SLOW CRICKET

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 156, 28 March 1939, Page 3

SLOW CRICKET

Too Much Stonewalling ENGLISH WRITER’S ATTACK Play in the Test, matches in South Africa recently brought forth some outspoken comment by a writer in “Sporting Life,” London. He based his comments upon some remarks by Mr. N. O. Norton, president of the South African Cricket Association, in which the opinion was expressed that the batting was too good for the bowling. This is what he said :— “All will agree that the bowling on either side is not. good enough, 'but why put the 'blame on the bowlers, when the batsmen are largely responsible? “Except in rare occasions, batsmanship in Test matches has become the very negation of cricket. "Given two teams whose batsmen set out to win, four days is surely long enough to finish matches, even when the attack is no better than that possessed by the rivals in South Africa. But. if oiie may judge by tactics in international cricket in receiit years, the batsman does not go to the crease with the determination to win the match. His first thought is not winning, but ensuring against defeat. “Fortunately, we do not often get such extreme cases as that of Bruce Mitchell, who batted four and a quarter hours for 42, not because the bowling was superlative and the wicket bad, but •simply and solely to save the game. That a batsman is entitled to take no risks in the situation in which South Africa found themselves when taking their first innings in Cape Town, no one will deny. Neither can any lover of cricket condone a batsman of Mitchell’s ability for an exhibition of timidity which can have few equals. A. D. Nourse showed that there were runs in the wicket for any batfiman worthy of the name. “But Mitchell’s action is only symptomatic of the attitude of batsmen in Test cricket, whatever the nature of the attack, good, bad or indifferent. With one match played to a finish, batsmen are content to see the other four drawn by relying- on safety-first tactics, unless the opportunity is presented to snatch a victory by making runs quickly, without risk of defeat. “Such an attitude is strangling the game. It. is not -only Test matches which are affected. That is bad enough, but cricket itself suffers. “Selectors search for these stay-for-ever obstructionists; individuals with a good defence and an urge for honours develop these stonewall tactics, and counties, also with an eye to honours, encourage them. “Thus the lethargy of Test cricket is slowly but surely—perhaps not so slowly—putting our county batsmen to sleep,” continues the “Sporting Life” writer. “Sitting on the splice has become a virtue. Even the man with flashing blade, polished style and a wide repertory of strokes becomes stultified once the bogy word ’’l'est’ is whispered to him. He, too, plays for safety so long as there are not sufficient runs on the scoreboard to eliminate the possibility of defeat. Then you may hope to see him do what he should have done all through—play his natural game.

y 'Tliis worship of victory at any cost, of averages, of endurance records, is killing enterprise and spoiling a great game. "Enterprise is fading out of cricket, hence the small attendances at the majority of comity matches, which have put so many county organizations on the Test dole. The spirit of Tests has permeated the county championship to the detriment o£ what should be a great institution for fostering an essentially English pastime.

“Tiie remedy is in Ihe hands of the M.C.C. If they would let it be known that the game is the thing, and not the result, then England, at. the risk of defeat, could show the way back to real cricke I.

"We have come to regard the game as subservient to the .result and are prepared to condone actions which decidedly are. not cricket. In this altitude of mind we see no further than immediate advantage, we reek nothing of the effect on the game, and we ignore llie county balance-sheets, which tell us that the real cricket lover is staying away from flic county grounds because he is no longer eiitertaini’d by rapier-like blade or the retrieval of lost causes.