Cricket 1892

10 6 CRICKET j A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAMEi MAY 5, 1892 CRICKET NOTCHES. B y the R ev . R . S. H olmes . I t is a solid comfort to us all to know that at the present time there is no vexed question agitating or dividing the cricket world. True, the “ lbw ” business is not quite as satisfactory as some of us would like. Law No. 24 is all right, if umpires will only put it into force with rigid impartiality. And there is less violation along these lines than there was two or three seasons back. Thanks to public opinion, the chief transgressors have taken the gentle hint, and no longer play with their pads balls that should be stopped with the bat alone. I was right glad when the Kent executive, through their noble Cap­ tain, refused to play the return match with Lan­ cashire in 1885. That action sounded the knell of the “ chucking ” bowlers, of whom there was a goodly number all over the county. Though I have always maintained that so tho­ rough a sportsman as A. N. Hornby would never have played men like Crossland, had he not been satisfied that their delivery was fair. Many said that it was a matter for the u m pire s to pronounce upon. So it was. But would they 1 no-ball ” a brother pro ? I spoke to one of the. oldest and most trusted servants of the M.C.C. on the matter. His answer w as: “ I am not going to take tbe bread out of any man’s mouth.” I began to wonder whether it might not become neces­ sary to appoint amateur umpires. I thought of John Lillywhite, and the historic no-ball epi­ sode of 1862. I am not likely ever to forget that memorable incident, in that it happened on the occasion of my very first visit to the Oval. He “ called ” Willsher six consecutive balls, because in his judgment the Kent bowler’s hand was raised above the shoulder, though his delivery was precisely the same then as it had been for years. The author of the “ Cricket Field ” says that Will- sher threw the ball. There I join issue with him. It was done with the wrist. But is that possible ? keep a stiff elbow (and Willsher certainly did this), and you cannot throw, even though you may indulge a “ flick ” of the wrist. There are a few bowlers to-day whose shirt­ sleeve I should like to see rolled up, in order that I might watch the play of their elbow. But could the bowler’s umpire see that ? Not unless he stood farther away from the wicket, somewhere near square point. In that case a third umpire would be required. A friend of j mine has a theory that umpires should be setto j pass an examination in eyesight before they can be chosen. And there is a lot in histheory. Umpiring demands as quick sight as batting, and yet the majority of our umpires are veteran cricketers, whose eyes have begun to fail equally with their muscles. But then they have experience on their side, and that is worth a lot. And, with all their partiality, they are men of sterling worth, and for the most part thoroughly dependable. I hope Notts will stick to little Baguley, and engage him straight away for all the matches of the season. He shapes like a oricketer. I saw him play at Sheffield last year. Every­ body pitied this new midget when he issued from the pavilion to face Peel and Harrison, and wondered how many overs he would last. Well, he lasted more than an hour, playing with all the nonchalance of a Shrewsbury; and when he landed Harrison for 5, the “ Tykes ” forgot that he was not one of them, and literally shouted themselves dry, if not hoarse. He is the smallest front-rank cricketer but one I ever saw. Peel looked quite imposing by the side of him. I had a chat with him, and conoluded he was nearer five feet than five feet four inches, as recently stated. Surrey once had a cricketer of the name of Gunn^ who was even shorter. He appeared some thirty years ago, was a pupil of Tom Lockyer’s, and was thought to be a coming man. But little was seen of him. If Baguley can only put on three or four inches I prophesy a more than respectable future for him. Provided, of course, that he has a thoroughly good trial. Not for a match or two. He will never show his best form under such con­ ditions. Nervousness has completely ruined many a promising career. Most counties are wanting in pluck and patience here. I re­ member many years ago sitting on the box seat of a London ’bus with a young county bowler. He told me, his captain—certainly one of the ablest captains of recent date—would say lo him before a match—“ You must bowl up to day; you failed last time ; remember you are on trial as a bowler.” As he added to m e; “ how can a youngster do himself justice, when he dreads that every match may be his last ? They don’t give us a chance, too much is expected of us every time.” Counties, especially Notts and Yorkshire, who are none too flush of likely cricketers at the present, should take a leaf out of Surrey’ s book. In 1881, Surrey j>layed a colt in five innings; he scored 17 runs in all. Now had he been a Yorkshireman, I am certain he would have been shelved at once. Why, only last year Yorkshire played a very promising colt, named Cartman, whose average for 6 innings was 21; and yet I am told he has not been en­ gaged for this season. Surrey, however, stuck to her colt, played him all through 1882, and with the most unsatis­ factory results, 24 inn- ings, with an average of 7£ runs. Now, of course, had Surrey been strong then, it might have been folly to persevere with this youngster. But Surrey were not strong, and besides, they saw clearly enough that they had discovered a genuine batsman, want­ ing in style, as all “ Parks ” cricketers must be, but who could be trained. So the colt was ke^t in the team, and with the most valuable results both to the County and him­ self ; for Abel has since proved himself to be one of our greatest pro­ fessional batsmen. Let Notts and Yorkshire follow suit. Had Notts been more patient, neither Sharpe nor Lockwood would have settled in the South. And never shelve an old cricketer so long as he has any form left. I have always thought Yorkshire erred in leav­ ing out Lockwood and Emmett as soon as they did. Last season I came aoross Bates, who has not played for the County since his de­ plorable accident in Australia. He maintains that he could play as good crioket as ever he could, and complained that he was not tried. Try him then, I would urge; it will soon be evi­ dent whether he is still worth his place or no. For something must be done to revive enthusiasm in Yorkshire cricket. Why, last year there were not a hundred members in the County Club. In Surrey there were 3,247! And this year the membership is likely to increase, seeing that Leeds ana Bradford get their share of County matches, and it is a rule that the members of a local club are admitted free to every County match on their own ground. Yorkshire used to be called “ the County of b o w le rsto -d a y Peel alone is firtt- cla8s. I wish to say nothing ungenerous, but JUST AS IT SHOULD BE. 1 st Y ou n g L a d y : “ Which of those numbers has your husband made, do you th in k ?” 2 nd Y ou n g L a d y : “ Oh, the top one, most likely, for he generally gets such a large score, and, besides, he’s the captain, you know.”