Mr Warwick Armstrong on Cricket.

Hokitika Guardian, 26 August 1922, Page 4

Mr Warwick Armstrong on Cricket.

Mr Warwick Armstrong has not yet followed .the example of other great first-class players who have retired from first-class cricket, and written his reminiscences. When,.ho. does .they will make an interesting for Mr Armstrong has an experience of* the game which in point of length and j variety can be equalled by very few I living players. His “Art of Cricket’’ is, wo hope, merely the harbinger of a more , detailed and personal chronicle. It is a treatise upon the principles which should be observed in the various, branches of the sport, and Air Armstrong illustrates, his precepts with incidents from the many battles in which he has participated. The author believes that while it is not given to all to' Keeome great cricketore, the aspirants chances will lie immeasurably improved if lie obeys certain elementary rules. And certainly there could bit no more competent guide than Mr Armstrong, whose book will appeal not merely to thus© who take or have taken an active part in the game, but to all who are interested in it, that is to say, to the vast majority of Australians and Britons.

Air Armstrong is a champion of orthodox methods. Genius knows no law, hut.genius in cricket as, in.other departments of human activity is rare, and the cultivation of a- correct technique will spare the neophyte much disappointment. Such time-hon-oured maxims as “K,eep o , straight hat,” “Never hit across the .flight ,of the ball,” are as valid ’to-day as ever they were. It is no answer to say this star nr that has broken every one of the rules when it suited him. Such liberties cannot be taken by the ordinary person At liis bast Jessop was unrivalled as a bitter, but hi s style is Pot one to lie imitated. Trumper was on occasion "brilliantly unorthodox, but Trumper was Trumper, and bis mantle has not hitherto descended upon anyone. Aloreover, eorieet play does not necessarily mean quiet play. Hobbs is ‘the supreme exponent of correctness in hatting, but would anyone call bis performances dull and uninviting? “Where good habits have on on been formed nothing, not even old age, will entirely take them away. That is why men such as, to mention only a few* Clem Hid and Hayward, Al. A. Noble and J. T. Tyldesley. played—and played well—when n<> longer young?” Air Armstrongs modesty has prevented him adding himself to the list. During the last tour of England he obtained 140. J runs with mi average of -ill runs an innings.—a remarkable feat for one who has seen so many seasons wax and 'wane. But the point, as ho remarks, is that the hall-mark of greatness belongs to these batsmen because they pliiyed orthodox .cricket and only depnrtc«i from orthodox methods under the stress of exceptional eircu instances. .Mr Armstrong notes a cer-

tain deeav in the enterprise of batsmen. “At the present time, we have too few batsmen in first-class cricket who really drive the hall as it used to lie driven some years ago.” Again the out, the prettiest stroke of all, is to some extent a lost art. .Macartney anil Hobbs have nothing to learn about this stroke, but they stand almost alone Apart from them, such masters of the cut as W. (I. Grace, Kanjitsiuhji, Trumper, J. T. TyldesIcy, and George (liflon, have left no 'descendants. Mr Attributes this ...? descendants. Air Armstrong attributes this decline partly to the adoption of a more cramped style by contemporary cricketers, partly to the greater caution which characterises modern cricket, and partly to the i volution of new modes of bowling which compel the batsmen to assume the defensive. Air Armstrong lias some very sensible observations to offer on the subject of

bawling. A good bowler, lie says, lias better prospects of advancement than a. good batsman, for, while good batsmen are li.v no means uncommon, good bowlers ere lew and far between. Young cricketers are, generally speaking, keener to shine with the hat than with the ball. They will take endless

pains to become proficient in the art of batting; less frequently will they take thp necessary trouble to learn how to bawl. For some reason or other mere

glamour seems to attach to making runs than to taking wickets, although Mr Armstrong “can. quite solidly vouch that the joy of getting a’man out is every bit as great as that of preventing him from getting Von out.” This comparative neglect of bowling as opposed to batting is especially marked in Eng-

lnhd, wllefe howling seems to bo regarded as a rather tedioiis business, that can be safely left to thrt professionals. The amateur bowler of class is relatively rare in England. Again and again Mr Armstrong overheard thei remark : “If so and so were helf as good n. bowler as lie is a batsman he would be certain of a place in the team. But they don’t want batsmen.” That was profoundly true of all grades of cricket. There is never any difficulty in filling the batsmen’s places. The supply is greater than the demand. But with howling it is a different story. A good lrowler is at a premium. Mr Armstrong gives the bowler many a useful wrinkle, and incidentally warns him riot to be discouraged by “the lucky unorthodox batsman’s wanton wily with good balls. .* . Lohmann once said of n victorious cneiny of this kind.:—‘He can’t bat well enough for me to get him out.’ ” Mr Armstrong also celebrates the services whicK a smart and active fieldsman renders to his side. such an one goes in to bat lie has already quite a respectable score to bis credit in the shape of the runs which he has prevented the other side from getting. Mr Armstrong briefly surveys the Australian tour in England last year. Its siicees, he thinks, was due to various factors. Tn the first place, the Australians had just the weather which he, had lie bene in control of the climate during tlin't summer, worth! have chosen. Again, the indisposition of Tlohbs did irretrievable damage to England’s chances. Tn the existing stage of English cricket, Hnbhs was literally indispensable. A train, though previous Australian teams had contained individuals of greater brilliancy. none could boast such uniforhV merit And such unique balance. Softie criticism has been directed against the captain because he did not give certain players more opportunities to play in big mftt-

ches. . Ain Armstrong does not . direct- • ly. refer, to'-tliis criticism, but lie mentions that the omission of certain players on certain occasions did not reflect, t: ; *1 any way upon their capabilities. The position was simply that the victorious team had proved itself so perfect an in- ij struinent that it conld not he improved! . upon • to have introduced other elements might have.affected its combine- 1 ,‘tion. and balance, and so the “reserves’"” had fewer chances of distinction than j they must otherwise have been given . 1 ■Mr Armstrong has something to sa v about the “degeneration” of Engl if ih cricket. (He ■ agrees • that | tho stand;* rd is not quite so high as it was before t he war. Gregory and AT’Donald, magnf fie. entlv as they howled were .never; opposed to such hatting strength as J Ernest Jones, and in more recent times , A. Cotter had against them. But, ho continues, “no one can tour in Fnf (land without realising what a powerful wave of enthusiasm, for cricket is swe epmg over the coqntry. Cricket inhered m T our bones, and disappointment at the result of the test matches did nothing

to quench your enthusiasm for tie game The love of cricket goes; on and down from generatioh to generation, and nothing can be much wrong .with the game as lorig as it is R»- Tf because of the result of the redent test matches sonic critics saiy.that it is time that England put her house in order, I should like to (remind them that they have a house built on most excellent foundations wherewith to start operations.” ■ |