Cricket 1886

JAN. 28, 1886. CKICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OE THE GAME. 0 T h e Australians though, as far as I can hear, will, in all probability, not be allowed to be undisturbed masters of the situation in England this summer. It is rumoured, indeed, and on the best autho­ rity, that there is every likelihood o f a visit of native Indian cricketers. I am given to understand that a communica­ tion has been received by the Secretary of the Surrey County Club, asking him to arrange a series of twenty-five matches on behalf of the Parsee cricketers. They are anxious to play their first match at Lord’s, as is only natural, and should no difficulties be experience 1 in arranging a programme they propose to leave for England in May. They are also desirous of engaging a good English professional to “ coach ” them in Bombay for a few weeks prior to their departure. *•Hang out our banners on the outer walls. The cry is still they com e." I am not quite sure whether it is generally known that there is, too, at present every intention of sending another American team to visit England in 1887. M u rdo ch , accordingto the latest advices from the Colonies, had left, or was about to leave, his native place, Cootamundra, where his residence has been, to settle in Melbourne, where he intends to follow his practice as a solicitor. “ Felix ” in the Australasian says that it is generally understood the Australian captain will play very little, if any, cricket after the Inter­ colonial, and indeed there was some doubt as to whether he would take part in that match, which was to be com ­ menced as usual on Boxing Day. A lic k B annerman has been getting himself disliked in the Colonies by his determination to pose for the future as a professional, pure and simple. H is reply to the invitation of the New South Wales Association that he could not play in the Inter-colonial unless lie received £15 has been bitterly resented by, as far as I have seen, all the Colonial critics. “ Felix ” in the Australasian writes forcibly on the matter, as will be seen by the appended remarks— I gave A. Bannerman credit for some little patriotism, which it seems he does not possess. At least one would think so, now that he ha3 absolutelyrefused to play for his colony unless he receives a fee of £15 from the New South Wales Association for his services in the match. It is pay, not patriotism, with the stonewaller. His want of tact in persisting in his demand surprises me, for I know that as a rule he is tolerably shrewd. Does he not see that if the association can do without him now, they may manage to do without him altogether ? If he had been reasonable or fair in his demand the association would probably have made no objection, but the amount is much too high. It is not a good thing to mount too lofty a pedestal. Onemay never be asked to step down from it. This will be the stonewaller’s case if he does not mind his p’s and q’s. A pec u liar lapsus calam i occurred in the “ Curiosities of Cricket,” published in the last number of this paper. In alluding to the maiden over bowled by Mr. C. E . Haitopp in the match between the Gentlemen Eiders and the Jockeys, played at Prince’s on June 20,and referred to in “ Pavilion Gossip ” of the following Thursday (p. 217), an addition was, by an unaccountable error, made in the tran­ script. “ Mr. Hartopp it was said (p. 476) bowled a maiden over consisting of five wides and five no-balls without a run.” It should have been, of course, five balls without a run. T h e English sporting papers a few weeks ago reproduced a report from some of the leading Australian journals to the effect that E . Evans, the Australian cricketer, well-known, though unfortu­ nately only by reputation to Englishmen, was so ill from the effects of a sunstroke that there was just a chance of his being unable to play again. Every one of his many friends will be gratified to learn that his illness was much exaggerated. Advices from Sydney report him as looking well and hearty at the commence­ ment of last month, and that he was in good fettle may be gathered from the fact that he was then practising in anticipation of the Intercolonial match down for decision as usual on Boxing Day. “ C en so r ” in the Sydney M ail of November 14 calls attention to a peculiar occurrence in a recent match in that city ; In the recent match between the Albert and Carlton clubs a curious point arose. D. Gregory bowled a ball to Elliott who ran out to hit it, thus enabling the wicket keeper to stump him. The batsman was so far out of his ground that he walked away and was apparently satisfied that the wicket-keeper had dismissed him. When he had gone as far as the pavilion, which was behind the line of the wickets, the umpire was asked how it was. He replied “ not out,” thereupon the wicket keeper took up the ball and knocked the wicket down, and the umpire upon being appealed to said “ not out.” Was the ball in play after the wicket keeper had thrown it down when he thought he had stumped the batsman? I think it was, and that the man was not out. Moreover Elliott could not be run out when he had departed behind the wickets toward the pavilion. A similar case occurred in an Inter­ colonial match some years ago in the Domain, G. Marshall being the wicket keeper and S. Jones the batsman. In the last number of C r ic k e t I men­ tioned a few of the new members of the House of Commons known to myself as interested in our grand old game. I have to thank Mr. W . S. Shirley, M.P., for an important addition to the list, as the following letter will show— House of Commons, Jan. 20,1886. To the Editor of C bicket . S ib , —There are two names which might well have been included in your list of new members interested in cricket. One is that of Mr. Frank Lockwood, Q.C., Member for York, whose genial presence is often to be found at Lord’s. The other is that of Sir George Sitwell, Member for Scarborough, who is a thoroughly keen cricketer and has been suffering for some time past from the effects of a severe injury sustained during a game last summer. These two gentlemen are a great deal more worthy of insertion in your list of cricketing M.P.s than some who figure there. If I might make a suggestion, why should not the cricketing M.P.s be entertained at dinner some night ? Your obedient servant, W. S. S h irley .' In the names of cricketers who were run out at the recent election, given by me in last number of C r ic k e t , I have to charge myself with an important omis- I sion, that of a well-known authority on I t appears I was not correct in as­ suming, as I did, in “ Gossip ” of last month that Mr. J. E . Laidlay, who has won such high honours at Golf lately, is the old Loretto and Peterhouse cricketer. A correspondent, well-informed on Scotch cricket, in correcting me adds some interesting details respecting the crack Golfer. You are mistaken about J. E. Laidlay. He is younger brother of W. J. Laidlay, who was at Cambridge about 1870, and after he left Cambridge was one of the best bowlers of the day. The latter played twice for North v. South on the strength of his bowling, when Bichard Daft managed the North. J. E. Laidlay was, as a schoolboy of 16, one of the best bowlers I ever saw on a cricket field, and the onlyfirst-rate boy bowler I have ever known in my life. In that year (1878) he was played for Scotland v. Yorkshire, and, out of a score exceeding 200, bowled nearly all the time; he had five wickets, mostly without assistance from the field, for 57 runs. In a return match, played on the Saturday, he had six wickets of Yorkshire for 18 runs. But he practically gave up cricket on leaving school. He was a medium pace bowler, or rather he bowled any pace, from slow to fast medium, with either break, and put the ball where he chose, and knew where to put it. Golf, I think, accounted for his giving up cricket. As a schoolboy he holed Musselburgh Links in 36, 35 being the record. It is strange that the only first-rate boy bowler and first-rate golfer I have ever known at school should have been combined in a boy of 16. Robert Thoms gives the following opinion opinion on the case :— As described—the decision was quite right— not out; under the sterling law of fair and un­ fair play. I have seen the point occur many times under the same conditions, the batsman walking away on his ground and thinking that he had been got out. But under certain cir­ cumstances—again fair and unfair play—it is out, for it sometimes begets a question of time, where the batsman settles down in pavilion, and another batsman starts for wicket, &c. &c. I t will be interesting to many C ric k e t readers to hear that Mr. T. Nunn, the well-known New South Wales cricketer, who had a busy time of it over here last summer in Metropolitan cricket, has been hard at work and with a fair amount of success since his return to Sydney. A. Bannerman and he, I notice, made a particularly good start for the Carlton Club against the Eastern Suburbs on the concrete wicket of the latter on Nov. IB, and the latter had a lively time of it, having to field all the afternoon while 225 runs were got for the loss of only four wickets. Mr. Nunn was one of those chosen by the selector of teams for the New South Wales Association, Mr. D. Gregory, Captain of the First Austra­ lian team, by-the-way, to go into practice for the Intercolonial match. Next Issue February 25-