Australianism

IN Ralph Barker's book Ten Great Bowlers, there is a gripping account of the Australian dressing room before the last innings of the 1882 Oval Test match. England have been left a mere 85 runs to win, and a day-and-a-half to get them. F.R. Spofforth, the Demon, is walking up and down the room, ball in hand, muttering to himself. This thing, he says, can be done, this thing can be done. Five words, possibly put into his mouth by an author born long after the event, yet the kernel of a cricketing philosophy that is distinctively Australian. Consider a fielder running in to catch a ball 40 yards distant and fast dropping to ground; or a batsman at the top of the order, his side following - on 200 runs behind on a wearing wicket; or, indeed, a bowler opening the attack with less than 100 to play with, and against a side led by Dr. W.G. Grace. The response of the Australian to these rather difficult, if commonplace, cricketing situations would be: this thing can be done.

This is a philosophy borne not so much of arrogance as self- belief. C.G. Macartney, the Governor-General of batsmanship, was once asked how good the England bowler S.F. Barnes really was. "I'll tell you," said Macartney. "Before I went in to bat in the Lord's Test of 1912, I told the lads that I was going to hit this fellow Barnes for six. I had to wait till I was 68 before I did so. That's how good Barnes was."

Writing in 1948, the great commentator John Arlott beautifully captured the essence of "Australianism". Unlike his own Englishmen, wrote Arlott, these colonial cousins "set out to win Tests. They start at the bottom, they train their youngsters hard. The young Australian cricketer fights for his place in grade cricket - often against seasoned players. And the Australians trust their young men early with great Test match responsibilities."

"Australianism," remarked Arlott, "means single-minded determination to win - to win within the laws but, if necessary, to the last limit within them. It means where the 'impossible' is within the realm of what the human body can do, there are Australians who believe that they can do it - and who have succeeded often enough to make us wonder if anything is impossible to them. It means they have never lost a match - particularly a Test match - until the last run is scored or their last wicket down."

Arlott wrote this at the conclusion of a successful tour of England by Don Bradman's side. The Australians had won four Tests out of five, and also thrashed all the top counties. The previous winter this side had defeated Lala Amarnath's Indians by four Tests to nil; the winter before, they had defeated England three- nil. In less than 24 months they had played 15 Test matches and won 11. The other four were drawn, always to their advantage.

The Australian tour of England in the summer of 1948 inspired one of the finest of all cricket books, Jack Fingleton's Brightly Fades the Don.

That book has plenty of good stories, but let me now tell one that appears elsewhere, in the autobiography of that greatly gifted all-rounder Keith Miller. Miller tells of a crucial phase of the Leeds Test, when Australia lost two tickets quickly to the off-spin of Jim Laker. In walked the 18-year-old Neil Harvey, in his first Test against the old enemy. "What's going on here," said Harvey to Miller, "let's get stuck into these fellows". From his first ball, he took the attack to Laker, moving yards down the pitch to stroke him through the off-side. Miller, till then circumspect, was encouraged by the youngster to play some strokes of his own. Within a few overs the balance of the match had shifted. Miller made 79, Harvey 112, and Australia, of course, won.

For very many years that side of Don Bradman was regarded as the greatest ever Australian cricket eleven, and perhaps the greatest 11 ever to appear in any country's colours. But that label must now be seriously challenged by the present Australian side, which has just won its 15th successive Test match.

Let us compare the two teams. Begin with the openers. Arthur Morris had as wide a range of attacking shots as Michael Slater: besides, he liked to convert his centuries into double hundreds. The careful Sid Barnes was easily the equal of Hayden or Elliott or Blewett. For the pivotal position of number three there is no competition at all: the Don, the greatest batsman in cricket history, versus that honest and hardworking journeyman, Justin Langer. The presence of the Waugh brothers improves the picture for our contemporaries, but on the other side we have Lindsay Hassett and Neil Harvey, likewise two of the immortals.

Come down to the late middle order. At number six for Bradman's side batted Keith Miller. Perhaps Ricky Ponting is his equal as a batsman and fielder, but that other fellow also took 170 Test wickets. Both teams have had high quality stumpers. What I have read of Don Tallon inclines me to give him the nod over Adam Gilchrist, behind the stumps: but Gilchrist is much the better batsman.

Tallon actually batted at eight for the 1948 side: just above him in the list came the tall and burly Sam Loxton. Loxton bowled a useful medium pace, not quite as fast or as penetrating as Jason Gillespie, but then he was a fine attacking batsman as well. The left-arm swing bowler Bill Johnstone lacked Brett Lee's pace, but he had better control, and greater variety. Ray Lindwall was a truly great fast bowler. So is Glen McGrath. But remember again that Lindwall also hit two Test hundreds.

The one realm in which the current Australian side have a clear advantage is spin bowling. In Shane Warne, they have the greatest slow bowler of modern times. When he is injured the Australians can call upon the scarcely less gifted Stuart McGill. Bradman had a natural preference for pace, in any case. While he could have picket the off-spinner Ian Johnson or the googly bowler Doug Ring, he generally chose the left-armer Ernie Toshack, who bowled negatively at the batsman's pads while the quick bowlers were having a rest.

Both teams, of course, showcased superb fielders, Miller and Mark Waugh in the slips and the likes of Harvey and Ponting in the outfield. Going down to the wire and then retracing one's steps backwards, one must conclude that the 1948 side was a shade superior, with more genuine all-rounders and, in their captain, a batsman who could single-handedly win a Test match. The case that the past was better than the present is most effectively made, I think, if one choose a composite side from the two generations. This should read, in batting order: 1. Arthur Morris 2. Michael Slater 3. Donald Bradman (captain) 4. Neil Harvey 5. Steve Waugh (vice-captain) 6. Keith Miller 7. Ray Lindwall 8. Don Tallon 9. Shane Warne 10. Bill Johnstone 11. Glen McGrath. The old timers win by seven to four or - if one substitutes Gilchrist for Tallon because of his better batsmanship - by six to five.

RAMACHANDRA GUHA

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Sport
Previous : Main spinners may miss first Test
Next     : D'Cunha nets Salgaocar's winner