POLITICS
Why England needs gentlemen at the crease
BRUCE ANDERSON
Yt again, Tony Blair has enjoyed a success where John Major failed. It was a success which merely interrupted Mr Blair's deliberations about whether to invite the Strozzis to dinner in their own palace, where- as it would have given Mr Major great plea- sure, compensating for other disappointm- ents. I refer to England's victory over South Africa, the first Test series since 1986 in which we defeated a front-rank opponent.
It might also be the harbinger of further triumphs. The Australians' 3-2 victory last summer flattered England, but the Ashes no longer seem unattainable. Warne may not be fit for this winter's matches, and though the Australian batting appears to have strength in depth none of these talent- ed batsmen has performed consistently well in recent international contests, Steve Waugh excepted. It is impossible to predict the Australian batting order for the first Test, but if Thorpe's back has recovered, we know England's first six names: Ather- ton, Butcher, Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe and Ramprakash. Add Gough and Fraser, grant Cork a little more intelligence and reliabili- ty, and rarely in recent Test history can we have been so confident so far in advance that England will be able to field a settled, battle-hardened team. If political change had come more slowly in South Africa and Alan Donald has persevered in his plan to qualify for England, recent Test history would have been very different.
But there are still problems which cannot be solved without basic changes in the way English cricket is organised. The batting is coming along well, ditto the seam bowling, but the slow bowlers have never been weak- er. Several have been tried, every one of them has failed and there is no rush of young hopefuls. It may be that the next world-class English slow bowler has not yet played first-class cricket.
That raises another problem. In England, it has been far too easy for mediocre slow bowlers — and others — to have a career in first-class cricket. In Australia, the West Indies and South Africa there is less first- class cricket played, but to a much higher standard. As a result, outstanding perfor- mances at sub-Test level are a good indica- tion of Test class. That is not the case in England. Hick, Crawley and now probably Steve James: all of them made lots of runs around the county circuit; none of them can hack it in Tests. Hick is the saddest case. In the years when he was qualifying for England, he was piling up hundreds on a quasi-Bradman scale. But his successes around the counties may even have sabo- taged his Test prospects, for he made them in spite of technical weaknesses and a lack of hardness. It is not easy to correct such faults in a 32-year-old batsman.
County cricket in its present form is only a little over a century old, yet in the English way it seems to have been part of life since time immemorial, like old maids bicycling to evensong (they would not have been using a bicycle until this century). But without sacri- ficing county cricket's charm, it is important to ensure that it is also a nursery for the Test side. This means a two-division structure, with promotion and relegation; it also means a different approach to overseas cricketers.
Almost all commentators seem to agree that English cricket has suffered from the import of overseas players. This means that young Englishmen are denied opportunit- ies, we are told, while other countries' Test players learn to cope with English condi- tions, knowledge that they will subsequent- ly use against us. But the latter is a defeatist argument, the former a fallacious one. Allowing counties to hire two overseas players — instead of one, as at present would not prevent talented young English- men from playing cricket. The only suffer- ers would be the trundlers and nudgers whose survival in county cricket ensures that it is an inadequate training ground. By allowing an additional 18 overseas players to extend their cricketing education, we would also ensure that county cricket became a far more effective university for the next generation of English players. It is a price well worth paying.
It is also time that the two ancient universities paid the price for retaining their first-class status. This could otherwise become an embarrassment. The nightmare is that one day soon, Bloggs and Snooks, two 20-year-olds playing against one of the universities in their first match for the Barsetshire 1st XI, will put on an undefeat- ed 650 for the first wicket, breaking every record in sight. It would be easy for Oxford and Cambridge's first-class status to die of shame. It would be equally easy for the dons to agree that each university should admit half a dozen cricketers every year, all of whom would be capable of obtaining honours degrees while ensuring that the counties had to treat their visits to Fenner's or the Parks with a modicum of serious- ness. The two most successful English play- ers this summer — and the two toughest were Atherton and Fraser, both Oxbridge men. It is a crucial tradition.
It ought to be possible to keep the uni- versities in first-class cricket. It will be far harder to reverse a recent social trend and bring the gentlemen back to the English game. Yet with the disappearance of the amateur ethos, English cricket has suffered a double loss: not only grace and style, but the habit of winning Test matches. 'The cal- ibre of English XIs declined once the dis- tinction between gentlemen and players was abolished, just as the calibre of British Cabinets declined with the end of the era of aristocratic politics.' Discuss.
It should also be remembered that, at least in cricket, 'gentleman' might only be a sociological term. While commemorating Plum Warner, Archie MacLaren, Gubby Allen, May, Cowdrey et al., we should not forget W. G. Grace and Douglas Jardine, two of the most unscrupulous and ungentle- manly men who ever played cricket. The gentlemen brought toughness as well as flair, but above all they brought diversity, which seems sadly lacking in the present XI, who sometimes seem to delight in present- ing an image of surly, chippy homogeneity.
The South Africans did behave-like gentle- men, despite considerable provocation in the form of much the worst umpiring ever seen in English Test matches. It is fitting that the series should have ended with an umpiring error: Ntini should not have been given out to what then became the final ball of the fifth Test. Umpiring errors came close to reducing this series to a farce, and if this goes on, Test umpiring, too, will die of shame, with most of the crucial decisions adjudged by slow- motion replays. Hansie Cronje ought to be congratulated for his stoicism: the South Africans suffered most at the hands of the umpires. But dignity in defeat comes too easily to Cronje; he needs tutorials in ruth- lessness with Allan Border, Mike Brearley — or the shade of Douglas Jardine.
After a series which seemed to promise only a further defeat leading to near-termi- nal demoralisation, England have won. It was a vital victory, for it keeps alive Eng- land's claim to be a first-class cricketing power. But further changes will be needed to sustain that claim.
Previous page
