Grimmett Names Best XI Since War
Armstrong Captain, Cameron (South Africa) the Keeper
HOBBS, BEST OPENER OF ALL TIME
CV GRIMMETT, 25 March 1938
In this, the last of his series of eight articles, Clarrie Grimmett chooses what he considers to be the best team from among the many great cricketers he has met during the past 20 years. Grimmett selects Warwick Armstrong as captain, and the late H. B. Cameron, of South Africa, as wicketkeeper, and, although everyone may not agree with his choice, all will admit that the team chosen by him would be difficult to bat or bowl against.
I am going to start the last of my series of articles by choosing a team from among the best cricketers I have played with or against in first class cricket since the war. Selecting world teams is a favorite pastime among cricketers both young and old, and I have chosen mine by iudging the men on the form displayed by them in matches in which I have taken part. I am not such an optimist as to imagine everyone will agree with me n my choice. Most of the team pick themselves, but there several places which are not filled so easily.
Here is my team in the order of batting:
B. Hobbs (England)
W. R. Hammond (England)
W. Bardsley (Aust.)
C. Macartney (Aust.)
D. G. Bradman (Aust.)
W. W. Armstrong (Aust.)
J. M. Gregory (Aust.)
H. B. Cameron (S. Africa)
H. Larwood (England)
M. W. Tate (England)
W. O'Reilly (Aust.).
All that I would ask in return for selecting such a formidable side is that I should not be asked to bowl them out. Of the 11 men chosen, eight are capable of making centuries against any bowling. Tate and Larwood should be good for 50 occasionally, and even Bill O'Reilly has sometimes proved difficult to dislodge.
Under normal conditions, I would open the bowling with Larwood and Tate, relieve Larwood with Gregory, and then bring on Armstrong and O'Reilly. Hammond would be invaluable when the pitch was beginning to wear, and Macartney would be available for wickets which suit his type of bowling.
Before giving my reasons for selecting the eleven, here are some of the champions I have had to leave out: McCabe, Kippax, Woolley, Hendren, Duleepsinhji, Headley, Nourse, McDonaald, Oldfield, Ponsford, Leyland, Ames, and Ironmonger.
Larwood and Gregory gain the preference over Ted McDonald. Larwood is the greatest fast bowler of my generation, and although McDonald was a better bowler than Gregory, Jack's phenomenal slip fielding and forceful batting would offset this advantage. Gregory was a picturesque figure on the cricket field and, by his example, raised the fielding level of any team in which he played. Tate was an extraordinarily versatile bowler. He could go on at either end with equal effectiveness. O'Reilly is easily the most aggressive bowler of his type that I have ever seen, and any team would have its work cut out to get on top of such a strong bowling side.
Run-getting would be difficult against such accurate bowlers. Usually, in a team, you have one or two bowlers who, on their day, are champions but who have their off days as well. I cannot imagine my team's bowling being collared.
One of Truly Great Players
There has never been a better opening batsman than Jack Hobbs, while Warren Bardsley stands out supreme among the left-handers I have seen. Charlie Macartney is one of the truly great players, while Don Bradman needs no boost on my part, neither does Walter Hammond. Warwick Armstrong would be a rock of Gibraltar to any side with his batting and bowling and is the obvious choice as captain.
I have chosen "Jock" Cameron as wlcketkeeper in preference to Bert Oldfield or Leslie Ames, and I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I would prefer him as a batsman to either Oldfield or Ames, and for the type of bowling represented in my eleven, he would be just as effective a 'keeper. It is easy to find among the men rejected cricketers who, you feel, must have a place in a world team, but deciding whom you will leave out in order to fit them in is not such an easy problem. In picking my team I have not worried about averages, but have chosen the men on my impressions of them and of their value as players.
In a general way, averages are a guide to form, but they are not always a true register of a player's ability. For example, in the averages of bowlers, no account is taken of the relative merits of the batsmen dismissed. Sometimes a bowler battles through most of an innings and gets a couple of wickets. After *the back of the side has been broken, another bowler-comes on and dismisses four "rabbits." In the averages, his feat appears as the better performance. Some newspapers are prone to count a player's ability by averages alone, and even selection committees are liable to do the same thing. At the back of the minds of such people is the law of justification-the fact that they can point to the averages for support when a player whom they select is criticised.
Device To Help Umpires
I have been asked at times whether I will take up umpiring when I retire. I will never lose my keenness for cricket, but I prefer to watch it without the worries of umpiring thrown in. Umpiring is a thankless job, and unless the decision is obviously right to everyone, the umpire is apt to come in for a lot of critcism. The ideal umpire is the man with a pleasing personality, who is firm in his decisions. I think umpires have too much to do, and could easily be relieved of the task of counting the balls in an over. In a six-ball over at Manchester in 1934, "Gubby" Allen sent down 13 deliveries, there being four no-balls and three wides before he completed his over. What a worry that umpire must have had to keep tally of the correct number of balls in that over! The scorer counts the number of balls in an over, and there is no reason why he should not telegraph the completion of the over to the umpire and leave him free to concentrate on a job which requires the whole of his attention.
In Dunedin (New Zealand) the scorer strikes a gong when the last ball of the over is bowled. The noise can be heard all over the ground, but is not objectionable. Frank Chester was the best of the English umpires, but was not as good as Bob Crockett. Once, when I was playing for Prahran against St. Kilda, the batsman drove a ball hard back along the wicket and hit the stumps. His partner was out of his crease at the time, and was given out by Crockett. While the victim was walking back to the pavilion, Crockett, who thought the bowler had touched the ball, overheard a conversation, learned from the bowler that he had not touched the ball on its way to the stumps, ran after the batsman, and brought him back to complete his innings. Some people might say that Crockett should not have altered his decision after such a lapse of time ,but, to my mind, his action shows the wonderful strength of character' and sense of fair play which were typical of the man.
The most difficult batsman to dismiss is the man who jumps down the wicket and does not allow the break to operate. He certainly gives a sporting chance, but he is more interesting to bowl against than the stodgy type, who will not do anything but poke here and there, and who scores an odd single every now and then. When you strike one of these quickfooted batsmen the game takes on a battle air, and even the old gentlemen in the pavilion and their lady friends with their knitting sit up and take notice. I always think that slow bowlers have been put into the game for the express purpose of brightening it up. There is always something doing when we get the ball. Hammond, Hendren, Kippax, Andrews, and McCabe are the best examples of quick-footed batsmen against whom I have played.
George Gunn was on the wane when I saw him, but he used to dance halfway down the wicket, even to a fast bowler, when he was in his prime. I met him at BIackpool in 1926, and at first he made a full toss of every ball I bowled. This put me on my mettle, and so I quickened my delivery and bowled a lower ball. Eventually I forced him to play back, and bowled him off his pads.
"You're a cunning old fox," Archie McLaren once said to me. "Why is it that you always bowl with a low trajectory. to quick-footed players and throw the ball up to stodgy ones?" My reply was, "I leave it to you." A low ball helps "to make a batsman retreat into his wicket, while a ball thrown high is like a magnet in persuading even the stodgiest of batsmen to play forward.
To be successful, a slow bowler must have the natural ability to spin the ball, and must be able to apply the spin in the correct way. He must train intensively to become proficient, and he must be learning all the time.
Slow Bowling Is Hard Work
You cannot become a champion slow bowler overnight. It is difficult work, because slow bowling is so hard to control. You must have enthusiasm, and it is surprising how far you will get if you more or less eat, drink, and sleep cricket. You have got to be lucky because when you get your chances you need a slice of luck to make the most of them. You cannot sit back and rest on your laurels, but you must still keep striving to improve. It would not do to attack a batsman the same way every time, in fact, you must adapt your bowling to the way he is batting. You must place your field for the type of ball you propose to bowl, because the direction of the ball you send down rules, to some extent, the places to which the batsman can hit the ball safely. There is a tremendous amount of psychology in the game. For example, if a batsman hits a ball to a fieldsman and refuses his partner's call for an easy run, you may be almost certain that the next time the batsman plays a ball to that fieldsman, if there is the slightest possibility of a run, he will go for it. If the fieldsman is on the alert, the chances are that a run-out will result.
Yes, bowling is hard work. I used to practise for hours trying to make my leg breaks land on a mark which I had placed on the pitch. It is the only way to succeed. Sometimes I think it would be a splendid idea if a trapdoor were provided near the wicket so that slow bowlers could hide themselves when the occasion demanded. There have been many occasions when I would have been glad of such a shelter, and I think batsmen would be glad to use it after making a "duck" in front of a huge crowd.
Chapman, Best Fieldsman
The finest fieldsman I have seen was A. P. F.. Chapman, when he visited Australia with Mclaren's amateur side. He was an accurate throw, had a terrific reach, and never missed a ball if he got it into his huge hands. Percy put on a lot of weight by the time he reached Test cricket, but he was still one of the best fieldsmen in the world. I never saw him drop a catch.
The greatest specialist fieldsman was Jack Hobbs at cover. He would amble towards the ball if there was no chance of a run-out, but if the batsmen were attempting a risky run, Hobbs would move like greased lightning. He always threw at the top of the stumps, not at the bottom like some players today, and he rarely missed with his return. Andrews, Hendren, Hammond, Jack Gregory, Vic Richardson, Nourse, Constantine, Geary, Robins, Langton, and Wade are other names that come to mind as first-class fieldsmen. Charlie Macartney had almost finished his career when I met him, but he was very sure with his hands. Bradman, of course, is renowned for his ground fielding.
How will the Australians fare in England? They have the nucleus of a fine side, and should give a good account of themselves, but some of the new men, who have made their name in Australia, may fail in England. Strange living conditions, different types of pitches, playing six days a week-all help to upset players. Every touring side seems to carry one or two passengers who never find their legs. The selectors aim at getting the best team into form early, and these 11 men get more opportunities than the also rans. If one of the outsiders gets a chance and fails, he may have to wait some time before he is tried again. The longer he has to wait for the chance the less likely he is to succeed, and so adaptability is one of the greaest assets a cricketer needs on a tour. He must be unruffled, and must take the good with the bad. When not playing in a match he should get as far away from cricket as possible. I used to go down to Wimbledon to watch the tennis champions or play golf or see a good musical show.
Believes In Relaxation
When I'm not playing, I try to forget about cricket. I like listening to good music after a heavy day in the field. I have always been a great believer in relaxing, because then you can concentrate all the better when the occasion demands. No series of cricket articles would be complete without a reference to Bill Ferguson, the scorer and baggage man. "Fergie" is known. wherever cricket is played, and .he is the most travelled man in the game. He decorates his scoring sheets with sketches made at or near the different grounds where the matches are played, and he is also a keen photographer. "Fergie" keeps a complete record of every phase of the game, including graphs showing each batsman's scoring strokes. He has been doing this work for a generation, and I have yet to meet the cricketer with a complaint against "Fergie." Only once has a piece of baggage gone astray, and it was "Fergie's" own suitcase. He had brought an English *team from Perth. to Adelaide, and although all their luggage went to their hotel, "Fergie's" went on to Melbourne. He soon found it again. * He has a most pleasing personality. Nothing is a trouble, and the slightest request from a ,player is attended to immediately. Having a man like this touring with a side relieves the manager of a tremendous amount of work, and helps to promote harmony among the players.
Cricket has taken me into many lands which I would have never visited otherwish. I have travelled extensively in Europe, crossed Canada from east to west, and seen a good deal of South Africa. I have made a host of friends in these countries, and I am sure that if I ever revisit these places I will find plenty of people who will be glad to talk about old times again. Cricket has been the means of introducing me to a fine lot of people, whom I would have never met in the ordinary course of events. I do not want to disparage other games, but I believe that cricket attracts a finer type of sportsman than any other game. Among the many privileges which cricket has conferred on me was that of meeting the late King George V. and his consort, Queen Mary. It was a hot day when we went to Sandringham in 1930 and His Majesty, with typical consideration, said, "You'd better put your hats on boys." Unfortunately, a photograph was published showing us wearing our hats in the presence of the King and people who did not know that it was done at the King's request, criticised us for our alleged disloyalty. We were warned before we entered the castle that we must not take photographs, but soon after we got there the King said, "I suppose you boys would like to take some photographs?" "Yes, Your Majesty," replied Woodfull, so the King, taking Queen Mary by the arm, selected a good position for pictures, and stood there for 20 minutes. I suggested to the boys that we should pool our photographs, get enlargements made, and send them in an album to the King. Four years later, when we met him at Windsor, the King again invited us to take photographs, and expressed a wish for another album as a souvenir of our visit. The King had no difficulty in remembering the players whom he had met during our previous tour and seemed to know a good deal about their personal history. There is one last point I want to mention before I draw stumps, and that is how much I appreciated the generosity of everyone who helped to make the testimonial match, which the South Australian Cricket Association arranged for Vic Richardson and me, such a success. I hope I have been worthy of it. Conclusion.
25 Mar 1938 - Grimmett Names Best XI. Since War - Trove
