Cricket 1883

462 CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. d e c . 21 , uos. 7. 8 . 8 . 8 . 12 . 12 . 12 . 15. 15.- 15. 19. 19. 22 . 22 . 22 . 22 . 26.' 28. 29. 2 . 2 . 2 . 2 . 2 . 2 . 2 . 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 9. P. 9. 9. 9. 1*. 12 . 12. 12 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 19. 19. 19. 19. 20 . 23. 23. 23. 23. 26. 26. 26. 26. 27. 80. 80. 8. 8 . 8. l0.' u. 14 . 14 . 11. 1 4 . 1 7 . 17 . 17 . 17 . 18 . 21 . 24. 24. 2 |. i 24. *6. W&28. i/28. 28. i!8. 80. 80. 81. 81. F I X T U R E S FOR 1884. M A Y . Lord’s—M.C.C. Anniversary Meeting and Dinner. Lord’s—M.C.C. and' Ground v. Sussex Taunton—Somersetshire v. Kent Moreton-in:Marsh— Gloucestershire v. Yorkshire Lord’s—M.C.C. aud Ground v. Kent S h e ffie ld P a r k — A u s tra lia n s v. L o rd S h e f­ f i e l d ’s E le v e n Lord’s— M.C.C. and Ground v. Yorkshire Nottingham— Nottingham v. Sussex Oval—Surrey v. Essex O x fo rd —A u stra lia n s v. O x fo rd U n iv e rsity Lord’s— VLC.C aud Ground v. Lancashire O val—S u rre y v. A u s tra lia n s Oxford—University v. M.C.C. and Ground L o rd ’s— M.C.C. & G round v. A u s tra lia n s Oval— Surrey v. Hampshire Manchester—Lancashire v. Derbyshire Lord’s—Middlesex v. Nottinghamshire Gravesend—Kent v. Hampshire Cambridge^-Univarsity v. Yorkshire Gloucester— Gloucester v. Sussex Oval—Surrey v. Leicestershire L o rd s—A u stra lia n s v. G e n tle m e n .Derby—Derbyshire v. Surrey . . Oxford—University v. Lancashire M ( C JUNE. Lord’s—North v. South Nottingham—Nottinghamshire v. Surrey Sheffield—Yorkshire v. Kent Leicester—Leicestershire v. M.C.C. and Ground D erb y —D e rb y s h ire v. A u stra lia n s Brighton—Sussex v. Hampshii-e Cambridge—University v. Gentlemen of England Lord’s—Middlesex v. Yorkshire Derby—Derbyshire v. Kent M a n ch e ste r—A u stra lia n s v. L an ca sh ire Brighton—Gentlemen of Sussex v. Philadelphians Leicester -‘-Leicestershire v. Surrey Cambridge—University v. M.C.C. and Ground Oval—Surrey v. Middlesex B r a d fo r d —A u stra lia n s v. Y o rk sh ire Manchester—Lancashire v. Kent Lord’s— M*C.C. and Ground v. Derbyshire Lord’s —Middlesex v. Gloucestershire Huddersfield—Yorkshire v. Sussex Manchester—Lancashire v. Leicestershire N ottin gh am — A u stra lia n s v. N o tts Lord’s— M.C.C. v. Philadelphians C am bridge—U n iv e rsity v. A u stra lia n s Oval—Surrey v. Gloucestershire Southampton—Hampshire r. Kent Sheffield—Yorkshire v. Nottinghamshire Manchester—Lancashire v. Oxford University Lord’s— Middlesex v. Kent Brighton—Sussex v. Gloucestershire M a n ch e ste r—A u stra lia n s v. N o r th Oval—Surrey v. Cambridge University Stockport—Gentlemen of Cheshire v. Philadelphians Lord’s—M.C.C. and Ground v. Cambridge University Derby—Derbyshire v. Yorkshire Leicester—Leicestershire v. Philadelphians Oval—Surrey v. Oxford University Lord’s— M.C.C. and Ground v. Oxford University Manchester—Lancashire v. Yorkshire O val— G e n tle m e n v. A u stra lia n s Brighton— Sussex v. Nottinghamshire Southampton—Hampshire v. Philadelphians Lord’s —Oxford v. Cambridge S h e ff ie l d —P la y e rs v. A u stra lia n s JULY. Oval — Gentlemen v. Players Lord’s—Bar v. Army Brighton—Sussex v. Kent Stockport—Cheshire v. Lanfc&sbire Lord's— Gentlemen v. Players M anchester —E ngland v . A ustralians Brighton—Sussex v. Surrey Lord’s — Eton v. Harrow Lord’s— Middlesex v. Surrey Sheffield—Yorkshire v. Lancashiro (Hill’s Bonolit) Gloucester—Gloucestershire v. Nottinghamshire Derby— Gentlemen of Derbyshire V. Philadelj)hians L ord ’ s —M iddlesex y . A ustralians Manchester— Lancashire v. Surrey Tonbridge—Kent v. Sussex Nottingham—Nottinghamshire v. Yorkshire Stockport—Cheshire v. M.C.C. and Ground L ord ’ s —E ngland v . A ustralians Lord's—M.C.C. aud Ground v. Nottinghamshire Dewsbury—Yorkshire v. Surrey B righton - S ussex v . A ustralians Manchester—Lancashire v. Gloucestershire Maidstone— Gentlemen of Kent v. Philadelphians Lord’s— M.C.C'. and Ground v. Clifton College Hradford—Yorkshire v. Gloucestershire Maidstone— Kent v. Surrey Derby— Derbyshire v. Sussex Lord’s—Rugby v. Marlborough Manchester — Harrow Wanderers v. Philadelphians O val —P layers v . A ustralians Nottingham—Nottinghamshire v. Gloucestershire I** AUGUST. Lord’s—M.C.C. and Ground v. Rugby School C a n terb u ry — A u stra lia n s v. K e n t (Canterbury week begins) . Lo d’s—M.C.C. and Ground v. South Wales Club Oval— Surrey v. Nottinghamshire Norwich— Gentlemen of Norfolk y. Philadelphians Derby—Derbyshire v. Lancashire Southampton—Hampshire v, Sussex Lord’s—M.C.C. and Ground v. Cheshire Canterbury— Kent v. Middlesex C lifton — A ustralians v . G loucestershire Southampton—Hampshire v. Somersetshire Leicester'—Leicestershire v. Lancashire Norwich—Norfolk v. M.C.C. and Ground O val —A ustralians v . E ngland Taunton— Somersetshire v. Lancashire Brighton— Sussex v. Derbyshire Gravesend—Kent v. Yorkshire Nottingham—Nottinghamshire v. Middlesex Clifton— Gloucestershire v. Lancashire Oval— Surrey v. Lancashire Sheffield— Yorkshire v. Middlesex C heltenham —G loucestershire v . A ustralians Bath—Somersetshire v. Hampshire Gravesend—Kent v. Derbyshire Brighton—Sussex v. Yorkshire Oval—Surrey v. Derbyshire N ottingham —A ustralians v . N otts Cheltenham—Gloucestershire v. Middlesex Maidstone—Kent v. Lancashire Leicester—Leicestershire v. Norfolk Lord’s—M.C.C. and Ground v. Essex Clifton— Gloucestershire v. Surrey C am bridge —P ast & P resent C antabs v . A ustrlns Bradford—Yorkshire v. Derbyshire Tunbridge Wells—Kent v. Somersetshire O val — S outh v . A ustralians Manchester—Lancashire Somersetshire SEPTEMBER. Oval— Surrey v. Kent N ottin gh am —N o rth ofJJEngland v. A u stra lia n s Oval—Surrey v. Yorkshire S ca rb orou g h —I Z in g a ri v. A u stra lia n s Oval—Surrey v. Sussex *f-C@I^E£P0PENCE> We are not responsible for the opinions expressed by our correspondents. No communications ean be inserted un­ less they bear the name and address of the writer, as a proof of good faith, not necessarily for publication. LAW TEN. To THE E d ito r Of “ C r ic k e t .” S ir , —From a note in your issue of Nov. 29tb , it would appear that there is some chance of Lord. Bessborough’s amendment of Buie X. being accepted. I suppose that it would generally be agreed that if this amendment will not help matters, it had better be withdrawn. If it does not mend, it will probably mar, and I do not think that it will mend. The proposed alteration is 11 The ball shall be bowled with unchecked swing of the arm, and without downward action of the elbDw.” Now everyone will see where the notion contained in the first part of the sentence comes from. Mr. A. H. Evans, the fairness of whose delivery many persons ques­ tioned, had a habit of partially checking him­ self just previous to bowling the ball. People called it “ dwelling on the crease,” and it Was constantly said that this was noticeable in pro­ portion as the delivery was in their opinion unfair. I say “ in their opinion,” because there are many—I myself among the number—who have often played, both on the same side and also against him, who maintain that he was a perfectly fair bowler. But the error has been in supposing that this checking of oneself, or dwelling on the crease, is inseparably connected with unfair bowling. This is evidently the idea underlying the proviso that the bail shall be bowled with unchecked swing of the arm.” Take ,the instance of Mr. C. E. Horner. I do not think that it would be possible in all Eng­ land, or for that matter in Australia, to find a bowler who is more absolutely fair. To question his delivery would be to raise a smile of con. tempt. Yet he dwells on the crease, and partiall'- checks himself in a very decided manner. Non, it is no use to say, there is the rule and if Mr. Horner or anyone else offends it, so much thi worse for them. The question is, Will it help to put a stop to unfair bowling ? In order to show that this will be the result, the advocates of the new rule must prove that dwelling on the crease, or checking oneself, necessarily produces a throw, and this is what they can not prove. A bowler may check himself and yet be perfectly fair, just as a man may deliver the ball with unchecked swing of the arm and be unfair. With regard to the other part of the sentence, that the ball must be delivered without “ down­ ward action of the elbow,” I confess I do not understand it. I do not see how any bowler can have an overhand action, and not have a '‘down­ ward action of the elbow.” It is no doubt, as you say, very difficult to get a satisfactory definition of what is fair bowling. Some have attempted it in the Field, but have generally succeeded in producing a definition intelligible only to themselves. The most satisfactory attempt at a definition that has been made, in my opinion is, that the elbow must be rigid. It seems to me that if the elbow is rigid, a throw is an impossibility, but is the converse true, viz., that the elbow must be rigid to produce a fair delivery ? I must say that I am not quite satis­ fied on this point. I think that after all, Lord Harris is going the effective way to work, and that more good will be done by determined and collective action on the part of the various county executives than by all the definitions in the world.—I am, &c., P. An American correspondent has very kindly forwarded me a few details of cricket in Cali­ fornia. The account he sent of a match:between All San Francisco and H. M. S.. Swiftsure,' at San Francisco, on October 16. arrived just too late for insertion in the last number of C r icket . It is satisfactory to hear that the game was watched with the greatest interest by a very large and fashionable gather­ ing of spectators. Her Britannic Majesty’s Consul, Mr. Stanley, and Admiral McLyon officiated as umpires. Cricket seems to have taken root firmly on the Pacific coast. A tournament held in Grass Valley, Nevada County, during the.first part of the fair week of the Eldorado District proved a great success. The Dnion Club of Grass. Valley, it is said, is largely com­ prised of Cornishmon. M r. F. A dam s , Constitution Hill, Poole, writes impugning the statement in the biography of Maurice Bead, that since his debut in 1880 the Surrey professional had never been absent from County Cricket. Our correspondent has fr und that he did not play, owing to illness, in 1081 either against Notts, at Nottingham, on June o, or v. Lancashire, at Old Trafford, on June 7. We have to thank Mr. Adams for his correction. The biographer was certainly at fault iu this particular detail. His idea, though, we fancy was only to show that from the first Bead’s place in the Surrey eleven had been secured and never since in any doubt. W ANTED, a PBIVATE GBOUND, for Season 1884, as near City as possible. S. W. Pringle, Finsbury Stationery Works, E.C. PROFESSIONAL CRICKETERS FOR SEASON 1884. R ICHARD DAFT (late Captain of Notts County Eleven) is now prepared to recommend Professional Cricketers of recognised ability, per­ sonally known t:> him, and possessed of satisfactory testimonials from their previous engagements. R. D. has pleasure in stating that the very large number of professionals sent out by him every season are almost invariably re-engaged. Terms, &c., submitted upon application. Address : R. D a ft, 1, Lister-gate, Nottingham. Printed by W . R. W r ig h t & Co. :for the Proprietor, at the Cricket Press, 17, Paternoster Square, London, Dec. 27, 188b.