Cricket 1887

SEPT. 15, 1887. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. 407 me. When it was within a foot of the ropes it seemed to stop and hesitate whether to remain there or roll a yard further. It rolled a yard farther, outside the rope. The young lady in brown and yellow was so sorry for the batsman that if she had been nearer the rope she felt certain she would have pushed oat her sunshade and stopped the ball. It is rather unfair to be put out lbw. That is when the ball hits you, which is surely the bowler’s fault and not yours. The girl in the sailor hat has a brother who played for Oxford once and was put out lbw. He told her all about it directly afterwards. Cambridge couldn’t gat him out, and so they bowled at his legs. The ball certainly hit him, but lbw means legs before wickets, and his legs were quite a long way from the wickets. He didn’t care about being put out himself, but he objected on the principle of the thing. Another lady refused to believe that Cambridge could have done any such thing; which seemed to cause a little unpleasantness. When you hit your wicket with your bat you have to go away ; though of course you would not do it except by accident. Another way of putting you out without really defeating you is to bowl at the wickets when you are running. To do him justice, it is not the regular bowler who does this, but only the men who stop the ball. How can you prevent the ball “ taking your stumps ” (a technical phrase) when you are running ? The wicket­ keeper has a very light time of it. He has nothing to do but stand there while the others are running; and when they fling the ball to him he hits off the bails with it in his hands. He is called a “ stone- waller ” because he stands there as still as a wall. To “ steal ” a run is to rush from the one wicket to the other when the fielders are not looking. Of course a batsman is naturally anxious to make ruus; but there is surely some indelicacy in doing it that way. At least, that is the opinion of the young lady in brown and yellow.—I am, Sir, your obedient ser­ vant, B. J. THE TWO ENGLISH TEAMS FOE AUSTRALIA. T h e following letter written by Mr. Philip Sheridan, the managing Trustee of the Association Cricket Ground at Sydney, on the subject of the visit of two English teams to Australia this winter, appeared in the Melbourne Leader. The editorial comments, however, reiterate the state­ ment that the information was volunteered by the English managers themselves. The Australasian newspaper also published in Melbourne, too, in an answer to a corres­ pondent about the same date as the Leader which contains Mr. Sheridan’s letter, says :—“ The Englishmen certainly declared that they had been guaranteed against loss by the Trustees. ” C r i c k e t readers will be able to decide for them­ selves between these conflicting state­ ments. S ir , — I shall be obliged if you will permit me to make use of your columns to give an emphatic denial to a number of statements which are periodically repeated in the Mel­ bourne press concerning the action of my co­ trustees and myself in regard to the visit of a team of English cricketers to Australia during the next season. It is stated that we have agreed to give Lillywhite’s team the whole profits of the undertaking, and to indemnify them ngainst all loss. I wish now to say that this statement is untrue, and to express my belief that it is untrue to the knowledge of the persons who havo made it. We confess to having invited Lillywhite and his friends to bring out a team next season for the reason that we thought the visit would add to the attractiveness of our centennial celebration, and we undertook to arrange the matches for them in the colonies, and to afford them what assistance we could by our personal efforts to make the trip a success. What the contribu­ tors to the Melbourne press appear anxious to do is to create an impression that we have unfairly stepped in to embarrass the Melbourne Cricket Club in their attempt to bring out a team. In regard to this, I wish to say that when I was in Melbourne in August last I had a conversation with the authorities of the M.C.O., in which I suggested that they should join with us in controlling the visits of English teams to the colonies; they, however, did not appear desirous of joint action. I may also state that I was in Melbourne in November last, and no intimation was made to me that arrangements for bringing out a team were then in progress. It is now stated that ar­ rangements for bringing out a team under the auspices of the M.C.C. were then completed. Why was this not communicated to me at the time? Was it because the M.C.C. wished to monopolise the concern, enjoy the eclat , and pocket the profits ? See what has happened. In ignorance of the carefully concealed designs of the M.C.C., we have encouraged Lillywhite and party to visit us. The M.C.C. know full well that all the profits likely to accrue from such a visit are made in Sydney, and that cricket is a veritable frost in Melbourne. The only thing now to be done is to enlist public sympathy by creating a belief that we are usurping the position which should in justice be occupied by the M.C.C. I can only repeat that we have made no such compact with Lillywhite as is asserted, and that when we took action we were in complete ignorance of the intentions of the M.C.C. to bring out a team. A little more candor and a little less reticence on the part of our neighbors might have obviated the unpleasantness which seems to have been created.—Yours, &c., P h il ip S h e r id a n , ManagingTrustee, Association Cricket Ground. 99, Elizabeth-street, Sydney, 12th July. [Mr. Sheridan’s opinion, that the statement which has appeared in the Melbourne press in connection with this matter “ is untrue to the knowledge of those who have made it,” is offensive and unjustifiable. The statement first appeared in The Leader on the individual and collective authority of Shaw, Shrewsbury and Lillywhite, so far back as the 18th Decem­ ber, 1886, and was to the effect that “ the English professionals were to be indemnified against loss, and to take the whole of whatever profit might result from the enterprise, the trustees merely charging the usual 20 per cent, for matches played upon the Sydney Association ground.” Each of the three players named volunteered that information and endorsed its correctness, and we have had no reason to doubt their veracity. As Mr. Sheridan now complains that it has “ been periodically repeated” it is at least singular that he shou’d have allowed seven months to elapse before attempting to contradict it. Respecting the time at which the intention of the Melbourne Club to bring out a team was made known, it was announced in The Leader of the 4th December, 1886, that Mr. Wardill had authoritatively made the statement which had been published in Cricket six weeks before that date, together with the information that more than ona prominent English amateur had promised to join. That Mr. Sheridan has been behind the times in acquainting himself with these facts is no justification for his contemptible inuendoes against the Melbourne Club, and his opinion that a “ little more candor and a little less reticence on the part of our neighbours might have ob­ viated the unpleasantness ” is amusing if only from its peculiar inverse application.— S p . E d . L .] ----------- A c o r r e s p o n d e n t , “ Round Arm,” writes as follows with regard to the coming English cricketing teams:— In the Sydney Morning Herald of Saturday, the 16th instant, and Echo of same date, I see a statement emanating from Mr. Philip Sheri­ dan, re the dispute between the trustees of the Association Cricket Club and the Melbourne Cricket Club, in reference to the coming English cricketing teams, and in which Mr. Sherida/i places the whole responsibility of the present muddle on the shoulders of the M.C.C. Mr. Sheridan, from his point of view, has made out a very fair case, but he must have forgotten that there are other people in Sydney who are acquainted with a good many of the facts as well as himself. It was well known by almost every cricketer in New South Wales that the M.C.C. intended, and had partly arranged, to bring out an English team of cricketers (composed partly of amateurs and partly of professionals) to these colonies this season, and that long before the trustees had made any move in the matter—Mr. P. Sheridan’s denial notwithstanding. It is also a fact that Lillywhite and his partners had no intention whatever of bringing out a team this coming season (their last venture having proved a financial failure), and when inter­ viewed by Mr. Sheridan upon the subject distinctly said so; and it was not until told by that gentleman, or someone em­ powered by him, that if they would not undertake to bring out a team there were others who would, and to induce them to do so, offered such favourable terms that Lilly- white and partners accepted. What those terms are, it is not my intention to say any­ thing about. They are no business of mine, or anybody else excepting themselves and the trustees. What I have written is for the sole purpose of placing a true statement of facts before the public and for the benefit of cricket. The trustees have been too long posing as injured individuals before the public. They are always being maligned, where they in reality should be praised, seeing they are always right, and every one else wrong. How­ ever, there is not a shadow of doubt but that the M.C.C. were first in the field with regard to bringing out an English team this season, and also that the trustees overcame Messrs. Lilly- white and partners’ scruples, and induced them to undertake the bringing out a team in opposition to the M.C.C. this coming season. It is well known that the trustees have no love for the M.C.C. in consequence of some mis­ understanding which arose between them at the time the Hon. Ivo Bligh’s team was out in the colonies. I am a New South Wales man, a cricketer, and a member of the New South Wales Cricket Association Committee. Con­ sequently, I have not written the letter in the interests of Victoria more than in those of New South Wales; but I believe in fair play, and I do not consider the M.C.C. is receiving fair play in the present instance. Mr. Sheri­ dan states that the trustees have no interest in the team Lillywhite and partners are bringing out, other than that they (the trustees) have agreed to act as their agents; but even so, say they are only agents, I should like to ask if it is within the powers of the trustees to do anything of the kind as trustees ? and if it is, I ask the public of New.South Wales if they think it redounds to the credit of the colony to have one of their Supreme Court Judges and their Under-Secretary for Lands figuring before them as the runners of a pro­ fessional cricketing team ? It is to be hoped (if only for decency’s sake), before going any further with the peculiar transaction, that they (the trustees above-mentioned) will assert their position.