CRICKET.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2543, 2 July 1909, Page 2

CRICKET.

THE AUSTRALIANS IN ENGLAND. THE THIRD TEST MATCH. I’nit[-,t» Punas Association —covykicut (Received July 2, 12.25 a.m.) LONDON, July 1. Barnes has been added to the ’J est match reserves. (Received July 2, 1.10 a.mi) The weather is cloudy and chilly and the ground softis'li. Hayward, Relf, Jones, and Haigli are omitted from tlio English team. AUSTRALIAN CRICKETERS. AN ENGLISH CRITICISM. In the “National Review’’ for May there is an article by Sir Home Gordon upon Australian cricketers, not generally unappreciative, but containing the following strictures upon one aspect ol tbe game as played by visiting teams: “There is another matter in which tbe Australians have set us a less happy example. They have commercialised cricket. It is to the Australians that we owe the businesslike aspect of modern cricket, and whereas the mu- ( joritv of our counties show bad balancesheets, no secret is made that the Australians consider that each member: of their touring side should receive nearer £SOO than £6OO clear profit. The Australian press during these past months has been full of an unseemly wrangle, not as to whether those selected to come to England are representative colonial, cricketers, but as to whether the Board of Control are to take 5 per cent of the first £6OOO and 121 per cent of tlio balance of the profits, each percentage being devoted to the interest of crickot generally throughout the Commonwealth. The indignation of the players has been copiously reported, and we even read that their ‘meeting was moderate and excellent in tone.’ As to the rights of the case, it is not for us to judge, but the. point is clear. English professionals touring in Australia receive their expenses and a fixed sum. Australians coming over here obtain more than double the remuneration as well as their outlays, and yet are received as amateurs. Twice at least this lias been reduced to'an absurdity, once in the case of the last William Midwinter, who played on the ground staff at Lord’s, as well as for Gloucestershire, as a professional, and subsequently roanwared in the Australian team of 1884 as an amateur, drawing vastly increased remuneration; whilst Albert Trott, wl\p frequently appeared for Victoria among the rest of the colonial amateurs, here rightly took his place with derogation as a Middlesex professional. An English apologist has stated in print that though the Australian amateur is not an amateur according to our ideas, yet he is not a professional, because he only expects compensation for the amount of time he loses, from his business in his own colony. This seems a highly ingenious piece of special pleading/ and in reply it is open to us to put this unanswerable retort: Have one-half of those who have come on former, or even on the present tour, at the time ’of playing been earning as much as £6OO in eight months? Of course not. Taking one instance, a correspondent to the Sydney ‘Herald’ on December 23rd observes about the Australian captain, who last year received a testimonial exceeding £2000: ‘Noble also owes much to the game of cricket, which many think has done so much to place him in the fortunate postion he now occupies. Unfortunately many of our cricketers, although most jealous of tlioir status as amateurs, appear to consider, not the credit and pleasure derived from tbe game, but simply wlrat can he made out of it.’ “To comment on the opinion of that candid critic would. be superfluous. There is no Australian who writes so well on the ganie as of the ‘Australasian,’ under which pseudonym may be recognised that doughty batsman Mr. T. Horan, of the 1882 team, and Ijyet he deliberately declares:‘Every pennv that goes into the pocket of the Australian eleven players in •England is thoroughly well earned. Thev are legitimately entitled to the full net proceeds.’ Could he write more if the Australian Eleven were composed of professionals? In a leader entitled ‘Cricket Control’ another colonial journal remarks:—‘The terms of the board are liberal enough—liberal to the verge of the destruction of the oldfashioned notions of amateurism.’ Precisely. “Hence follows the deduction that the Australians play cricket in England with a view to the receipts. The facts bear this out, for ovor and over again our visitors have deliberately allowed a match to- run into the third' afternoon when they could have finished it off by the second evening. To put it more bluntly, in the words of Major Trevor, generally the most mellifluous of critics: —‘Ever since the Australians instituted the practice of making a match last three days, by hook or by crook—by crook generally, for the “hook’’ is always a dangerous stroke —the British nublic have been afraid of bogus cricket.’ What has been the result? That some counties, notably Middlesex, Surrey, and .Lancashire, have deliberately rested the majority of their best men when encountering our visitors. Speaking broadly, spectators desiring exhibition cricket have been satisfied because in their ordinary engagements the Australians have shown bright batting, because they knew it would prove attractive, and therefore lucrative. Still there have been instances of the reverse notably once at Lord’s, when the crowd whistled the ‘Dead March’ while Messrs Darling and Iredale were stonewalling the Middlesex attack. It has, however, been quite another matter when it came to test matches. The Australians give tho_ impression that the only thing that really matters to them is not to lose the ‘rubber’ of these encounters. Consequently they Play these with a super-seriousness that eliminates every sporting risk. The dour grimness with which they engage on these struggles may not be particularly apparent in results, but it is con-1 spumous in methods employed.

“The Australians have often demonstrated that they are never beaten until the last ball. Tough as whipcord and nerveless, they play a forlorn game with splendid tenacity. That this is.no feature of a former generation is proved by the extraordinary power of recovery from a bad position thoy showed in the test matches against the last M.C.C. side that visited them, which was defeated by four games to _ one. Moreover, the 1902 team was decimated in May by illness and accident; yet it pulled through with, a highly creditable record. Such traits win our admiring respect. Too often over here, however, the Australians have imported that deliberation which is. natural, if a nuisance., where games are played to a finish. Wo owe to thorn that hideous innovation of a tea interval, which has done so much toi keep afternoon patrons away from matches, and which is an abuse of the spectator’s patience.”