Tests
WE cannot this week wait for the end of the final and deciding Test Match before writing of what is in everybody's thoughts. We are hoping that England will win as heartily as all Australia is wishing us defeat. After the Match the partisans of the losers may console themselves and support their izzat by saying, quite untruly, that they always hoped that " the best side " would win. Cricket is the best game in the world in combining individual prowess in great variety with team work, in glorious uncertainties and in promoting friendli- ness among neighbours. The real home of cricket is on the village green where neighbours meet to show a friendly enmity to more distant neighbours. There the player who knows no other ground has his advantage over the other one who has played on the perfect pitches of Public School and University grounds. There the amateur status of every player is complete and the game is played for fun. Mercifully cricket has no seamy side due to betting, but first-class cricket has been steadily losing its amateur spirit. That is the penalty of the high standard reached. It is scarcely possible for any man to keep up to it unless he gives to it his whole attention. If we remember rightly, the English team in the first Test Match (never so-called in those days) consisted of nine Gentlemen with a couple of professional bowlers. In 1884 besides playing two matches against the Gentle- men, of which they lost one, as Lord Harris survives to tell, they also played a wholly amateur I.Z. Team. In Australia things are managed otherwise, but it will be admitted that her players are at it most of the year, so that it becomes more nearly their profession than their recreation. No population of their size could produce players of such consistent brilliance without perpetual effort.
It is a serious question, this professionalism in our most popular sports. At Henley the Committee enforces regularly a real amateur status with admirable results. In athletics, too, Great Britain is strict and has set a sterling example to the world. The differences of opinion about amateur status at the Olympic Games have led to one unexpected result among others of which we are extremely glad, namely, the establishment of the British Empire Games. As the League of Nations is to that little League, the British Empire, so are the Olympic Games to the Empire Games. They have been held in Canada this week, and it is unfortunate that they should have been overshadowed by the Test Match here and so have not received all the attention they deserve. Apart from the excellent sport shown, they are, as we lately wrote of Bisley, a Parliament of Empire, and as such are of unspeakable value. The day will come before long for some kind of Imperial Cricket Tournament. South Africa has steadily struggled up towards the Australian level. The West Indies, too, will not be denied. Cricket has been their national game ever since it swept aside the colour-bar between Mr. Jingle, Sir Thomas Blazo and Quanko Samba. Long may it be so, and may it help those lands to forget, for a moment, their sad troubles over sugar. All-India, too, will be formidable. Think of the possibilities offered by a population of 300,000,000 of producing eleven Ranjis at once (if we grant that two could be produced in an era!). The King-Emperor would never bear a grudge against any subject from any clime, of any colour, who gives a little of his allegianc,! to his dear Cousin and fellow Monarch, Willow the King Let us say here that the Spectator will support any action of the coming Conference which will promote cricket in India, and keep India eligible to take part in an Imperial Cricket Tournament.
We leave to others the discussion of the details of cricket to-day, the larger wickets, the marled pitches, the 1.b.w. rules, and so forth. The changes are slow and not so essential or so powerful as they are sometimes thought to be. Those who hold that the domination of the hats- man over the bowler is quite new should study the draw at the Oval in August, 1884, when the Australians made 551 (Murdoch 211, and the great Ulyett's analysis, one wicket for 96), to which England answered with 346 and only two wickets of a second innings fell before time. And the field has now practically an extra man, for an eleventh bewhiskered player no longer stands longstop to nearly every bowler. But the serious thoughts that arise, as they do after the Derby and Cup Tie Finals. force themselves upon us. Who are the tens of thousands who have leisure to watch ? Have we to-day the super- fluity of wealth that should allow this unproductive expenditure of time ? Why does each other nation, how-much-so-ever we teach them our outdoor games, work while we are playing or watching play? Then in this question of watching others play, we grant that it is admissible at a Test Match, if ever, but it is not so good as playing. And this brings us to the movement which we support for more playing fields for those who have no village green. Yes ; nothing appeals more to our hearts. But what of our heads ? If a coldly in- tellectual economist tells us that we need fewer, not more, playing fields ; that sports-grounds and race-courses already existing should be ploughed up and made to produce food and other wealth in days of dwindling national prosperity ; we have a ready answer from our hearts, but what is the answer that our heads ought to give ?
Enough : we really cannot answer questions which it is not fair to ask us this week. To-day we want England to win ; at least if England is the better side. No ! Why not be honest ? We want the better side to win if the better side is England.
Previous page
