“THE BEST GAME FOB BOYS.”

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 2111, 6 April 1920, Page 1

“THE BEST GAME FOB BOYS.”

A most interesting article on the subject of “The Best Game for Boys” appeared in the Athletic ■News. The article, written by Mill. S. Taskelh Pritchard, the novelist, who is a well-known cricketer, in England, is worthy of the notice of all schoolboys. -Inst now, when lawn tennis is engaging so much attention, the subject is particularly pertinent, especially in view of the recent trouble in connection with the schoolboys’ championship at the Lawn Tennis Tournament. The article is: — “Much has been written lately about what is the best game for boys, and some writers have even urged

that cricket should no longer be compulsory at our (English) schools, but that its place should be taken by lawn tennis. Now it seems to me that all games considered as games for boys (or for men either, for that matter) should ITiIISI three tests.

“Firstly, the ideal game is one in which the individual player plays not for himself, but for his side. “Secondly, the ideal game must have-in it some degree ot physical danger.

“Thirdly, there should be what we may call collective discipline inherent in the game.

“To play for one’s side, and not for oneself is at the root of the British spirit in -games, and it is what has made the games’ spirit so valuable in Avar, where any reasonably good captain of a school team almost invariably trained on into a good oftlcer. “As for physical danger, no game that does not possess a spice ot it is worth much, Rugby, Association football, and polo all have it. and as to cricket those who saw Woodcock and E. Jones bowling in the Australians v. Lord Sheffield's team, at Sheffield Park, or Cotter at Worcester, or .). B. King at Lord's, know that balling can be positively physically dangerous and yet long scores he made.

A game should also he capable of oneouraging luisellishnoss and selfsacrifice for the common good of (he side. Who has watched mneh criekel, has not seen many a keen player throAv away Ids wicket to save his partner’s because that partner was a better player, and therefore ot more use to the side. In lawn tennis or golf —hue games as they are —you cannot do this. “Imagine a hoy brought up as far as games are concerned —solely on lawn tennis, and another hoy brought it]) solely on cricket, ’fake them at the age of (lei us say) Hi, and compare their outlook. Ton will find the cricketer hoy has formed ideals vastly in advance of those of the tennis hoy. The eriekotei if he lie the right sort, rightly taught Avill have come to consider himself a part of a whole —a member of a team.

“For liim to make a hundred or take eight or nine wickets while his team loses is dust and ashes. Ihe team it is that matters, the individual is nothing.

“On the other hand, the tennis boy’s ideal must he to. win. He may and will have learned to accept defeat gracefully, but he will have become —he cannot help himself —a game’s individualist.

“No, no! It will be u bad da.y ami a sad day for the country when, if ever, lawn tennis and golf, or any such individualistic games take the place of cricket and football and hockey at oar great or little schools. “It is a commonplace to say that in France one of the things at which the foreigner most wondered was the way in which the moment they came out of the trenches our men played football.

“Behind the lines games were encouraged to the furthest extent, for it was realised that the team-play and collective discipline of (he football held bore their fruit in No Man’s Land, for they induced that spirit of thinking for the good of the side which is at the root of all victory.”