands go when about to take, and after taking, the ball. The Australian batsmen being forewarned are bettor armed than are our fellows, some of whom do not watch these things closely; others of whom do not take the precaution to sit in the open light just before going in to bat and only ono of whom was seen outside tho pavilion during lnnings. While tho Australians were in the field it was observed that Armstrong rarely, if over, placed either of his two fast bowlers whore they would have least to do. Hurston was fielding at a sort of nondescript cover-point, or extra-cover, for part of Australia’s innings! During the recent tour in Australia, Dolphin, the reserve wicket-keeper, Adding as substitute, was on at least one occasion fielding on the? boundary! During tho lest at Nottingham, Richmond, chosen for his googlio bowling, and only for that, fialded at the beginning of Australia’s first innings at long-leg to a left ana a right-hander in turn for close upon forty J minutes, having much running and a fair amount of throwing to do, before being put on to bowl at the end whence ho never howls for Notts. It is a wellknown cricket fact that the bowling of ' googiies is a sufficiently exacting task. For Notts he fields at mid-on, and no nooglles; bowler in history has ever Ibefere been in the long field before being put on to bowl. While Richmond was at long leg, Knight and Tyldesley (E.) and Jupp and Holes were all in near to tho wiclcet positions, with a minimum of exertion and no throwing to do. The backing-up on the English, side at Lord's was usually done by third or fourth instead of first slip. _ It has always been one of the. unwritten laws of out-cricket that first slip is wholly responsible for covering such, laches as cover’s wild throws, or the wicket-keep-er’s fumbling of good, bad, or indifferent ( returns, but "England" broke this hardy , and sound law repeatedly at Lord’s. Why did England give the first two Australian batsmen a twenty-five ininutes’ rest between tho fall of the tenth English wicket and first ball down to the Australians? The law allows but ton, and it was only natural 1 when the tentli Australian wicket fell on Monday at 1.14, that Armsrong should want to bowl a couple, or even only one,’ over ' to our' second inning's < first pair before lunch that day. But ; no bell was rung, and but for Arm- > strong’s call Aha umpires would not 1 lhave sauntered out at 1.25, only to return again, as a Test. cannot proceed with ropes round the pitch and several ’ hundreds of the public on the playing area. Is there no method to be discerned in tho practice of the Australian manage- . ment, who have a man set apart to re- 1 produce for tho information of their General Staff tho innings of every Eng- i lishman in diagrammatic form? Thus, should the questions arise when they hold one of their many councils of war: “Whore did Woolley score most of his runs at Lord’s, off whom, and by what strokes?" Armstrong has only to turn up the record of thoee innings to get his answers at a glance. Such knowledge is priceless. Have we tho counter-part of such a system in any shape or form ? f Apparently not. or Bardeley would not have been allowed to help himself on the leg-side as he was allowed, to do. in ' both innings at Lord's. It is a cricket certainty that in the next Tests Woolley will have a harder job than ever to , find holes in the Australian not, for all his wristy ability to reach the boundary with a minimum of effort .by tho shortest route of all. In tho Australian books he is a marked man, and the fact that ho had played several times against Australia prior to hislast innings shows what triumphs for him they were. . . Apart from these considerations tho general setting of the Australian, held, the tactics employed in regard to bowling changes, and tho close observance by Australian fieldsmen of the golden rules: "Stay where you are placed, until moved by the bowler, . and, for off-side fields, "Como in towards the bat for every ball bowled,” all combine to keep, down England’s score. Cricketers were aghast to read tho other day from the pen of D. J. Knight that cover-point and Apparently all near in off-side fieldsmen, should use their judgment and wuniisr about roam was, I believe, tho word he used—from tho position originally taken up. Homer never nodded thusly I am sure! How fs a bowler, especially a alow or mediumpaced break bowler, to bowl if at one moment his cover is square, at the next ten yards to tho right, then halfway back again, and so on? Such unsound counsel surely has never before been placed where our young cricketers could read it. If Knight meant that cover should not stand still but should come in for every ball bowled, ho did not say so Hie words bore no other construction than that hero placed upon them, winch is that cover-point, and his follow off-sidors, should convert themselves into a sort of chartered libertine, to loaf around and stand where they like. Ono can almost hear “W.G." or Lord Darris, or Sam Woods, Martin Hawke or Teddy Wynyard making observations to any of the fieldsmen of their day who did not keep position! Modern fieldsmen, who are of Knight's way of thought, are closely related to that' weird modern race of bowlers which has sprung up which can only bowl at this end, or can't bowl unless the ball is new, or the wind: in the west, or tho slope of the wicket is Just so. I like tho old-time skipper who clipped short one such childish objector with: "You go on where you’re told and for as long as I want you to. You'll be telling us next you can't bowl because there was no asparagus for dinner last night!" Also that other one who in a club game of some importance was trying a young Ibowler who was making his debut as a fast bowler. Said the youngster: "I want a long leg and a deep square leg, and; . . . ." "But," interrupted his ruthless captain, "ain’t you a Last bowler?" “Yes, but I frequently get hit there!" "The devil you do," said tho skipper, "then you bowl only ono over.’’ And it was so. I have not observed included in Australian tactics any disposition on tho part of Gregory, or any of the rest of them, to suggest to Armstrong that he can only bowl at a particular and. In short', a little more real, cricket end a

good - deal loss fiddle-faddle nonsense, camouflaged as tactics, seems necessary in our side of the scales.