Cricket 1884

m a y i, 1884. CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 93 In the matter of wicket-keeping, I have previously alluded to Blackham as standing alone, the superior of poor Tom Lockyer, and greater praise cannot be given. Gr ace as a batsman and Blackham as a wicket­ keeper are the great headlands that stand out so boldly on the cricket landscape of the present day. < 'C 0 I ^ E g P 0 N I )E N C E '> We are not responsible for the opinions expressed by our correspondents. No communications can be in­ serted unless they bear the name and address of the writer, as a proof of good faith, not necessarily for publication. THE LATE JOHN WISDEN. To t h e E d it o r o f “ C r ic k e t .” S ir , —In your last issue you remarked that no player except John Wisden ever accomplished the feat of taking all ten wickets in one innings in a first-class match. Perhaps I am not the first of your corres­ pondents to call your attention to the per­ formance of Barratt, the Surrey bowler, who playing for the Players of England against the First Australian Team in 3878 at the Oval, took, if I remember rightly, 10 wickets in one innings for 58 runs.—Yours truly, E n th u sia st. [You have read the remarks in “ Pavilion Gossip ” wrongly. The writer of Gossip said that it was the only record of bowling all ten wickets. Barrett’s feat in 1878 was quite different. Not one of his ten wickets was bowled.— E d .] CAMBRIDGE PAST AND PRESENT. To t h e E d it o r o f “ C r ic k e t .” S ir , —I hope that when the time comes to choose an eleven to represent Cambridge (Past aud Present) against the Australians, the claims of Mr. W. E. Roller will not be forgotten. Though he failed to get his blue he has improved so greatly since, that I am sure no eleven consisting of gentlemen would be representative without him. I think it would be difficult to find a better eleven than the following to represent Cam­ bridge :—Hon. A. Lyttelton, Messrs. C. T. Studd, G. B. Studd, A. P. Lucas, W. E. Roller, Hon. M. B. Hawke, Hon. J. W . Mansfield, P. H. Morton, C. A. Smith, A. G. Steel, H .E. Whitfeld, or J. E. K. Studd. There are in it nine first-class batsmen, five very good bowlers (two fast, two slow, and one medium pace), and the best amateur wicket-keeper in England.—I am, yours truly, H. W. L e s lie . SKEELiNG,"for Awsworth Literary Institute v. Newstead, at Awsworth, on Saturday, took seven wickets for six runs. M r. A. P. L u ca s played for Esher Village against Mid-Surrey at Kingston on Satur­ day. He was bowled by F. Maskell—a slow left underhand bowler—for 17, and took six wickets for 29 runs. A. Chester, the Surrey professional, scored 30 out of a total of 64 from the bat for Mid-Surrey. To b e S old .' A Rare Opportunity.— Complete Set of “ Scores and Biographies.” Vols. 1 to 13 (1 to 4 very rare),—Offers to be Bent to B. 46, care of Manager of C r ic k e t , *1, St. Andrew’s Hill, London, E .C .— A d v t. LAUSANNE CLUB. May 5, at Dulwich, v. Lennox May 10, at Dulwich, v. Lyncombe May 17, at Dulwich, v. City Ramblers May 24, at Bromley, v. Bromley May 31, at Lee, v. Northbrook ist XI. May 31, at Dulwich, v. Northbrook 2nd x l» June 2, at Dulwich, v. United Thespians June 7, at Dulwich, v. Heathfield lsfc XI. June 7, at Wandsworth, v. Heathfield 2nd XI. June 14, at Dulwich, v. Battersea June 14, at Dulwich, v. Lennox 2nd XI. June 21, at Dulwich, v. City Ramblers June 21, at Wandsworth, v. Spencer 2nd XI. June 28, at Dulwich, v. Clapham 1st XI. June 28, at Wandsworth, v. Clapham 2nd XI. July 1, at Dulwich, v. United Thespians July 5, at Dulwich, v. Penge July 12, at Dulwich, v. Lyncombe July 19, at Dulwich, v. Battersea July 19, at Wandsworth, v. Spencer 2nd XI. July 26, at Dulwich, v. Northbrook 1st XI. July 26, at Lee, v. Northbrook 2nd XI. August 2, at Wandsworth, v. Heathfield 1st XI, August 2, at Dulwich, v. Heathfield 2nd XI. August 4, at Windsor, v. Home Park. August 9, at Penge, v. Penge August 9, at Dulwich, v. Spencer 1st XI. August 16, at Wandsworth, v. Spencer 1st XI. August 16, at Dulwich, v. Lennox 2nd XI. August 23, at Wandsworth, v. Clapham 1st XI. August 23, at Dulwich, v. Clapham 2nd XI. August 30, at Dulwich, v. Bromley. F IX T U R E S . S aturday , M ay 8. At Maidstone, Kent ▼.22 Colts (2nd day) „ Addiscombe, Addiscombe v. City Ramblers „ Battersea, Battersea v. Fairfield „ Barnes, Belgrave v. Shamrock „ Bangor, Opening Match „ Oval, Brunswick v. Kennington Vine ,, Oval, Commercial Insurance Co. v. One & All „ Blackheath, Lyncombe v. Hampstead Nondescripts „ Birkenhead, Birkenhead v. Rock Ferry C. & G. ,2 dy) „ Brown’s (Nunhead), St. Saviour’s v. Lennox „ Birkdale, Stanley Club v. Birkdal© „ Brentwood, Stoics v. Boston Park „ Chatham, R. M. A. v. R. E. (2nd day) ,, Cambridge, Clare v. Pembroke (2nd day) „ Clapton, Uuder 30 v. Over 30 Clapton Club ,, Cooper’s Hill.—Incogniti v. R. I. E. College „ Croydon, Oakfield v. Mitcham „ Croydon, Croydon v. Granville „ Crystal Palace, Manied v. Single C. P. Club „ Dartmouth, H. M. S. Britannia v. Channel Fleet „ Dulwich, JEolians v. Brixton „ Dulwich, Northbrook v. Royal Insurance Co. ,. Edmonton, Angell Town A. C. v. St. Jude’s „ Finchley, Hornsey Club v. Christ’s College ,, Glossop. Glossop v. Levenshulme ,, Honor Oak, Lorne Club v. Waverley ,, Honor Oak, Linden ▼. Stur „ Hartley Road, Nondescripts v. Hartley Wintney „ Lee, Granville v. Manor Park „ Lee, Northbrook v. Islington Albion „ Millwall, Ravensboume v. Pontifex & Woods ., Notting Hill, University College School v. St. Charles College „ Norton, Norton le Moors v. Cobridge ,, Nunhead, St. John’s (Kensington) v. Dunn’s „ Oswestry, Oswestry v. Melshampton „ Old Trafford, Manchester v. Old Trafford „ Priory Farm, Star v. Clyde „ Priory Farm, Star v. Linden „ Peckham Rye.—St. George’s v. Park Road ,, Putney (Half Moon), Broadway House v. Old Ken­ sington ,, Pond Lane, Clapton, Amhurst v. Hon Artillery Co- ,, Richmond, Richmond v/SurreyC. & G. ,, Royton, Hollingworth v. Royton „ Roberson’s, Liverpool Victoria v. Perryian ,, Sefton Park, Sefton v. Warrington „ Stamford Brook, Broadway House v. Simpkin Mar­ shall & Co. „ Sydenham, Sydenham &Forest Hillv. Albion „ St. Helen's, Wigan v. St. Helen’s „ Todmorden, Huddersfield v. Todmorden „ Tynemouth, Borough of Tynemouth v. Tyne Dock ,, Upper Clapton, St. Clements v. Phoenix „ Upton.—Waterlow & Sons v. Barnet & Hadley „ W illesden Green, Guy’ s Hospital v. Law Club „ Wandswoith, North Surrey v. Broomswood I n the last match of the Australian Team in the Colonies v. Fifteen of South Australia at Adelaide, G. J. Bonnor, and A. Banner­ man, in second innings scored 112 without losing a wicket. TH ROW ING v. BOW L IN G T h is question having been prominently brought before the public, we venture, as cricketers, to offer a few remarks on the subject. There should, of course, be really no very great difficulty in dealing with the question of “ unfair” or “ suspicious ” bowling if the Umpire, be he amateur or professional, would simply perform the duty allotted to him. This duty as laid down is both plain and simple ; but if he fails to act up to it— and such failure is likely to injure the best interests of cricket—then some pressure must either be put upon him, or a new rule recognising “ unfair” bowling and abrogating Law X . must be promulgated. Our opinion is that if the M. C. C., the Surrey Club, ana other influential cricket centres who have to engage Umpires, would put it forcibly to the Umpire about to be engaged (without prejudging the action or delivery of any particular bowler) that Rule 10 was gradually being infringed, that it was determined to put a stop to such infringe­ ment, that unless he watched carefully the delivery of every bowler in a great match, and that if he considered the delivery at all suspicious or unfair, but refused from senti­ mental reasons to no-ball such bowler, he would not be engaged in any future match, we should hear very little of the infringe­ ment of Rule 10, and should soon have Umpires generally carrying out this rule as rigidly and carefully as we believe they do the remaining 45 rules. It may, however, probably be suggested that our remarks savour a little too much of undue influence ; but we think that no rule can be too strictly carried out, the disregard of which is likely to lead to such unfortunate disputes as that which has so recently arisen in the case of Notts v. Lancashire. County cricket is the very essence of cricket, and to allow an Umpire to a great extent to upset the universal interest now felt in this class of cricket, by refusing to perform a simple duty, would be an eggregious blunder. Another way of dealing with this “ vexed question ” seems to be the appointment of a Special Committee to be selected by the M.C.C., and for this Committee to take evi­ dence upon and decide any given complaint which might be brought before them in res­ pect of the unfair or suspicious action of any bowler. Whatever decision this committee arrived at should be duly notified to the Committee of the County to which the bowler whose action had been brought into question belonged, and such County Com­ mittee should be bound to carry out the decision of the Special Committee. We may say that in Australia and New Zealand we were particularly struck by the absence of anything like a “ jerk ” or “ throw ” in the delivery of any of the bowlers we met out there (the same remark will apply to Ameiica) ; and, on enquiry, we found that it was a thoroughly recognized principle with all clubs that any doubtful or suspicious action on the part of a bowler would lead to his disqualification. If this rule can be carried out in Australia, New Zealand, and America, surely it can be in England!— Shaw and Shrewsbury'sAnnual, A. L. P o r t e r , an Old Marlburian, scored 1*22 at Cambridge on Saturday last in the Trinity College Freshmen’s match.