MODERN CRICKET.

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 134, 27 August 1927, Page 13

MODERN CRICKET.

ENGLAND’S BACKSLIDING. THE “ STATISTICAL ” PLAYERS. » true cricketer I will begin with £ ocd old grumble at the dear game, * * Seville Cardus, in a chat about picket io the London “Illustrated and Sfgmatic News” George Meredith says el jjiug somewhere about the priviLe of the lover to complain at the Jdoved without doting the less. Cricket a going to the dogs, and always has Did England win a Test match rL year? Well, who won it for us? i)\a Wilfred Hhodcs, old Jack Hobbs, :,h help from the others. The three Vreitest Test match cricketers of last luouner were the most aged of all those '.bo wo re International colours. Hobbs, ..Mriaev and Rhodes; let us behold in the Tests a stature which put our vouns hopefuls considerably in the shade. Did that victory over Australia last tugust “rehabiltate” English cricket? \i’e have been told so, in rhapsodic numbers, by many writers on the game, i-t us look at the position in our cricket to-day with the cold eye ot remorseless reason, as the canny Scot says in Barrie’s play. We can point to one fas* bowler of authentic class— Larwood. And he is not better than any of these, all of whom were in the -*ame at one and the same time, 21 vears ago: W. Brearley, N. A. Knox, [lestwick, Warren, Jayes, Wass, Hesketh, Prichard, Buckenliam, Fielder, Wilson ( 0 f Worcestershire). Any one of those last bowlers would have come as a Godsend to English cricket last year. But only two—Brearley and Warren—contrived to win their Test match colours in this country. There was a long a nd distinguished waiting list for the English XI in pre-war summers. In 1905 the following team of superb amateurs could have been gathered together: E. W. Dillon, H. K. Foster. FI. fl. Sprot, Captain Greig, A. J. I. Hill, J. N. Crawford, W. H. B. Evans, 11. Marlyn, W. W. Odell, O G. Napier and N. A. Knox. None of these cricketers ever achieved the honour of playing for England on home soil: our best England XI of the moment might not be able to defeat an amateur side of this all-round strength. The match would certainly make a pretty sight, and I know which team 1 would prefer to see at the wicket. I shall agree that the English game is •‘rehabilitated** the first time 1 find a Gentleman’s side at Lords that docs not >eem hopelessly outclassed by the Players* side. Still I do not worry over-much about the technical faults in first-class cricket of the present day. They will right themselves in time. It could he argued, indeed, that there is too much efficiency of technique in modern cricket; that mechanical skill tyrannises the spirit of those who exhibit it. What many of us cannot find in the game nowadays is the old forcefulncss of personality. Hobbs, Hendren, Mead, Sandham, and the rest, are nil tremendously clever technicians, but do they loom in the imagination of the crowd as Grace did, and “Ranji,” and Jessop, and Hirst, and Maciaren, and Victor Trumper. and Tom Richardson, and Albert Trott? With all the sweet uses of advertisement, as known to this so-called twentieth century, few of the darlings of the hour fill our minds with arresting and personal shapes. Grace, “Rrmji,** Jessop, and the rest had a grip on the nation’s mind that was not wholly to be accounted for by their centuries, their records. They were cricketers who, through the game they loved, expressed the essential parts of themselves—their immortal souls, if you like. Even when Maciaren got a “duck.” he would 4ie in high Roman fashion, playing forward beautifully or getting* caught from some stroke achieved with a poise of body glorious to see. Bowlers watching Maciaren’s stumps scattered might well have stood in awe at the downfall n f greatness. And they might well have murmured “We do him wrong, being so majestical.** Last year at Lords a grizzled old parson came to me during the Test match and asked where he could buy a score-card. “I don’t know many of the players of to-day. though I come often enough to Lords. They all seem to me to hat and bowl and look alike. Macartw.v*s the only ‘original* cricketer of the lot!” I agreed with him that cricket ’1 r « ce nt years had lost some of the old-time individuality of style, and in order to “draw” him I said, “Yes, there’s no doubting it; the game’s not "hat it was in the time of ‘Banji* and Jessop.” “‘Ran.ii* and Jessop?’* he ejaculated. “Why, the game had gone to the dogs long before then !’* Make no doubt about it—cricket has always oeen going fast to Mr Mantalini’s howwows.

I fancy the public is partly to blame r <* the lack of free personal style and character in cricket of the day. For the public has got into the habit of insisting less upon the style that is the man himself than upon the record " f ore, the mighty average. There lias wen much talk since the war of the Lad effect on the game of the “averBut it is not the cricketers, but crowds, that chatter most about * !!s a, * es ' curr ent insistence on re- ! 0I “* spellbinds many players; they : ce * *" e y must every day be up and dosomething that can be presented to ‘J* Phhlic in terms of impressive s ‘*nstics. It is not. always the county fneketer’s fault if the adventurous °f the game sometimes lnngiusnes while a canny routine skill toils l er rj llls merely for the dismal sake bulky aggregate. If the crowd put up with Test-match batsmen no score 10 runs in an hour on a perticket when their side’s total is V?° for none—well, the crowd will in”lrectly perpetuate this sort of batsThe crowd is responsible for the t 'indards of excellence in all games, rri them jealously at Ticket, and insist day by day for a d, r? the breed that gave us Grace, ‘UiJitsmhji, Lockwood. Trumper, and ssop. What cricket lias thrown out ;, DC ® ln , the shape of personal genius * throw out again—and will do • a the crowd insists heart and soul. fc^n S t SI J )^v t* l6 crowd has grown indifent to style because its convenience .<■*“**? studied. I refer to the system matches on a Saturday. This olfH Public half holiday, and in the a a man arranged to go to uu»*lk el . ground knowing that the arriv i m ,J g ht terminate soon after his sKSi u d em anded that the batsmen *.l™ ? e , U P an d doing and not merely he ff** on *h e defensive. Now that cn’iti*, a .long afternoon’s play lie is tnent a l esser quality of achieve-