THE IMPORTANCE OF ALL-ROUNDNESS IN CRICKET.
“The right and proper thing would be for cricketers to pay equal
attention to bowling, batting, and fielding, especially in their
young days. All are equally essential parts of the game. Why not
regard them as equally valuable? The doctrine of the division of
labour holds good in cricket as elsewhere, but every cricketer
should, as far as lies in him, qualify himself for every emergency.
Most amateurs take no trouble whatever with their bowling, except
in matches.”--RANJITSINHJI.
I have heard it said that Richter, the great conductor, could himself
play every instrument used in his own orchestra, so that at once he knew
where and how the general effect was weak. On the same principle the
captain of a team should as a rule be an all-round player--a batsman,
bowler, fielder, watcher--though there are some captains who do not
excel much in any sphere except captaining, and yet are worth their
place in their team.
But it is not merely the captain who gains by being an all-round player.
Cricket has as its object to fit every cricketer for his all-round life,
as games and exercises prepare young animals for their narrower life. We
have used games with this result if not with this object for generations
past; year by year, whether we know it or not, we shall have to rely on
them more and more. And anyhow a certain time, perhaps amounting to
hundreds of hours, is sure to be given to the play. Therefore it is as
well to get the most that we can out of that time, and to get the most
that we can out of each department of Cricket; in the spirit of
Shrewsbury, studying it as a pleasant art; with Abel, entering into it
keenly and smartly; and, like Hirst, aiming at many-sided excellence.
We cannot all be Hirsts, F. S. Jacksons, J. R. Masons, T. Haywards, A.
G. Steels, and so on; that is obvious. But most players are content
never to try, or else to try wrongly and then give up. There never was a
greater error.
Let us consider batting alone. Even for successful and therefore
enjoyable batting (batting has been, is, and will be most enjoyed and
most sought after, and therefore has been, is, and will be least
uncultivated; many cultivate nothing besides), even for this we need
more than practice at a net or in a game, indispensable as these are in
their proper place.
First of all, unless we are genius-players, we need a knowledge of
bowling; we need not only to see the bowler’s wrist and fingers, but
also to get an idea of what will happen to the ball when it has left the
fingers. In Tennis I never knew what was going to happen to a service
until I learnt how to serve. Otherwise I played as if there would be no
special cut or twist or drag. So practice in bowling may give the best
knowledge of bowling for the batsman’s purpose. Take a Lawn Tennis ball,
and study the ways of producing various breaks, etc.--I recommend a Lawn
Tennis ball because it shows the break more clearly, and can be used in
a room; then produce these breaks with a Cricket ball (don’t let it
loose) before a large mirror. After a time you will know what to expect
when you see certain signs, such as the middle and third finger curled
inwards against the bowler’s palm. Besides, when you have yourself
bowled certain balls, you will know where the batsman generally hits
them, and what faults he generally makes. You can avoid these faults,
while on the other hand you can see at once, when you go in, where the
fielding offers a gap. It is not every bowler who knows his own weak
spots.
As a wicket-keeper one might learn still more about batting than one
could as a bowler. It is amazing to me that so few wicket-keepers can
bat even with moderate success. They seem to degenerate, like the idle
watchers, with too much watching and too much “knowledge!” The
wicket-keeper sees most of the game, and especially the batsman’s faults
and the bowler’s merits of break, spin, change of pace, and so on. He
has to watch the bowler’s wrist and fingers. He should know precisely
what balls should be left alone.
Only a few degrees less useful for batting is a knowledge of fielding in
all parts of the field, though every fielder should have one or two
specialities. The good fielder, when he bats, can remember the curl of
the ball hit to third man; he can observe cover-point’s attitude of
slackness and steal an easy run, for he knows that a sloucher cannot run
him out.
And to watch a game well--that may be as valuable a help for batting as
bowling, wicket-keeping, or fielding. Shrewsbury will observe the play
and its many niceties--the duel between a good bowler and a good
batsman--from various parts of the field as he walks about; he will
study length, pace, curl, the batsman’s weakness. Some watchers appear
to see _all_ the faults. They don’t play, but they may be made very
useful as teachers, even if they only teach how to watch. One should
watch the game not only as a whole, but also player by player; and in a
single player one should observe the bat alone, whether it be straight
or not; the left foot; the left elbow; the right leg; and the results on
play.
All-roundness is thus nearly a necessity for full success in batting,
unless one is a genius-player. It is quite a necessity for full
enjoyment. It is also a duty towards the team. But, besides its effects
on batting, it has still more obvious effects on bowling and fielding
themselves.
Bowling should be tried and practised by every member of the team, for
the sake of the team as well as of the self. It is a pleasure to the
bowler, if it be well done. Were proof needed, why else do so many
captains so often put themselves on to bowl? Perhaps it may be a smaller
pleasure than batting, somewhat as to besiege an enemy may be a smaller
pleasure than to resist the siege or to make a sally. But bowling allows
more errors--a single bad ball, unlike a single error in batting, need
not be the end of the performance. Anyhow, bowling is a pleasant change
from fielding, and gives one an extra chance of playing for a team. And,
unless one plays for a team, Cricket is not much sport! A fair bowler is
becoming more and more useful to his side every year, with these
billiard-table wickets.
Wicket-keeping offers a similar inducement. At the last moment Jones
fails--he hurts his thumb--why shouldn’t he? “Well,” says the captain,
“Smith (that’s you) can keep wicket a bit.” You are now, for the time,
in the team.
The same will apply to fielding also. To take an extreme case, an
inferior field has to be terribly superior with the bat or ball or both
if he wants to get a place in a Yorkshire or Australian eleven. For his
own sake, as well as for the sake of his side, a boy or man must be safe
and smart in the field. The work is often dull--six overs without any
ball, but one can watch the bat and study where the man is weak. Or one
can imagine oneself as the fielder to whom the ball is hit. In case this
shall appeal to you, patient alertness and long waiting to pounce on an
opportunity, are makers of character, as General Grant proved, and of
money, as the army of American financiers show weekly. Fielding is worth
doing well, and therefore worth practising well, whether with an
india-rubber ball against a wall (for stopping and for catching), or
with any ball and a stump or stick. Let two players, as we have
suggested, stand on opposite sides of it, and throw in at it, varying
the distance, and occasionally sending catches instead. A third player
can act as a wicket-keeper or as a bowler receiving the throw-in. If I
were a captain I should encourage this kind of thing; I should look
about for smart fields, and get them to practise in this and other
ways. I should also get them to bowl a bit. I should not always pick out
the batsmen and bowlers first, and neglect the fielders. A Vernon Royle,
a Lohmann, a Gunn are worth a place in a team apart from other merits.
They save runs not only by catching, not only by backing up, not only by
stopping hits, not only by running in, but by their reputation--the
batsmen simply dared not run a short one when Royle was at cover--and by
their contagious influence.
I think that all-roundness justifies itself, and therefore all-round
practice justifies itself, even from the point of view of the selfish
batsman who wants the best possible innings, quite apart from one’s
increased enjoyment as a change bowler, perhaps as a wicket-keeper,
certainly as a fielder, and no less certainly as a watcher.
But how? What is the secret of all-roundness? This book will offer
advice to many, and hope to not a few. If you have not yet paid
attention to the very foundations, the very A B C of good play
(especially of batting and fielding), such as the positions and
movements of the feet, the full extensions of the limbs, the
body-swing, the balance and prompt recovery, then you need not yet
despair. Practice in these things will be far from useless for general
athletic fitness; there is scarcely a game but absolutely involves them.
This, after all, is my chief plea for all-roundness: not merely that
probably much time _will_ be given to Cricket anyhow, and that the
player may as well learn the whole of Cricket; not only that thus his
play will be pleasanter (or less dull), more useful to his health and
physical development, more useful to his side, more useful to Cricket
itself, but also that he will be better prepared for other games and
other occupations, no matter what they are or shall be. He is a handy
man, a footy and leggy man (if the ugly words may be pardoned, because
they mean much), a ready man, disciplined and patient, yet alert and
quick here and anywhere.
If you are going to play Cricket at all, or even to watch Cricket at
all, all-roundness is worth while. Otherwise your days of fielding or of
watching will be for the most part wasted; your minutes of batting will
not grow into quarter-hours, half-hours, hours; your bowling will never
have even a minute at all. Be a specialist if you like, but don’t be
only a specialist. Try if you cannot do the other things at least
moderately well.
Within the dominion of batting also there is need for all-roundness. Mr.
C. B. Fry aptly remarks:--“The great defect of school coaching is that
boys are taught to play forward and nothing else. Boys are not taught to
play back or to use their feet properly, either in turning to place the
ball or in running out to drive; nor are they taught to alter their play
according to the state of the wicket.”
He himself is an all-round batsman. So is W. G.; as one of his
innumerable admirers says:--“What W. G. did was to unite in his mighty
self all the good points of all the good players, and to make utility
the criterion of style. He founded the modern theory of batting by
making forward and back play of equal importance, relying neither on the
one nor the other, but on both.”
All-roundness is of value to every player--all-roundness in Cricket
generally; all-roundness in the special departments of batting, and of
fielding; to be able merely to catch well, or merely to stop well, or
merely to run well, or merely to throw in well, must not content the
player.