CRICKET.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 August 1921, Page 11

CRICKET.

RECORDS OF THE TOUR. 16 MATCHES WON: 16 DRAWN. TOTAL OF 10,994 RUNS. The Australians have won three out of the five tefct matches and drawn one. Their record for the present tour to date is: —Matches ■played, 26; won, 16; drawn, 10. Appended is a summary of the matches: —

♦lnnings declared. fNine wickets, one man absent. EOR AND AGAINST. Those figures show the runs scored for and against the Australians in their present tour and the averages for an innings:— Runs. Wkts. Av. Australia 10,994 298 36.89 Opponents 8,098 421 19.21 AVERAGES FOR THE TESTS. The following are the batting and bowling averages of the/Australian and English players in the four test matches played to date: —

AVERAGES FOR THE TOUR. The following are the batting and bowling averages of the team for the present tour, at the conclusion of the Fourth Test match: — Batting.

THE AUSTRALIAN CRICKETER. HOW HE BECOMES GREAT. An Australian correspondent, writing in the London Observer, gives the following interesting observations on Australia’s methods and training of her cricketers, and makes a comparison with England’s methods. He writes: The veterans Syd. Gregory is said to have told his kinsman Jack—a redoubtable leader •of Australia’s attack —to leave cricket well alone. "Cricket has been little good to any Gregory," was the great little batsmans advice, and young Jack hesitated a good deal between his prospects as sheep station manager and this tour. He came, and in the application of this little stbry lies much of the explanation of Australia’s prowess. It seems all wrong, against the numerical laws, that Australia should defeat the mighty phalanx of English cricketers—a. phalanx ■ coached and instructed, expensively equipped, ' eagerly supported b * tha national sentiment

of a great people. But it is not so strange when you think that cricket is as irresistible in its appeal to all Australian youths as it is to Jack Gregory, and when you see that Gregory is just the type of man who would be inevitably, disastrously, lost in English cricket to-day. Grant that the instinct for sport has been fully inherited and widely developed in Australia; grant that Australians have an innate faculty for anything requiring physical and mental alertness in open fields; grant that their mode of life ensures initiative and self-reliance in youth; there is little in tnese considerations, for the English also are a nation of sportsimen ,and the English boy marks his wicket against the backyard fence as eagerly as the Australian boy seeks a discarded kerosene tin. The fundamental difj ference lies in cricketing opportunity, in giving a man his chance. You would lose Gregory. Not only Gregory. There is probably not one amongst ‘'the Australian cricketers visiting England who would play serious cricket if he lived here.

THE AUSTRALIAN METHOD. Save a few ground bowlers, we have no professionals in Auckland. How, then, do we ensure that the markedly good player can devote io it the time it requires? By a much wider interpretation of amateur regulations and by compensating him, on such occasions as these, for his loss of earnings Whilst abroad. Moreover, a great cricketer is in Australia a matter of national concern. If his ambition, for a few years, rests in cricket, he is found what, might be tenmed a cushy job. Employers, especially the banks and big public companies, are lavish in their encouragement; are they net sportsmen, too? I am not saying that we do not lose gtent players through conflict between their, cricket and their business or professional cateers, but it is unquestionable that a considerable part of the superiority of Australian cricket is due to the encouragement given to good players to play the game. Taking a few of the Australian team at random, Malley at home is a blaek and white artist, Warren Bardsley a clerk in a. New South Wales Government office, Armstrong the pavilion manager for the Melbourne Cricket Club, Carter an undertaker, Macartney a Government railway clerk, Pellew a medical student. In nearly every case members of Australian elevens visiting England could play big cricket here only by becoming professionals, and that is attended in this country by a class distinction abhorrent to the Australian spirit.' It Is not for an Australian to criticise methods which this country finds suits it best, but there is not the slightest doubt that Australia would fall far short of its present standard if it followed those methods. Following its own untrammelled course, Australian cricket has produced a system which in the political field would be termed democratic. There is discipline, backed by intelligent men who know Its necessity. Could any cricket discipline have been finer than that of the Austrab’ans at Nottingham, with their eager chasing of the ball—they take a delight in it, these keen athletes —and their automatic backing-up of every throw-in from the field? But this discipline implies no inequality, and the team is conspicuously a unity, with its leadership as much a colierent expression of its joint experience as the brain work of an Individual. THE CRICKETER’S RISE. The Australian owes something to climate. The impulse to "get the bat out” comes to the Australian boy at the end of September, and it is fully six months before his toes itch for the football. That is a long season, as cricket seasons go, and it is less interrupted than here by rain. Hours of play are, however, shorter. We have not your long twilights. The working day leaves only a few brief minutes for practice. A more striking difference, however, than the seasons is the way of training. An Australian cricketer simply grows up. Coaches are few, and where they exist they are careful to leave much to natural faculty. The bat was placed in Victor Trumpet's hands, for Instance, by A. G. Bannerman, but Trumpet was left to become the most original champion Australia has produced. The Australian lad is certainly encouraged by his local club-—cricket in Sydney and Melbourne is closely organised on a district or electoral basis—but he develops only as bis own mind works on the rules and fashion of the game. From, his kerosene tin he goes to his small school team, from there to the team of his factory or office, or—if he is lucky—his district club; and from there it is a question of making runs or getting wickets, until the roving eye of State selectors give him his chance. He does not get on to tta turf until he finds a place in a district eleven. It is hard earth wicket, or matting, up to that stage. Perhaps Australian cricket owes a good deal to the hard soil which, when the grass has been cut off, ifiakes a passable wicket for boys. Certainly it owes much to its wide parks, recreation areas, and vacant plots. Here the boys, early in the season, mark out their claims, like their fathers in the gold rushes, and It is point of honor that such claims are respected.

I do not know whether there can be such a thing as too much coaching, or whether Individualism in cricket is l so valuable to a national side as to justify neglect of hothouse melfcods. It may be a fair observation for an Australian visitor to make, however, that the amount of attention paid here to the' cricket of a few public schools, and the tradition that the great amateurs must come from the Universities, are surprisingly different from the methods which produce the great Australian teams.

That England and Australia are widely at variance in their cricket politics is clear, and for the moment Australian methods seem to be producing the best results. But when all is said and done the general strength of the game is undisputed. It may be that, despite the hard travel and continuous strain of a shockingly arranged programme, the Australian teajn will take back the ashes. Australians are, however, well aware that a majority of its teams has had sound drubbings over here, and that It could not put as many first-class elevens in the field as, say, your six leading counties. Australia is pround of the keen patriotism of its cricketers. of their individualism and initiative, and their experienced intelligence; it is worthy of note that twelve of the visiting fifteen are captains of their club or State teams at home. But these things exist in great measure in England; they have always been brought out in a crisis, not least a cricket crisis.

AFRICAN CRICKETERS. POSSIBILITY OF A VISIT. According to Mr. Bennett, manager of the Springbok football team, cricketers in South Africa will welcome the suggestion from New Zealand that the South' African eleven should tour the Dominion in the near future. He said he had discussed the matter with a member of the New Zealand Cricket Council, but not in any way officially. "I am chairman of the Cricket Board of Griqualand West, Kimberley district,” he added. "But I am not a member of the South African Cricket Board, and so I cannot speak for it. However, I would be very pleased to convey the invitation from New Zealand. Until a week or so ago I did not know that you had any cricket worth mentioning in New Zealand, but instead I find here, in Christchurch you take great interest in the game. Just now cricket is in a rather weak state in South Africa. We are hardly fit. to meet either England or Australia, and it seems to me if we sent a team to New Zealand the two countries would be found to be much on a par—-indeed, I think the plan would work out more to our advantage thah yours.” Mr. Bennett said that South Africa had played no international cricket since the triangular tests in England prioi* to the war. In the ordinary course matches with England and Australia would be resumed as soon as practicable, hut for the reason he had given the time was hardly ripe. However, if a team were sent to Now Zealand a certain number of matches in Australia would i probably be arranged. He had considered at ■ first that only players able and willing to ' pay all their own expenses could be brought

here, but a New Zealand official to whom he' had spoken pooh-pooted fche idea, and said OTS NSW Zea Fahd USUficII Would cSftainly finance the tour. He was a little doubtful whether that could be done, but it was most encouraging.

"Having come here,” added Mr. Bennett, "one naturally wishes to see the country in summer. These boys here have broken the ice, and I know they will do all they capi to I?elp the scheme when they get back.”

The opinion is expressed by the Athletic News that one of the Freshmen at Cambridge on whom an eye should be kept is Mr. T. C. Lowry. (Jesus >? the New Zealand student, who is "a hitter pure and simple, but it is often extremely useful to have a man of that type bn the side. He may not get in the team this year, as the competition against batsmen will be very keen indeed, but to has every prospect of a Blue before he goes dowh." In the trial match (drawn) between Perambulators and Etceteras, Lowry, for the latter, scored 45. He was chosen for the University match—Cambridge v. Australia—at Cambridge, when the Australian bowlers had the first hundred of the tour hit against them: This distinction fell to Hubert Ashton, who, out of a total 1 of 220 put together by the University, made 107 before a blow on a previously damaged finger caused his retirement. It is recorded that Lowry stayed while 51 runs wore made, and was then caught from a skier in the slips for 18 runs. His innings included straight drives for four and some equally hard hits off short balls towards cover, which were worth more runs than t£e Australian off-side fieldsmen allowed.

In Pelham Warner's new book, "My Cricketing Life,” appears the following story, relating to W. -Ei W. CoHins, former Radley, Shropshire and M.C.C. fast bowler:—"Collins was a fust left-hander, with a high-kicking action, who made the ball swing a lot into the batsman. He was tall and slim, and looked very fierce as he ran up to bowl. He used to play for Newbold Revel and the Butterflies against Rugby, and we regarded him with something akin to terror. He certainly was a very good bowler, and against the 1888 Australian team took six wickets for 35 runs. He once got rid of four men with one ball! The first man (No. 9) was badly hit on the thumb and retired; the batsman at the other end fainted at the sight of blood; No. 10 declared that he was d if he was coming in to face such a 'wild cat,’ and there was no partner for the last man. This is a true tale."

Another story of Dr. E. M. Grace, who was variously known as "Uncle Ted" and "The Coroner"—the significance of the latter nickname can be understood from the story—as Gilbert Jessop tells the tale:—ln the lean years of Gloucestershire cricket, when his prowess was leaving him, his inclusion in the team was occasionally resented by an odd spectator or two or the Bristol ground. One of these malcontents at a certain match voiced his opinions in such an emphatic manner that the combative instincts of "Uncle Ted” were thoroughly aroused. He lai'd his bat on the ground, and, with an "Excuse me for a minute or two” to the opposing captain, he made his way, with an unmistakeable air of truculence, to Spot on the cheap side of the ground whence the disapproval had come. Scarcely half the distance from the wicket to boufiflify had been traversed before a figure was seen scuttling way in the direction of the lower entrance to the ground. The moment "The Coroner” caught a view of his disappearing quarry he increased his own pace, but, though he trotted with some vim, it was Without avail. He returned to the crease to resume his innings—a very disappointed man indeed. It subsequently leaked out that a red herring had been dragged across the trail. The proper culprit, being somewhat reluctant to vacate his seat, had bribed a fellow-spectator to act as his substitute. "Uncle Ted” was left alone for the rest of that match, at any rate.

Australia. Others. Bsit. V. Leicester . ... 430-7* 136—142 W. v. Robinson's XI. 136-25-1 256-7* D. v. Surrey ... .... 357-9* 79—228 W. v. Yorkshire . ... 263-77-3 224 D. v. U. Services ... 395-203-5 260-9*—140 w. v. Essex .... ... 318 144—99 W. V. M.C.C. .... ... 191—271-7 284—ITOf w. v. Oxford .... .... 294 180-174-1 D. v a England ... 232-30-0 112—147 W. v. Cambridge ... 362 220—128f w. v. Middlesex . .... 171—32-2 111—90 w. v. Gloucester .... 533-8* 179—140-1 D. v. England .. .... 342-131-2 187—283 W. v. Hampshire ... 708-7* 370--135-5 D. v. Surrey . ..; ... 213—158 175—118 W. v. Northants . ... 621 69—68 w. v. Notts ... •. .... 675 59—100 w. v. Warwick .. .... 506 262-118-6 D. v. England .. w. v. Lancashire .... 284 92—184 w. v. West Scotland 540 227-77-3 D. v. Scotland .. ....422 162"—79-0 D. v. Scotland .. .... 514 294-8 D. v. Durham .. ... 267—24-0* 168—121 W. v. Yorkshire . .... 251—163 126—113 W. v. England .. 175 362-4*—44-1D.

AUSTRALIA. Batting. Ins. N.O. H.S Runs Avg. McDonald ... 4 3 21* 56 56.00 Bardsley .... 7 2 88 259 51.80 Macartney ... 1 1 115 239 39.83 Armstrong ... 5 133 33.25 Carter 5 0 41 160 32.00 Pellew C 1 52 158 31.60 Andrews ..... 6 0 92 181 30.16 Collins 2 S 40 57 28.50 Gregory 5 0 52 99 19.80 Taylor 5 0 50 98 19.60 Hendry 5 2 12* 32 10.66 Malley 2 0 « 11 0.50 Armstrong ... *Not out. Bowling. Wickets, 8 Runs. 164 3 Avg. 20.50 McDonald 22 503 22.86 Gregory . 18 411 22.83' Andrews .... 1 23 23.00 Mailed . 10 236 23.60 Hendry . 3 135 45,00 Pellew none for 6 Macartney none for 39, and Taylor- none for 1 also bowled. ENGLAND. Batting. Ins. N.O. H.S. Russell 1 0 101 101 101.0V Tennyson .... 4 1 74* 178 59.33 Mead ....... 0 47 47 47.00 Brown 3 0 57 134 44.66 Woolley ..... 0 95 310 44.28 Tyldesley .... 3 1 78* 85 42.50 Douglas ..... 6 0 75 153 25.50 Dipper 2 0 40 51 25.50 Holmes ...... o 0 30 37 18.50 Hearne ...... 2 0 27 34 17.00 Harding ..... 2 0 25 30 15.00 Rhodes 2 0 19 29 14.50 Jupp ........ 4 0 28 57 14.25 Knight 4 0 38 52 13.00 Parkin ...... □ 1 23 43 10.75 Evans . — 2 0 14 18 9.00 White 2 1 8* 9 9.00 Durston 2 2 6* 8 8.00 Strudwick ... 4 0 12 20 5.00 Hendren 4 0 10 17 4.25 Howell ...... 2 2 4* 4 4.00 Ducat ....... 2 0 3 3 1.50 Haig 2 0 3 3 1.50 *Not but. Fender not out 44, Hallows not out 16, and Parker not out Fender 3, also batted. Bowling. Wickets. 2 Runs. 30 Avg. 15.00 Parker . 2 32 16.00 Rhodes ...... . 2 33 16.50 White . 3 58 19.33 Parkin ....... . 13 838 26.00 Douglas ..... 8 231 28.87 Durston 5 136 27.20 Jupp . 5 142 28.40 Richmond ... . 2 86 43,00 Woolley 5 217 43.40 Haig . 2 88 44.00 Howell, none for 22, also bowled.

Macartney Ins. N.O. H.S. Runs. Avg. 62.44 29 2 . 345 1686 Bardsley 29 4 209 1432 57.28 Collins . 20 0 162 715 37.75 Armstrong 25 4 117 743 35 38 Gregory . 25 1 107 845 35.20 Ryder ... 19 2 129 598 35.17 Andrews 31 3 125 870 34.64 PpIIpw 27 2 146 785 31.40 Taylor. .. 28 2 . 143 807 31.03 Mayne • 13 0 Si 388 29.84 25 5 56 528 26.40 Oldfield 17 4 123 329 25.30 13 1 47 272 22.66 Mailey . 21 • 9 46 163 13.58 McDonald 19 3 24 198 12-37 Bowling. Runs. Wkts. Av. Armstrong 867 65 13.33 1337 89 15.02 1518 94 16.15 Taylor .. .... 54 3 18.00 Mailey .. 1924 96 20.04 Ryder 400 19 21.05 Hendry .. 938 28 33.50 Pellew .. .... 83 2 41.50 Andrews 170 4 42.50 Collins 203 2 51.50 Macartney 164 9 82.00 Bardsley 13 0 — 1 Mayne » 44 0