Cricket 1888

M AY 10, 1888. CRICKET: A WEEKLY BECOBD OF THE GAME, 128 CRICKET . (From the Saturday Review.) In the spring, not only a young man’sfancy, but that of persons who have seen a great deal more of the game than he has, lightly turns to thoughts of cricket. This is the golden chain that unites all ages. We may no longer sympathize with the thoughts of love to which the young man lightly turns when the wanton lapwing, in obedience to the law of sexual selection, gets himself another crest. Youth is easily moved in that direction, like M. Paul Bourget’s hero, who became so very much more enamoured when he was putting the White Rose scent on his pocket-handkerchief before going to call on the married lady. But who can receive without emotion the little red- leather tickets of the M.C.C. and the Surrey Club, enclosing the list of matches ? In the spring a fuller crimson comes upon the Surrey ticket, or seems to come, as the imagination dreams on approaching events. This year the Australians are here again, which is a joy to reflect upon, for they have always hitherto put interest and excitement into matches. Most matches we are obliged to contemplate in the spirit of devout but unemotional artistic criti­ cism. When Middlesex plays Gloucestershire, only members of the Western county care very much who wins. For Middlesexwho can feelany local affection ? The dwellers therein would as lief be beaten as not, if only they see good cricket. Nor does Yorkshire v. M.C.C. move us as patriots. Only the Schools and Univer­ sity matches can so excite observers that, as in Cobden’s year, they break their umbrellas into fragments, much as the Jews of old, regardless of expense, rent their robes when deeply stirred. Now about the Aus­ tralians it is different. We want to win, not always, nor even too frequently, for then the excitement would cease, but we want to win often, and in the great events. We trust that the Colonists will trounce Mr. Thornton’s team, they are welcome to conquer Warwick­ shire, and they may beat Surrey with our good will, if only Oxford can, at least, make a good struggle against them. They should not find the Gentlemen at Lord’s very difficult cus­ tomers. Where are our fast bowlers ? Mr. Christopherson, apparently, is no longer the Christopherson of 1884, whom Mr. Lefroy appears to celebrate in his excellent sonnet, “ The Bowler.” In the Gentlemen v. Australians, at the Oval, Mr. Christopherson took, first innings, eight wickets for 78, and second innings, three for 56. We have heard of no new fast amateur bowler to rival this nor to eclipse Mr. W hitby’s exploit, the same year at Oxford—eight wickets for 82 runs. An amateur’s fast bowling is like the flower of youth, and fleetly passes away; for only the perennial Mr. Robertson seems always useful, if never exactly surprising. The Gentlemen this year cannot hope for the aid of Mr. A. G. Steel, we presume—Mr. Steel who was so safe with his hundred, ’tis five years since. The cares of this world call the amateurs into business of every sort, and we are not aware that any new bowlers have arrived at their culminating season. Eton last year had a fast left-handed bowler of promise, but he would be something over-parted in a struggle with the Colonists. Perhaps Mr. Nepean may have been improving, and, if so, he will give much trouble on a suitable wicket. Mr. Grace, of course, may be as serviceable as ever. Mr. Roller’s and Mr. W . W . Read’s are names full of hope; but Mr. A. P. Lucas and Mr. Ridley are scarcely more likely to aid the Gentlemen than Mr.O .T.Studd,who was atower of strength before he exchanged some seasons of Lord’s for a cycle of Cathay. On the whole, if the Australians have not forgotten their cunning and their swashing blow, they should be at least a match tor the Gentlemen, though England, as the performances of our eleven in the colonies prove, ought to be their masters. Perhaps not more than three Gentlemen, at least if Mr. Steel shuns the field, would play this year for England. But with Briggs, Lohmann, Ulyett, and the flower of the Players, Flowers himself, and Barnes, England can yet speak, we fancy, to her children in the gate. There are to be no reforms in cricket this year, apparently. The recommendations of a sub-committee of M.C.C., formed in February, seemed sensible. They were :—‘‘ ‘ (1) That the over shall consist of five balls ; (2) that a bowler shall be allowed to change ends as often as he pleases, provided only that he does not bowl two overs consecutively in one innings ; (3) that on the last day of a match, or if a one-day match at any time, the in-side shall be empowered to declare the innings at an end.’ But recognising the great difficulties in the way of any extension of the law of leg- before-wicket, and the fact that the practice it was sought to prevent was adopted by a very limited number of cricketers, the com­ mittee abstained, for the present at all events, from recommending any alteration of the existing law.” Now, of all these proposed reforms, the change of the law in regard to 1b w is much the most important. We have often discussed the practical unfairness of the present condition of things, in which bowlers, already handicapped by the excellence of the grounds, are deprived of the success due to their best balls. The batsman has only to defend his wicket with his leg, against a break or twist. But it is held that even more dis­ cussion of a law forbidding the defence of the wicket by the body is needed. In fact, the moral tone of cricketers appears to want elevating ; when everybody sees the iniquity of the con­ duct which old Nyren (of all people) approved, then it will be possible to pass a stringent law of l.b.w. The position is like that of Copy­ right in America; conscience, the national con­ science, needs to be awakened. The awak­ ened section of Americans ask for the aid of the clergy ; but we can hardly hope that the British pulpit will ring with denunciation of the coupde botte. The Committee have-only arrived at a resolution in the air—“ That the practice of deliberately defending the wicket v»ith the person instead of the bat is contrary to the spirit of the game and inconsistent with strict fairness, and the M.C.C. will dis­ countenance and prevent this practice by every means in their power.” The democratic method would be to mob the offending batsman, break his windows, and confiscate his personal property. But cricketers are a law-abiding people. They will not even march out of church in a body when a sinner against bowlers enters the sacred edifice. Can a county be expected not to play a skilled professional who is notorious for putting his leg where his bat should be ? This would be a very useful, if also a striDgent, measure. Umpires are to be recommended to report persistent patrons of the coup de botte to the Committee, and probably a good deal of what is oalled “ pressure” in political English will be applied in one way or another. The other emendations are sagacious, but not very pressing. The rule of five balls an over already exists, in one-day matches, in manj districts. Probably few bowlers will find five balls too severe exertion, and the tedious time of crossing at the overs will be considerably shortened. A bowler, too, may be enabled to get the batsman just into the mental condition he wants for the subtlest effects, if he has five balls at him instead of four. A batsman may resist temptation four times, and succumb to a sham half volley on the fifth time of asking. As to the bowler’s,changing ends as often as he pleases, provided he does not bowl two con­ secutive overs, we scarcely s«e what the bowler has to gain by it. One end is certain to suit him better than the other; when he has found it (one experiment will suffice), let him stick to it. However, the rule will prevent such metaphysical puzzles as that which dis­ turbed a recent Rugby and Marlborough match. The bowrler had changed more fre­ quently than the law permits without attracting the notice of the umpire or of the opposite side. Every ball he bowled was thus illegal, a “ no ball,” and the question for philosophers was how could he be stopped. No amount of no balls make an over, and the wretched bowler ought to have trundled on till he fainted, or till the batting side won without the loss of another wicket. What did happen was, that the bowler got the one important wicket, and was disqualified at the end of the over. However, he had done what was needful, and the batting side was defeated; rather a hard thing for schoolboys to bear. As to the recommendation that a side should be allowed to declare its innings ended, so as to win and save a draw by efflux of time, that plan is certainly better than “ humbugging ” sc as to lose wickets, or knocking down wickets with the bat on purpose. The side that declares its innings over will take some risk, as Oxford did when she made 240 for one wicket against Cambridge, whereafter the remaining bats played the fool, and were very nearly throwing the game away. But the question of generalship remains the same, and the method is more dignified than the method of unhallowed slogging, “ without a conscience or an aim,” except the roof of the pavilion or the clock on the tennis court. These reforms, meanwhile, are taken ad avizandum , as Scotch lawyers say, and the game for this summer will be played on the old lines—we hope also on dry wickets. POINT HOUSE RAM BLERS v. CHARLTON PARK. Played at Charlton Park on May 5. P o in t H o u se R a m b l e r s . H. Crusbe, b Allen... J. H. W. Davies, b Allen ............... F. Spencer, b Allen J. A. Sturrock, c Allen, b Stapley ... B 3, w 1 ......... E. H. Rock, not out... A. Cosens, b W. Bur­ nett ... ................ F. J. Baldwin, c Dent, b Allen ......... ... C. J. Carver, lbw,, b W. Burnett ......... J. H. C. Elder, b Allen C. Foster, b Allen ... E. L. Pontifex, b A llen............... ... Total........ 44 C h a r lt o n P a r k . H. Martin, l bw , b Cosens ............... J. Stapley, c Carver, b Cosens ............... C. Lovey, b Carver ... W. Burnett, cRock, b Cosens ............... F. Turrell, b Carver 8. Burnett, b Carver H. Allen, b Cosens ... J. Keats, b Cosens... 1 C. Hoyland, st Bald­ win, b Cosens ... 24 F. Dent, b Elder ... 16 A. Burnett, not out... 21 B 14, lb 3, w 1 ... 18 Total........ 113 SUTTON y. HACK B R ID G E HOUSE. Played at Hackbridge on May 5. S utton . First Innings. c Turner, E. Windus, Wheeler ......... ......... F. Barry, b Wheeler......... L. J. Paice, c Hazell, b "Wheeler ..................... A. Hyslop, b Wheeler H. N. Sharpe, b I’Anson... D. R. Hallam, b I ’Anson... F. Charrington, b I ’Anson J. A. Home, b I’Anson G. A. Bacon, b I ’Anson ... F. Flemwell, not out........ F. Ashworth, b Turner ... Extras..................... Total ... ......... Second Innings. 12 b Robson......... 4 0 c Nicholls, b Robson ......... 1 8 lbw,b Wheeler... 0 2 1 not out ... ... 24 7 not out ... ... 24 4 22 b Turner ......... 10 1 17 b Gilbert ........ 1 1 11 E x tra......... 1 86 Total ... 71 H a c k b r id g b . W. Goad, b Paice ... 9 R. I’Anson, b Paice... 10 E. Gilbert, b Paice ... 2 S. Jones, run out ... 6 L.T.Turner, b Bacon 7 C. Bentley, b Sharp 18 C. Wheeler, b Sharp 0 G. Robson, run out A. Hazell, notout... Nicholls, b Bacon ... W. Hazell, b Bacon Extras............... Total... 0 2 0 1 9 . 64