Page:Jubilee Book of Cricket (Second edition, 1897).djvu/250

228 bad play—in fact, bad everything—it is a very convenient expression. If the truth were told, staleness would be recognised as meaning what the Hon. Ed. Lyttelton calls the "dumps"—due to a lack of success by reason of some specific cause. A man in low spirits lacks confidence, and cannot succeed. I have never come across a cricketer who was downcast or overfatigued through having been successful in scoring a large number of runs, or capturing many wickets, in a continuous string of matches. For though the exertion may have been great, the nerve stimulus has been great also. The keen enjoyment of success will in itself make a man no fit vessel to harbour staleness. Mr Lyttelton sets forth this point of view admirably. A cricketer, instead of calling himself stale, had better inquire for the real reason of his want of form, and remove it if he can. A player who is consistently unsuccessful for several weeks ought to be able to find out the cause of his inability to get runs.

If a man fails to keep himself in good health and condition, he cannot expect to get runs. Self-indulgence in the matter of food and drink cannot fail to affect his eye. A man who is engaged in heavy brain-work, such as writing a book on cricket or trying to matriculate at a Cambridge college, cannot expect to be at his best in the cricket-field. As regards a run of bad luck, it may be a blessing in disguise. It certainly is a good test of temper and character. Misfortune is proverbially good for people, if not taken in too large quantities.

There is a great deal of nonsense talked sometimes when a whole eleven collapses in a particular match. The probable causes of such failure are freely discussed and readily invented. In nine cases out of ten the reasons found are wrong. The law of averages, to which all human beings are subject in cricket as in other things, is quite enough explanation. Every man fails on an average once out of every six or seven times he goes to the wicket. There is no mathematical reason why it should not happen that five or six batsmen on the same side take their inevitable nought or one in the same innings of the same match. Such a series of coincidences is more often, I believe, the explanation of collapses than nervousness or similar suggested causes.