Cricket 1892

JUNE 2 , 1892 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME; 168 CRICKET NOTCHES. By t h e B e y . R. S. H o l m e s . Judging from the variety of questions these ‘ ‘ Notches” have provoked from known and unknown correspondents, I am afraid a measure of injustice has been dealt out to the writer of the same. That individual professes to speak with no authority what- boever beyond that which every earnest student of cricket possesses. Yet here is the editor of the Am erican C ricketer requestingme in these “ Notches ” authoritatively to settle two vexed questions. I won’t do that, but I will give him my opinion. His first query runs thus—A batsman struck a ball twice to save his wicket: his partner not knowing this, thinking the hit a fair one, called for a run and came down the wicket; the striker, mainly intent on saving his part­ ner from a run out, made the run. The umpire, appealed to on Rule 27, gave him out; was he ? ” Of course he was, if laws are laws. In an editorial in the Am erican Cricketer of May 11th, it is kurged that the men should have been informed that a run could not be scored from such a hit, and they should have been ordered back to their former positions. Granted that the non- striker did not see the ball struck twice, that does not affect the result. In cricket igoorance is punished equally with wilfulness. The game cannot be played too strictly in my opinion—the stricter, the better. A few years ago—I cannot put my hand on the match, though I can vouch for the incident—Barlow, of Lancashire, was caught napping. He struck the ball twice, the second time driving it into point’s hands. In a characteristic skittish way of his, Barlow just ran two or three paces outside the crease, not dreaming for a moment of really attempting the run, simply for a bit of fun. He was given out however. Suppose he had not been, and that the fielder had taken a shot at his wickct and missed it, and a boundary overthow had resalted, people would have said, “ Thunder­ ing knowing dog that Barlow; he deserved that four.” No, stick to the written laws. Will all readers of these Notches, without looking at the book, answer this question— How many laws are there ? ” There isn’t one cricketer in a hundred who can say off-hand. Could our umpires ? Some few years back—again I forget the exact match—I. D. Walker was fielding, and in the act of picking up the ball his cap fell off and stopped the ball. Now would you believe it, the umpire actually gave the batsmen five runs, and the Middle­ sex oaptain raised no protest? Ihat proved their ignorance of the law on this point—that is, Law 41 —and that enacts that only when the ball is “ wilfully” stopped other than “ with any part of his person, the ball shall be dead, etc., etc.” In the above case the cap fell off, and was not •*wilfully ” used to stop the ball. Hence no penalty of five runs ought to have been imposed. The other question concerns American cricketers only, but my editorial querist says “ It is coming up all the time and we should like it authoritatively settled.” It would seem that, following a habit contracted at baseball, many cricketers over there .whilst fielding wear gloves, generally small, so as to protect their hands. “ Is there any infringe­ ment of the rules, or any objection to this ?” Well, there is no written law forbidding such a custom, and one can only go by written laws ; consequently there is no infringement. There is, however, no such law sanctioning the use of gloves or pads by either batsman or stumper. And when gloves were first used bv the batsmen, men like Cowden Clarke, the “ Boswell ” to old Nyren, writing in 1840, ridiculed the innovation as a “ dandyism which the gentlemen of the present day have been compelled to resort to, in order to preserve their precious fingers from the fury of the bowlers.” He dubs it “ playing in stuffed m ittens ,” and adds “ the cat in gloves catches no mice.” No, no rule is violated ; but then one feels that an unwriHen law is infringed. Point or slip might, equally with the stumper, wear wicket-keeping gloves; no catches would then be muffed. Why don’t they ? They dare not: public opinion would not let them. “ Mrs. Grundy ” —that dear old tyrant—would say “ No,” and I take it no respectable club would ask such individuals to play in any further matches. Oh, do let us play cricket as sportsmen, and then we shall take no advantage whatever. If a man has a sore hand, let him wear a glove or anythin '’ elsethat will save it further damage. But not otherwise. The stumper may—nay, must: glovesare just indispensable to his hands ; but, “ by your leave,” no one else. All baseball players may, but no cricketer should. There should be so strongly expressed an opinion brought to bear on this matter, that no man in a skin would venture ever again on a cricket field thus mittened. But to the week’s cricket—good enough on the whole, but devoid of many noteworthy features. Yorkshire have had a gala week and enthusiasm up North has verily got drunk with excitement. Londoners don’t know what real cricket enthusiasm is; once a year, at the ’Varsity match, there is a passing flutter down Lord’s way, but that is all. You must go to Bramall Lane, Yorkshire’s cricket home since 1855, for the genuine article. It makes an old fossil like myself just ten, years younger to pay an occasional visit to the great cutlery town, especially on a Monday, the Sheffielder’s Saint's day. And, by the bye, Sheffiei nearly always contrives to fix the big matches for the earlier days of the week. There you see a thorough sporting crowd, every man “ gone” on his co-onty. Take a walk round in front of the rows or tiers of crowded benches; not much broad­ cloth can be seen, and not one pot hat, but countless earthenware mugs of beer, and the hugest sandwiches mortal eye ever beheld—so huge that one wonders how any ordinary individual can possibly put himself outside one of them, not to say some half a dozen. You will hear some rare English, too, which a Cockney will not easily understand, and at which he will certainly turn up his mostrefined nose. But it is a deal purer English than one hears in London. I never yet knew a bona fide Cockney that had either an “ a ” or a “ u ” in his box. And when Yorkshire are winning, the Sheffield crowd gets so dry with shouting that there are periodic stampedes in the direction of h refreshment room. It does one good to come across a crowd that is honest and natural enough to show its enthusiasm. But things looked queer on Monday last at Bramall Lane. Sussex had run up 171: that sent a cold shiver down my back, and when Yorkshire went down for 7i, and Hall and Peel just managed to get 4 between them at the second time of asking, my heart literally dropped into mv boots, and a hundred yoked horses could not have dragged me up the next morning. I wish I had gone now. Had I known all I should not have wanted coercing. A genuine trans­ formation scene! Yorkshire, all out, 226. Sussex sent to the right-about for 95. And Yorkshire passed the post first, with 40 runs to spare. It reminded me of the good old days when Yorkshire would do about the stupidest thing imaginable in cricket— succumb to a fifth-rate county, and then snatch a first-rate match clean out of the fire in a way no other county then could, and either Gloucestershire or Notts would have to cry “ Peccavi.” But this was one man’s victory almost entirely, and that man Wain­ wright. With the ball he did good enough work in all conscience, with eleven wickets for 11 runs apiece, but he capped that with an innings that certainly sent Yorkshire home first. And it was his first century in a first- class county match, and I trust he got more than the usual “ sov.” A “ fiver” would not misrepresent his services, nor, let us hope, wound his feelings. Nor must young Hirst be left out. Six wickets for 16 runs in the last innings ought to make his place in the team absolutely secure for this year at least. Peel was lying low in this match. Eight runs and two w cket^ *or 72 runs don’t mean that he hasn. his patent for run-getting and run- stopping to an Australian Syndicate, but simply that he’s giving some chum of his a chance of distinguishing himself. And then to Cambridge, and down go the Light Blues before Yorkshire, though their opponents were a trifle short handed with Douglas major, Streatfeild, and Wells wanted elsewhere. But. it w«s a thorough-paced victory, and several Tykes had a hand in it ; to wit, the noble Skipper, most genial and brotherly of men, got two very useful ideas into his head—45 and 40; Ilall has woke up at last, so has “ Our Jarge ; and as for Peel, he was bent on enjoying himself with an innings of 45, and eight wickets into the bargain. Loid Hawke put Cambridge in, and so the result justified this policy. Is it ever a thoroughly sound policy r John Shuter never resorts to it. But there are exceptional circumstances. This double victory will do Yorkshire all the good imaginable; coming at the opening of the season, it will put something better than “ Dutch courage ” into the Eleven. I am heartily sorry for Sussex. Poor Sussex! unluckiest of modern Countiep. How rarely they do well right through a match. At the start they often give us a genuine eye-opener, and then they go all to pieces when the tug-of-war comes. But it is at a crisis that real genius finds its oppor­ tunity. I wish they could have a turn. Tate is bowling well enough. Bean is brilliant, and Marlow’s 59 v. Yorkshire was decidedly capable. Brann is always to be dreaded, as all big smiters are. And Hide and Hum­ phreys are still something more than useful, whilst Parris and Gutteridge both impress me favourably. Yet they cannot win matches, whatever their luck in the matter of the toss. Notts did not give them very much to do, but it provided too much for them. A fourth innings of 139 on a dead wicket was not a herculean task against the lace county bowling of to-day. It might have been fifteen years ago. But bowling throughout this match held the whip hand, 32 being the highest individual score. Is ib too late to refer to Bob Clayton’s match at Lord’s? One doesn’t care much for matches with fancy titles, but this “ Married v. Single,” resurrected once more, was a genuine sporting affair. Scoring throughout was on the big side, and oue of the very best matches possible resulted. The “ young-uns,” though on paper second best, more than held their own throughout. Surrey were well to the front, each of their four representatives topping the half-century in one innings, and Lohmann upset twelve of the “ old-uns’ ” wickets altogether. Northern Counties must be prepared for squalls when John Shuter and his “ boys” have to be faced. Stoddart has come to the old country brimful of runs—about 150 runs in three con­ secutive innings, and all of the good old sort —the most perfect cricket, and plenty of wood behind every stroke. As I once was a play­ ing member in the Hampstead Club, I have naturally a sneaking fondness for Hampstead men, though A. E. S. and I have never met in the flesh. One liked to pee A. N. Hornby playing his old game in his own way. tfr course he took part in this benefit; whenever did he miss an opportunity of doing a good turn to an old pro ? When Jack Crossland was threatened with personal violence some 5 ears back at the Oval because he had “ chuckedout” the Surrey men, I remember seeing his captain accompany him, arm-in­ arm, through the excited mob, fully prepared, to judge by his eye, to take on any half-dozen with the “ bunch of fives.” Nobody took him on. Will some first-class County oblige by put­ ting the pot on M.C.C. ? These continuous victories are getting rather monotonous. Kent were their last victims, and a double 77 has no chance against a single 207. But the premier Club were mighty with the bat, whilst young Hearne and Pougher shared honours with the ball. Your hand, Oxford! Lancashire went home sadder, but wiser. And just because of brilliant fielding, especially towards the finish, when Crosfield was run out. Fry has shone in the best company, and Palairet’s work, both with bat and ball, did him infinite credit. Wood, too, showed the value of poor lobs. I