Cricket 1888

34 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. MAB 29, 1888. the highest figures reached being 18 and 31 against the English Gentlemen, and 77 v. the West India Eleven. A t the beginning of the season of 1887 he was elected Captain of the University team, and his management of that as well as of the Belmont eleven was up to the highest standard. Although his wicket- keeping was all that could be desired, yet his friends feared that his continued ocoupancy of that arduous position was, in a measure, ac­ countable for his comparatively small scores in the Cup matches of the year, and yielding to their wishes, he consequently resolved to abandon the jpost. The result has been entirely satisfactory. During the past season he fielded with wonderful effect, making many phenomenal catches, as well as batting in the best form he has yet shown. His Cup average for 1887 was 41.14, his top score of the series having been made against the Yoang America eleven, on which occasion, by as brilliant batting as has ever been seen in America, he put together 90 runs, without giving the slightest shadow of a chance. His steady, consistent play throughout the season, coupled with the judicious management of his team, were prime factors in winning the Philadel­ phia championship for his club for the present year. In addition, too, this combination helped the eleven of which he was the head to make a two weeks’ trip—last July—through the principal towns of Western Canada with the most gratifying result of an unbroken succes­ sion of victories. A glance at the score-books for the eight successive seasons since 1880, when, at the immature age of fifteen, he com­ menced to play in first-class matches, shows the following result:—Innings 166, times not out 15, highest score 145, total runs 3,614, average 23.93—a record without a parallel in the history of American cricket. In an article on the tour of the Gentlemen of Philadelphia in “ James Lillywhite’s Cricketers’ Annual of 1885,” Lord Harris described Mr. Scott’s batting as “ decidedly good.” The praise, too, was fully justified. The Belmont captain has, indeed, a neat and taking style. He makes good use of his height, standing well up and playing with a very straight bat, is always a very difficult wicket to get. He is, moreover, as already stated, an excellent f eld anywhere. There are, too, few, if any, more popular cricketers in America. CWe are no* answerable for the opinions expressed by our Correspondents.] LEG-BEFORE-WICKET. To t h e E d it o b of “ C ric k et .” S ir , —The proposed alteration of the rule as to l b w is one which is regarded by a very considerable number of cricketers as of almost vital importance, and interest in the matter is day by day increasing. There appears to be in certain quarters a confusion of ideas on the subject. Some people object to the long scores of the present day; while others object to, what is called, leg play, and others again object to both long scores and leg play. The confusion of ideas to which I allude is that the two are frequently supposed to be to a certain extent identical; that long scoring is the result of leg play; and that to stop one is to stop the other. Now I contend that there is no necessary connection between the two things. They are totally distinct, and we ought to argue each question simply on its respective merits. Of course long scoring may coincide with leg play, or not. I think all who have sren much of this leg play must admit that it is usually accompanied by slow cricket, and it is this combination of leg play with slow cricket that is making the game unpopular. Stop leg play, and you will arrest this unpopularity ; and so far as I am aware there is a general consensus of opinion amongst cricketers that it is desirable to stop leg play. B ut we may have to pay too high, and it is this feeling which is causing a very- strong and growing dislike to Mr. Ellison’s proposal. W ith regard to the long scores of the present day, there are many who think that these long scores, so far from being a cause likely to make cricket unpopular, act in a precisely contrary direction. Who is the most popular cricketer, and who draws the largest crowds ? W . G. Grace. Why ? Because he has made, and still makes, larger scores than anyone else. Let any one appeal to bis own experiences. Surely the most pleasant matches have been large scoring ones, where there have been good full days’ cricket. What can bo ! moa:e wretched than to go out for a two-days match, and have the whole thing over early on the second day. That large scoring matches are more enjoyable than small scoring ones is more especially true as regards the spectators even than as regards the players. And, after all, it is the crowd—that is, the gate money— that gives cricket its present position. Look at the popularity of Shrewsbury, notwith­ standing his leg play, of Mr. W . W . Read, of Mr. A. G. Steel, and of nearly all the large scorers of recent years. What is the secret of their popularity ? Can any one doubt that it is owing to their large scores ? There is no enthusiasm shown on the cricket field equal to that which greets the end of a long good innings. When a representative match isabout to be played, why do people so fervently hope that there will be no rain, and that there will be a good wicket ? Bccause they hope to see plenty of runs got. I do very sincerely think that, if any alteration in the laws should make long scoring a thing of the past, a very great blow would be struck at the popularity of the game. One more point I must allude to in connec­ tion with this subject. It is proposed to stop excessive scoring by making an alteration in the rule of l b w . This means that a great many more batsmen will be given out lb w than at present, Now, every one knows how very unsatisfactory, in the large majority of cases, lb w decisions are. If these decisions should be, by the operation of the new law, increased, I think it is clear that the popu­ larity of the game will be diminished. It may be said “ batsmen must learn to play in a different way.” But is that possible? We may put leg play on one side for the moment, because it certainly is not true as a general rule that the most successful batsmen of the last fifteen years have been in the habit of using their legs in the way that is so much con­ demned. On the contrary, this new style of leg play is, even in first-class cricket, confined to a very select few, and, as to second-class cricket, it is a thing almost unknown. Can batsmen learn to play in a different way ? It must be remembered that the present style of batting, as taught at the public schools, and as recognized by the ablest judges of the game, is the outcome of years of experience and the closest attention. Are we to throw all that to the winds ? And even so, can any cricketer imagine how a man could play a great many kinds of balls without placing his leg between wicket and wicket? If the present style of batting is correct, and if it is to be maintained notwithstanding the proposed alteration, then it seems inevitable that lb w decisions will become more numerous. But this is the very thing it is so essential to guard against. If the fortunes of a game are constantly to depend upon the doubtful decisions of the umpire, the result must be great dissatisfac­ tion both to players and spectators. Quarrels and wrangling will be the consequence. ^ The game will lose its popularity, funds will be diminished, and cricket will make way for games like lawn tennis and lacrosse. And now I come to the consideration of Mr. Ellison’s proposal; and I want to show in the first place that there are almost overwhelming objections to it, and secondly that it is not necessary. First, as to the objections to the rule. In part I have dealt with this question by trying to show that if 1 b w decisions become very numerous, cricket will suffer. But there is, to my mind, another objection even stronger, which is, that the duties of the umpire will be made far more onerous. I have not a copy of Mr. Ellison’s proposed new rule by me, but I believe it is this—“ Or if, with any part of his person being in a straight line between wicket and wicket, he stop a ball which, in the opinion of the umpire, would have h it the wicket.” This clearly means that the ball must hit that 'part of the batsman’s person which is in a straight line between wicket and wicket, before he can be properly given out 1b w. Under the old rule the umpire lias to decide first whether the ball pitches straight, and secondly whether it would have hit the wicket. Under the proposed new rule he will have to decide, first whether the ball hits that part of the batsman’s person which is in a straight line between wicket and wicket, and secondly, whether it would have hit the wicket. I want to show that in both cases the umpire’s task will be more difficult under the new rule than it is under the old. I contend that it will be more difficult for the umpire to decide whether the ball hits that part of the batsman’s person which is in a straight line between wickets, than whether the ball pitches straight. Under the old rule, at all events according to its accepted interpretation, there is a supposed rectangular space bounded by supposed parallel lines drawn from the leg and off stumps of one wicket to the off and leg stumps of the other wicket; and within this space a ball must pitch before a man can properly be given out lbw. When an umpire takes up his position at the bowler’s wicket, he has this space more or less accurately, but in the case of anything like a good umpire I think sufficiently ac­ curately, in his eye. This is not a very good phrase, but will I hope convey my meaning. I do not think that good umpires would say that they find any great difficulty in deciding whether a ball pitches straight. Of course he has to be very attentive and watchful, but this is true as to every part of his duties. The area of ground within which the ball must pitch is a fixed and immovable surface, and it is this which enables an umpire to form a fairly accurate judgment. Under the new rule the umpire will have to decide whether the ball hits that part of the batsman’s person which is in a straight line between wicket and wicket. Now, the batsman’s person is hardly ever in the same position for five seconds together. Sometimes it is between wicket and wicket, sometimes not. Some­ times, and this is the usual case, part is in that position, and part is not. The umpire will have to decide as to a constantly shifting surface, instead of a fixed and immovable one. Which will be the more difficult ? I confess, I can hardly understand how there can be two opinions about it. The left leg is usually the offending member. Every one knows that the left leg is never in the same position when in the act of playing, as when the batsman is waitingto receive the ball. It is constantly on the move, and it frequently happens that, when the ball is being played, part of the left leg is between wicket and wicKet, and part is not. The umpire will have to decide whether the ball hits that part which is between wicket and wicket. Then again, the umpires will have to decide under the new rule as well as under the old, whether the ball would hav^ hit the wicket, but for the batsman interposing his person. Here too, the umpire’s task will be more difficult under the new, than under the old rule. This is rather an awkward matter to explain in writing, but I will endeavour to make it clear. Whether a ball would, or would not, have hit the wicket is, I believe, the main difficulty in lbw decisions. For some years I have had to keep wicket a great deal to all kinds of bowling and on all kinds of grounds, and my experience tells me that this point is far harder to decide than whether the ball pitches straight. The wicket-keeper is, especially I with regard to breaking balls, in a far better NEXT ISSUE, APRIL 12,