Cricket 1882

JULY 6, 1882. CRICKET ; “ The nearest approach to this occurred in the match, Surrey v. England, at the Oval on August 17, 1863, in an over from George Bennett (“ The Fanner” ), of Kent. From the first ball, H. H. Stephenson was stumped by Biddulph, from the fecond Caffyn was run out through a splendid return by Mr. Kelson from cover-point, the third bowled Mr. E. Dowson, and the fourth settled Griffith, who was caught by Mr. E. M. Grace, At the time all these disasters happened the score was 140 for one wicket.” L a s t week, I mentioned the probability that Murdoch and his men would meet Shaw’s Australian eleven in London. I be­ lieve that there is every chance of the match coming off at the Oval in the second week of September. Their two games in Australia found the elevens so well matched that their meeting would be sure to be productive of great interest, and would give considerable cclat to the last appearance of the Colonial team in London. I t was a very great performance of Messrs. A. P. Lucas and C. T. Studd to put on as they did 204 runs for the Gentlemen against the Players at Lord’s on Monday on the fall of the second wicket. This is one run more than Messrs. W. G. Grace and A. J. Webbe secured for the first wicket of the Gentlemen in the same match at Lord’s in 1875. It is, I believe, only twice on record that two amateurs have each made a hun­ dred in one innings of this particular match. The first case was at the Oval in 1870, when Mr. W . G. Grace scored 215, Eev. W. B. Money 109. not out ; the second at Lord’s in 1870, when Mr. Grace scored 169 and Mr. A. W. Ridloy 103. T h e eccentricities of cricket are fortu­ nately for the popularity of the game of almost daily occurrence. On June 1 and 2 at Lord’s, Midwinter and Barnes while they were together put on 454 runs against all the bowlers of Leicestershire, Parnham included. And yet that professional so utterly puz­ zled the same Australian team which had scored 501 at Chichester, at Leicester on Thursday and Friday, that they were dis- missedtwicefortotalsof 106andllO . Pam ­ ham is a slow left-hand bowler, and on this occasion he took fifteen wickets at a cost of 129 runs. A thoroughly good judge of the game, who had the very best possible oppor­ tunity of watching the play, tells me that the ground had very much to do with the success of the bowling, more indeed than tho papers have represented. Old English Cricket! What a refreshing sound the words have to some of us old stagers, who can recal the days when a cricket match was the topic of the country­ side for weeks before, and the game was the enjoyment of the village folk of all classes. Last week I called attention to a match in the old style, announced to come off on the Trent Bridge Ground at Nottingham on Sr.'urday, in aid of the local charities, A WEEKLY RECORD OP correspondent has kindly sent me a copy o* the Nottingham Daily Express of Monday' containing an excellent account of the pro­ ceedings. Altogether the game seems to have been an unqualified success, and a pleasing change after the dull monotony of professional cricket. It is not the first time that an old English cricket match has been played on the Trent Bridge Ground, for I learn that in 1855 the All England Eleven played Eighteen of the Nottingham Commer­ cial Club on the same lines, for the benefit of Charles Brown, the Nottingham wicket­ keeper. Saturday’s game was conducted strictly on the old principles. The players wore tall hats and white w'aistcoats, shoes without spikes, a :d were unpadded and ungloved. The umpires, as of old, sat in cosy arm chairs, smoking their long Broseleys; and the players took their refreshments on the field, sans ceremonie. The sides were captained by Sir James Oldknow, who has been four times Mayor of Nottingham, and Mr. S. G. Johnson, the Town Clerk, and the players were all con­ nected in some way with the Corporation. According to the report sent me there were more carriages than have ever been seen on the ground, and it is satisfactory to note that as many as 5,001 persons paid for ad­ mission, so that over £150 will be handed over to the hospitals. The success of the match will probably produce imitators. The spectacle of the Lord Mayor and the Senior Sheriff captaining two elevens of the Muni­ cipal authorities at the Oval would be sure to draw, especiallyif the clockmaking Knight of Cheap were to emulate his performance of a few years ago at the Lord Mayor’s procession on the fiery untamed steed from Sanger’s and attend on horseback. I may yet live to see my dream of a few weeks ago of cricket practice on cocoa-nut matting iu the Egyptian Hall— it might then be more properly called the Australian Hall— at the Mansion House. T h e news that Mr. A. W . Sclater, only a few years ago a prominent member of the Sussex eleven, has been accidentally shot in Australia, will be received with regret by those who remember him as a cricketer. As recently as 1880 he figured in the County team, and during that season he was only second to James Lillywhite in the bowling averages. Prom his great height his slow bowling was at times difficult to play, and as his delivery was also high, on a wicket to render liim any help, he was often very successful. I forget his exact height, but I think he was the tallest cricketer I have ever seen, and unless I am mistaken, he could have given even the Australian giant Bonnor an inch. B lackham , I hear, has injured his arm so much that he is not likely to be able to help the Australians for some little time ; mean­ while Bonnor is trying his hand at the wicket. GAME. 133 A N SW E R S TO CO RRE SPOND EN TS . S lippery D ick .— When there are less than five playing a single wicket match, can the batsman score if he steps over the popping crease to hit the ball’ —(No.) E obertsbridge .—Is a man out for obstructing the field under the following circumstances. He hit , the ball up into the air, and the bowler tried to catch it, but just as he was going to take the ball the batsman ran up against him, and the ball went up straight in the middle of the play ?— (The umpires are the judges of fair or unfair play.) T. H. K nisht .— The ball had passed the wicket some yards when a bail fell. The batsman left his wicket without appeal, satisfied that he was bowled, but the umpire fancied that the ball did not strike the wicket. Has the umpire a right to call the batsman and inquire why he was out ? It is doubtful whether Rule 39 applies to this case.— (The umpire is only to decide when appealed to, and not to volunteer a decision un­ asked.) L. S. A insworth . —I was batting in a "recent match, and while my partner was receiving the ball, I very naturally followed up to take the advantage of a short run, should an opportunity occur. My partner hit the ball hard and straight back through my wicket, I being at the time off my ground. We ran two runs, but on the bowler appealing to the umpire at his end, I was given out, although the ball had not touched any fieldsman’s hand after being hit. Was this decision a correct one ?— (Not out, unless the ball touched one of the fieldsmen.) T. B. P e a r se . —1 : A batsman in hitting a ball a second time to prevent its going ijto the wicket- hit such ball into the hands of point, and the umpire gave him out as caught. Was this deci­ sion right ? The ball being “ dead” as far as run-getting is concerned from a second hit, is it not equally dead as far as the fieldsmen are concerned ? (Not out.)—2 : A spectator of a cricket match picks up the ball hit in his direc­ tion with the deliberate intention of preventing the immediate return of the ball to the wicket. In the case alluded to one run was actually completed and a second one commenced before the ball was thus interfered with, but the fieldsman was only able to obtain the ball and return it to the wicket after the completion of the third run. Our opponents claimed the three runs. We contended that as we could not have run out the batsman from the return of the ball by a spectator, equally the bad should be considered as dead when picked up by such spectator. What is the proper decision of such a point ? (The ball was dead when handled by the spectators.) B. L. A llport .— A curious point in cricket occurred at Buckhurst Hill recently in a match with Blackheath Morden. A man named Muir went in to bat and I to run for him. He played a ball and ran himself; he completed the run, I re­ mained behiud and did not leave my ground. The bowler put wicket down, and appealed to the umpire, w>>o gave not out. May I ask for an explanation of the rule in your next issue of C ricket ? The striker (Muir by name) ran, and was standing in his ground when wicket was put down. I, his substitute, was standing in my ground at the opposite wicket. Muir and the other batsman having crossed and made a ruu, but I had not moved, was anyone out ? If so, who was out ? Or may not a batter run his own run by mistake ? I know that if either batter or sub. is out of his ground either cau be put out,Jjut how in this event ? (Precisely the same case arose at Lord’s some years ago, when upon the appeal of Clarke, the celebrated slow bowler, the batsman was given out. Upon that precedent no doubt the umpires at Lord’s would so decide, but it is a vexed question upon which doctors differ.) C. B rookes . — 1 : Will you kindly inform me if the batsman is out if in running he, either with his body or hia bat, hit the wicket ? (No.)—2 ;