GILLIGAN’S MEN.

Hokitika Guardian, 29 August 1925, Page 3

GILLIGAN’S MEN.

There is no better judge of cricket living than Mr AI. A. Noble, who in “Gilligan’s Men” has written an account of the Australian tour of the AI.C.C. team. Never before, perhaps, i'i the history of the game in Australia had a visit excited keener anticipations than this one. English cricket was known to he stronger than it had been since the war. The team included a number of “old hands” who had already proved their mettle in this country. There were also new men, who, if they could hut reproduce their English form in Australia, would make our grip on the “ashes” very insecure. “There could he no doubt about it,” writes Mr Noble, “except for the absence of Parkin, the team was the lest that England could send us, and when we sat down to place every man in his position, and, figuratively, to select an Australian team to oppose them, we began for the first time since the war to feel that the ‘ashes’ were not quite safe. Man for man, team for team, batsmen for batsman, howler for bowler, fielder for fielder, we ranged them out in their order of merit, and, shall T confess it, came to the conclusion that, unless the Kangaroo could leap higher than lie had ever leapt for some time, the Lion would twist his tail.” There was, however, always the qualification that brilliant performers in England often find it difficult to adapt themselves to Australian wickets and Australia, n light. When the first Test niateTi came to be played Australia was fairly confident, but the confidence did not go beyond that one match. AVhen the second Test came we were- less sanguine, and from then on until tho end of the series we were never certain which side would win. The element of fortune favoured Australia considerably, and it only wanted a slight suing of the pendulum to bring victory to the Englishmen. Although Ihe first three Tests fell to Australia, wo realised that, on our play, "we were scarcely value for such a margin. Neither our howling nor our fielding had been as good as England's. Only the consistency of the batsmen had carried us though, with very little to spare, and. with a modicum of luck England would have won the third Test. Indeed, when the tide turned, and the Englishmen won the toss in the fourth Test, not only did they heat Australia, hut they scored the- greatest victory of the tour.” The spin of the coin served England i'i. There can be no question, in Air Noble's opinion, that the loss of the toss on three successive occasions gravely prejudiced England’s chances. Some critics have argued that the importance of tliis factor lias been exaggerated: on the hard wickets of Australia losing the toss is of no particular consequence. Mr Noble does not agree. The winning or losing oT the toss in Sydney. Melbourne, and Adelaide is invariably a very potent influence in tbo subsequent success or failure of a. side. Its value is genernliv computed to be a hundred runs—a hundred runs deducted, as it- were, from the side that has the last use of the wicket. There is, moreover, tlu moral effect.. To lose the toss once is nothing. To do so a second time becomes a little monotonous. But the third loss must make tho side Lei that it is under a malign spell. It is doomed for ever to be confronted ( with the task of having to make a | lug score to win in the last innings ( on a wicket that has boon subjected to | tlir wear and tear of a week’s play. If Gilligan had won the ins's, in, say. two out of the first three test matches would the Englishmen have regained the “ashes”? No one can tell. But Air Noble thinks it. reasonable to as- 8 sumo that they would. As things > were. ATr Noble considers that, on the 1 play, the Australians deserved to win ‘ the rubber, but that the actual figu- jU" flatter them. “Three games to two would more accurately have repre- l son ted the difference between the sides. When the team was selected and seventeen players were invited to make the trip several English critics suggested that these were too many. Air , Noble is of the same mind. So large a . number, he says, is altogether too ; cumbrous and does not allow either the ; individuals or the side to do their host. Half of them never had a sufficient chance to reproduce their proper form. The captain feels it his duty to play them as oflen as he can, hut that neither helps them, very much or assists in the development of the side. It is far more important to bring on a particular player by providing him. with the opportunities for his advancement to three or four who are consistently being left out of the big fixtures. For the rest Mr Noble attributes England’s defeat to her tail. The Englishmen were individually (with exceptions) and collectively greatly superior to Australia at fielding, and we had no howler to equal Tate. But every one of the Australians was capable of making runs at a pinch, and the Australian attack was varied. England relied too much upon a few men. Tate lias the heart of a lion, and the stamina of a blood horse, but he had to carry too heavy a harden. “The pity of it was that, until the third test at least, he had to piny almost a lone hand. Seldom did he get that assistance lie was entitled to look for from the other end to complete the rout he initiated.” And Hobbs and Sutcliffe were the only really consistent, batsmen. Once they were dismissed there was no one who could he counted on with reasonable certainty to get runs. Air Noble would like to bracket Hobbs with Tnmiper as a batsman, but he is unable conscientiously to do so. Still he declares him to he “one of the most remarkable batsmen of all time.” It may he true that the quality of the bowling he has had to face is inferior to that of 20 years ago. But Air Noble believes that had Hobbs been born 20 years earlier he would have been relatively just as much above his contemporaries as he is to-day. Mr Noble considers that J. M. Taylor is Australia’s premier batsman, whether on good or had wickets. He further contends that two players who took no part in the Tests should he members of tho team that is to visit England next year. These are C’. G. .Macartney, who was unavailable last season on account of ill-health, and P. Hornibrook, of Queensland. The latter, playing with a weak State, has had far too much work to do. “In fact, ho lias been almost murdered against the strong hatting sides of the other States.” The experience gained in an English tour would he of immense benefit to him, and the need for bowlers ol class will be severely felt by Australia in the near future unless talent is unearthed and developed. Air Noble regrets that so few matches are played by the Englishmen in country centres. Afore such games would not only give a tremendous impulse to cricket in the country. which has in the past given us many of our champions, but it would enable our guests to see something of the real Australia, and so promote lmperial sentiment. Incidentally the. author refers to the wonderful strides which the art of cricket-phoCography has made in recent years, and in this connection pays a special tribute to tho work of AH H. H. Fishwick, of the “ Sydney Afail,” a number of photographs taken by whom are reproduced ip this volurpe,