Cricket 1883

MAY 10,1883. CRICKET; A "WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 83 L A W X. (The following communication has been forwarded to us by one of ourforemost cricketers. His opinions entirely coincide with our view, so thatwe have much pleasure in inserting them. The committee of the M.C.C. have, as we are informed by an announcement in the daily papers, “ called before them the umpires of the club to impress upon them their determination to put an end to the present unsatisfactory working of Law X., and have instructed them to carry out in the most stringent manner, the spirit as well as the letter of the law. They have further impressed upon them that it is their duty to ‘ no-ball ’ any bowler as to the fairnes i of whose delivery they entertain any doubt.” So, at length, action is to be taken, and from the proper quarter, in the direction of the enforcement of Law X ., and, in our opinion, not a day too soon. It may be asked why have the committee not recommended all cricket clubs to follow their example ? We think weunderstand their reason for this omission, if it can be called one. It does not lie in the power of the committee to alter any of the laws of cricket; that can only be done at a general meeting of members, summoned by at least twenty members one month previously, but the committee have evidently seen the necessity of taking immediate aswell as energetic steps towards an attempt at the prevention of the increasing violation of this law. An alteration of the law, agreed to by a general meeting, would be undoubtedly upheld b? all county and country clubs, but it does not follow that all county and country clubs would agree to a novel interpretation of the law, merely laid down as an instruction to umpires by the committee of M.C.C. and we think that the committee have acted wisely in not giving any club the opportunity of figuring in opposition to M.C.C. by declining to accept that interpreta­ tion. If all county and country clubs choose to follow the example set by the committee, and We trust they will see the necessity of doing so, so much the better, action will be taken simul­ taneously ; but if some do not, the committee will in no way have weakened the position that M.C.C. holds as the Parliament of cricket. Cricket has already commenced, and it Would be undoubtedly forming a bad precedent to alter a law in the middle of the season. As much therefore, as could be done, taking into account the late day at which steps have been taken, has been done ; but that the matter will not be allowed to rest there is shown by a letter from Lord Harris, which we publish below, in which he states his intention of moving, at the general meeting which must be summoned to consider the new laws of cricket, as amended by a committee of M.O.C., to add to Law X. some such words as the following, “ if in the opinion of the umpire there is any doubt as to the fairness of the delivery he shall oal ‘ no­ ball.’ ” However equally divided opinions may be as 0 whether a doubtful action is fair or unfair, surely it must be patent to everyone, after seeing the scrupulously fair actions of all Australian bowlers, that for the production of the very best bowling, doubtful actions are quite unnecessary. But we are prepared to go further nan this, and say that in the opinion of tho majority of cricketers, to allow doubtful actions Will not tend to produce the best bowling, and we rest our assertion on this fact, that an enormous majority of the best bovlers, ustralian and English, known to this genera- W'n 'lave keen and are perfectly fair; for Villsher it must.be remembered was “ no-balled” th d ew in g, but for raising his hand above ®Moulder. “ Spin, ” as great a desideratum 5 direction” and “ pitch,” for it takes effect when grounds are hard, and the ball cannot be made to “ work,” can never be given by a throw. But it may be argued, take every opportunity of discouraging an alreadytco prevalent practice, but surely it is hardly fair to decide in a doubtful case, not in favour of, but against the bowler. Well, in our opinion matters have arrived at such a state, owing to the unwillingness of professional umpires to “ no-ball” any bowler, that no measures are too stringent, We are willing to admit that the injunction of the committee to their umpires, and the alteration of the law (if agreed to) as proposed by Lord Harris are drastic measures, but we are convinced they are necessary. This is our con­ tention, Doubtful actions will cause bowling to deteriorate ; some of them we believe already infringe the law ; to allow any ofjthem is, to use a technical phrase, not cricket, and we are therefore unfeignedly glad that the leading cricket club of the world has, through its com mittee, set the example of stopping (to the utmost of its power) doubtful actions, and we trust the general meeting will see the necessity of an alteration of Law X. * CURIOSITIES OF CRICKET. P abt II. (Continued from page 69.) 1822. July 29.—Nottingham. Holt v. Notts, Fuller Pilch, and W. Clarke were opposed to each other in this match, for the first time. The last time they met on the cricket-field was August 14, 1854, more than 32 years later. 1824. July 12, 13.—Bury, Suffolk. Biggies wade v. Bury. Out of 40 wickets, 35 were bowled. 1825. August 26.—Bury. Newmarket v. Bury, Six men out of ten stumped in one innings. 1825. August 5.—Newenden, Kent. A single­ wicket match, five a-side, between Kent and Sussex men. Only one innings was played, and no runs made on either side. This is, perhaps, hardly so curi­ ous as the celebrated Shillinglee v. Surrey Militia match in 1855, in which an entire eleven failed to score a single run, or even an extra, in their first innings. 1826. August 2. — Lords. Winchester v. Harrow. Winchester won by 384 runs, Meyrick scoring 146 (not out) in his second innings, August 14. Bury. Melford v. Bury. Won by the latter by 107. In the second innings of Bury, Fuller Pilch went in when fivewicketshad fallen, and carried out his bat for 91, the whole number scored from the bat by the other ten on his side being 30. 1827. May 18.—Cambridge. Bury v. Cam­ bridge. The latter won in a single innings, with the small score of 37 against 15 and 20. June 4.—Lords. Oxford v. Cambridge. First University match on record. Unfinished; greatly in favour of Oxford. July 6.—Lords. A club match. Mr. Benjamin Aislabie (the once well- known, but now forgotten secre­ tary of the M.C.C., greatly dis­ tinguished himself in this match, scor­ ing 11 (not out) and 18. This was an unprecedented feat in the career of the worst cricketerwho ever played in great matches. He was fifty-three at the time, and portentously fat, but his cricket career oontinued till 1841. His These appeared iu Lo.nd and Water some years ago. bust, of which Mr. Ward said that “ it had better be taken at once, or the old ]un would bust first,” is still to be seen in the Pavilion at Lords. July 9, 10, 11.—Lords. Eleven Players beat Seventeen Gentlemen in one innings for 42 runs, though Mr. Ward scored 96 (not out) and 22. July 23, 24, 25.—Brighton. England v.' Sussex. James Broadbridge threw his bat at a ball out of his reach, hit it, and was caught at point. September 17, 18, 19.—Brighton. Kent v. Sussex. Wide balls appear in the score for the first time. 1832. August 27, 28.—Lords. Gentlemen v. Players. Players won in one innings by 34. The Gentlemen defended wickets of 22in. by 6in., and the Players those now in use, viz., 27in. by 8in. Mr. Alfred Mynn’s first match at Lords. The “ Barn-door Match,” in which ex­ cessively large wickets were defended by the Players, is often confounded with this by a natural mistake, but it really came off on July 3 and 4, 1837. 1834. June 16, 17, 18.—Nottingham. Notts v. Bingham. Eleven of Notts had each two innings, and thirteen of Bingham each four innings. Easily won by Notts. This and the return between the same sides, played on June 31 and July 1, 2, 3 of the same year, also won by Notts, are the only matches known to have ever been played under such conditions. July 14—18.—Sheffield. Yorkshire v. Norfolk, said to have been given up by Norfolk, who, however, had still some chance of winning it, as they had three wickets still to fall, and about 120 runs to get, Fuller Pilch well in with 153 to his score, and the bowling utterly collared. Extras scored 128 ! 1835. July 9.—Eton. M.C.C. v. Eton. Un­ finished. Mr. J, H. Kirwan bowled down the whole ten M.C.C. wickets in their second innings—a very rare feat, equalled by R. Ringwood in a country match at Saffron Walden, August 17, 1840, but which perhaps hasnever been accomplished in a grand match, except in North v. South, at Lords, July 15, 1850, whenWisden bowled out a whole side, of whom seven were excellent bats, and the rest fair ones, for scaieely 30 runs. Flanagan got seventeen Ali- England wickets, eleven of them clean bowled, out of twenty in the All-Eng­ land Eleven v. Twenty-two of Egham match, in July, 1868, and also made the top score, amounting to 2 and 10. Perhaps the greatest personal success ever achieved by a cricketer in one match was in the England v. Surrey match at the Oval, in 1859, when Mr. V. E. Walker, then twenty-two years old, got, by bowling and catches, etc., all the Surrey wickets in one innings, and four in the other, and also scored 20 (not out) and 108 in his own two innings. July 13, 14.—Lords. Right v. Left- handed. W. Lillywhite scored 37 againstgood bowling. He was a better bat than he was generally thought to be, but he would not risk his fingers when he still had bowling to do, and accordingly he did not play fast bowl­ ing with confidence until his opponents had finished both innings. I have seen him play more than one good de- fensive innings when he was peftriy Sixty. To be Continued).