ONE-DAY CRICKET

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 163, 30 September 1927, Page 11

ONE-DAY CRICKET

IS IT PRACTICABLE?

Proposed for Auckland

PROBABLY no question is being more keenly discussed in cricketing circles at present than the proposal to play one-day matches in senior and second grade cricket this season.

THE coming Into force of the Daylight Saving Bill this summer furnished the genesis of the idea. An extra hour of daylight will be available, and it is suggested that by starting at 1.30 atnd finishing at 7.30 (6.30 ordinary time), it would be possible to play one day matches. Its advantages are obvious—brighter cricket, better “gates” and the elimination to a large extent of the luck of winning the toss, which, in the case of two teams reasonably equal in strength, often means the difference between winning and losing the match. But there are disadvantages as well. One of the biggest arguments raised

against it at the annual meeting was that it was a “revolutionary proposal,” and that it would completely alter the style of play. The mere fact of a scheme being revolutionary/ is not necessarily an argument against it, however. The Daylight Saving Bill itself is revolutionary, but it is being given a trial. It might just as reasonably be argued then that one day cricket is equally deserving of a trial. A more effective argument is the: effect it might have on the standard of play. One speaker said that we have teams here capable of scoring five or six hundred runs. The answer to that is that they may be capable of doing so, but they don’t. As far as rep. matches are concerned, it is an axiom in sport that it is easier to go from a faster system of play to a slower one than vice versa, la the event of one-day cricket being

adopted, it should not be very difficult for our rep. players to return to two or three day matches in the Plunket Shield and other rep. games. Even allowing the liberal average of 250 runs an innings, however, it is setting two teams a stiff task to score 500 runs in, say, from 330 to 360 minutes. This estimate is, of course, based on the average of two-day matches: hence there is a danger that such a comparison is not quite applicable to one-day cricket. Players like Bowley, Dacre, Gillespie and Co. would probably have little difficulty in adapting themselves to one-day cricket, but it might be a different matter with players of the Allcott and Irving type. As to the proposal to complete unfinished matches during the week, this is essentially a matter for the players. Are they prepared to give the necessary time to it? Mr. Carlton Hay reminded the annual meeting that it used to be done in the oid days, but it is perhaps a little doubtful if the present-day cricketer is the same whole-souled enthusiast as those of a bygone generation. There are more distractions these days. Still, if the players are prepared to “give it a go,” it could be done again. CUTS BOTH WAYS Another argument that has been urged is that if the Daylight Saving Bill will provide extra playing time for one-day matches, it will equally as well leave extra time for two-day matches, many of which at present have to be decided on the first innings,, owing to the impossibility of completing four innings. The argument against this is that two-day matches are sufficiently long drawn out as it is., without giving batsmen a furtherexcuse for sitting on the handles of their bats. Here, in brief, are the arguments for and against. Mostly, they are against, because the advantages of one-day cricket are generally admitted, but it comes down' largely to a question of whether it is practicable. It is certain that the public would welcome it. Present-day cricket is too slow for the average man, and unless it is Auckland v. Wellington for the Plunket Shield or a match with an international flavour, plain John Citizen prefers to find some other way of spending his Saturday afternoon. The players must be considered, too, however. That is one reason why it might have been better if the annual meeting had carried out Mr. N. C. Snedden’s proposal that the clubs should be consulted first. However, the retention of the present parochial method of direct representation from the clubs should enable the management committee to discuss the question ] with a fair knowledge of what the i playing members of their clubs think j about the proposition. And with all the evidence before it, Sit rests with the management com!m it tee to give its decision. What say ! ye, gentlemen? —J. M. McK.