Cricket 1892

2 7 8 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME, JULY 7, 1893 CRICKET NOTCHES. B y t h e R e v . R . S. H o lm e s . T h e historio “ battle of the bowlers,’’ as the Yorkshire v. Notts match has been aptly oalled, ended in the most disappointing fashion—a draw. This year public interest was at the highest, for though Notts could show an unbeaten record, Yorkshire had knocked under to Surrey only, and under con­ ditions that made defeat no disgrace. There was the usual Monday crowd at Bramall Lane, the pavilion being more heavily patronised than at any match during the past two seasons. Thanks to the glorious sunshine of Sunday week, the ground had almost recovered from the effects of heavy rains, and a big fight seemed to be in store for us. Hall was wel­ comed back into his county’ s ranks with un­ stinted enthusiasm, and gave ample proof that he is far too good a man to be shunted just yet. A difference of 10—in Notts’ favour —was the state of the poll when the game was half over; but with six wickets in hand and 52 runs on—at Yorkshire’s second venture —the match was brought to a close. A thou­ sand pities every way. Anybody’s game cer­ tainly ; though, as Notts would have had the fourth innings on a crumbling wicket, it is more than probable Yorkshire might have caught the judge’s~eye first. There was but one innings of over 40—and that from Gunn’s bat. So the bowlers had the whip hand as usual in this county contest; at least two of them had—Peel dismissing six Notts batsmen for 54 runs, Attewell retaliating with an equally able result—eight for 74. When rain stopped play on Monday—they need not have broken off quite as early as they did—a huge crowd gathered in front of the pavilion, and kept up a run of Kentish fire for more than an hour at the expense of the “ Lambs,” at whom they “ baaed” (how’s that for spelling?) to their heart’s content. It was only their fun, the ordinary humour of a sporting miscel­ laneous crowd, not to be taken too seriously. I have seen it stated that in all likelihood Notts may refuse to meet Yorkshire at Bramall Lane for the future. It’s to be hoped they will do nothing of the sort. Cricketers must not have too sensitive a skin. All the booing and baaing came from the front row, which, as in most crowds, was composed almost entirely of young lads, who mean no harm when thus they open their lungs. I daresay they thought that the visitors had suspended play on account of the rain, which never troubles boys. Had they known that, by Law 43, it is the umpires , and not the players, who decide as to “ the fitness of the ground, the weather, and the light for play,” they would not have been quite so rough on good- tempered Sherwin, an especial favourite at Sheffield, as evidenced by the noisy banter he always gets there. On Monday evening a curious thing hap­ pened. Hunter cut Attewell for a single, which a wild return made into a fiv e: the batsmen did not change ends, and Hunter was bowled the following ball. I met the umpire immediately after, told him of it: he confessed to the oversight, and added that he probably would not have thought of it. But were all the Notts men as innocent ? Suppose Wain­ wright had been the batsman, and Hunter at the other end, what then ? Never mind, Hunter got the credit of four more runs than he was entitled to; for I feel bound to revert again and again to an old heresy of mine, previously put on paper, that overthrows should count as extras. Is it fair to Attewell or any other bowler that they should tell against the bowl­ ing analysis ? Byes don’t, nor leg-byes, why overthrows ? And here comes a “ Notch.” The “ Laws of Cricket” were revised by the M.C.C. in 1884; since then they have received further alterations or modifications, witness the Law No. 54—quite new in 1889—which deals with the “ closure.” It is pretty certain they are not absolutely perfect even yet. Now if you happen to possess a copy of Mr. Pycroft’s in­ valuable book called “ Cricketana,” you will find there a whole chapter devoted to old Tom Barker’ s Commentaries on the Laws that were binding in his day. Barker was a Notts man, a great bowler once upon a time, subsequently an umpire of unequalled experience. And the old man had a rare head on his shoulders, and had a lot to suggest respecting the Laws, though, as Mr. Pycroft states, many of his comments prove that he must have been in very bad company during his career as an umpire. And did not the “ Red Lilly,” up to 1884, have some very useful notes on the Laws, seriatim ? Since then, we have had no interpreter. Now for a long time I have been wanting to throw out a hint to the effect that this most necessary task should be under­ taken by a practical authority of wide experi­ ence. I mentioned the matter quite recently to my friend, Richard Daft. Here’s his answer, to hand yesterday—“ You are quite right about the law s; I was only thinking of the same thing a few weeks ago.” Then can’t somebody persuade him to step into tjje breach? Would an old ciicketer, e.g., have ever drawn up so “ muddy ” a Law as No. 39 ? The latter half of it reads thus—“ if the striker be out of his ground while the ball is in play, that wicket which he has left may be put down and the striker given out, although the other batsman may have made good the ground at that end, and the striker and his substitute at the other end.” What docs it mean ? I have shown it to dozens of cricketers, and they all with one accord say, “ give it up.” Quite recently I buttonholed a county umpire, he read it over three or four times, and then candidly confessed that he couldn’t make head or tail of it, “ but would think over it.” Just at that moment a well-known cricketer joined us. He informed us that he could explain any and every point in the Laws ; and, upon my word, his looks confirmed his remark. So No. 39 was read to him. At once he made it clear by an incident in his own career. “ Last year I got hurt in a match, and had a man to run for me. I played a ball—an easy run for one—I forgot all about my injury, and ran down the wicket, got home, and so did my substitute; whilst my partner also reached the other end in safety. I was given out, however, and just because my substitute had to do the running, and not I. I ought not to have left my original end; had it been a hit for two, and I, as well as my substitute, had run in, and landed home, no harm would have been done, for I should in that case have been at the right end.” I thanked him for his lucid comment, and added that either that or the law preceding ought to state very expli­ citly that only the substitute should run, for as it is a novel experience to all batsmen not to run between the wickets, and as in the excitement of the play an injured batsman might easily forget his sprain or accident, it seemed rather hard on him to be given out under the circumstances already referred to. But is that the meaning of this Law ? I think it must be, though I am not certain. Anyhow, laws for practical guidance should be so simple that persons as dense as myself should never be in doubt as to their meaning. Surrey have had another busy and successful week. Their match with Gloucestershire had more than one feature of interest. First of all, the famous Australian bowler, J. J. Ferris, made his debut in English county cricket. He did not “ come off; ” but he has had too little practice in front rank matches since 1890 to get back into his old form all at once. It may just happen that he will miss his old chum, Turner. Great bowlers need support to do themselves ample justice. It has rarely happened in the history of cricket that a bowler has made a big name unless well backed up at the other wicket. Famous bowlers have invariably run in couples. We shall see whether Ferris proves a notable exception to this rule. So far Lohmann seems to be missing the services of Sharpe, whose trip to Australia has apparently done his bowling no more good than it has Bean’s bat­ ting. It is just possible, however, that he wants a rest, or is a trifle out of sorts. A very little thing will put a great bowler completely off, aye, and a great batsman too. Peate— once the best slow bowler in England—told me one day that during the larger part of one season he had a slight touch of rheumatism in the left shoulder, and couldn’t bowl his best. And I have read somewhere that H. H ' Stephenson, who thirty years ago was famous for his “ break-backs,” i.e., balls that break from the off, on one occasion from a terrific return had his right hand so numbed that ever after he lost much of his old command of the ball. The tall colt from Mitcham— Richardson—also a fast bowler, looks a very likely man. And now that E. C. Streatfeild is available, Surrey may take heart again. One likes to come across an instance of true chivalry in any sport. And surely our veteran champion gave it us in this match, when he most courteously allowed a substitute—a stumper—to take the place of the Surrey stumper that got injured. It is a fashion in certain quarters to make a target of the most brilliant exponents of any sport, and cricket is no exception. One so often hears ungen­ erous and even spiteful remarks about real genius, that it is simply delightful to be able every now and then to give the most unequi­ vocal denial to them. I cannot recall a case in which a captain has dealt quite so gener­ ously with his opponents. According to Law 38 (no bad language, gentle reader, at this Law-mania of mine), a captain’s consent has to be obtained “ as to the person to act as substitute, and the place in the field which he shall take.” But there is a lex non scripta in cricket and every other sport, and this is what W .G. observed. Watts at onoe showed his appreciation of this undeserved favour by making three catches as soon as he put on the “ mittens.” Surrey’s match with Scotland was another triumph of the old decisive sort—an innings and 247 runs. It was W .W .’s opportunity, and right glad are we all that he rose to the occasion, 156 is a rare feat for a veteran. And thebowling could not have been socontemptible after all, seeing that the next best Surrey innings was 44 only. No, rather let us say that the bat—at least W .W .’s—beat the ball. Lohmann and Lockwood were handy enough with the ball, if five wickets for 13 runs, and nine for 55, respectively, mean anything. This was the first match bearing this title. But exactly thirty years ago, the Gentlemen of Scotland, i.e. Scotland—for professional crick­ eters have been almost unknown there—met the Surrey Club—not County. And a famous bowler from the North played in that match— David Buchanan—who for years helped the Gentlemen in their contests with the Players. Warwickshire was his County by adoption. Many can recall his slow left-handers. I occasionally played against him in the Mid­ lands, and discovered that his custom was, after every innings, to get the analysis of his own bowling, and then enter it in a note-book specially kept for this purpose. I should dearly love the loan of that book for one day. There is no need to refer to the fifty- eighth University match. Are not all the minutest details written in the chronicles of the daily press ? And by competent eye-witnesses too. It is al­ ready history past. The most memorable in many respects of the whole series. Ever so many “ records” ; the highest aggregate- 1100 runs in all—three individual scores of 100 and odd runs—and very nearly the biggest “ gate ” —30,338, that of 1881—30,679—alone capping it. And the prophets all wrong again. “ The last, first, the first, last.” Let nore say now that the weaker team won ; that’s a poor compliment to the stronger team, so- called. No, in a match where the weather and the wickets were perfect, the final result should convince us that possibly the “ Dark Blues ” had been under-rated, and the “ Light Blues ” over-rated. The bowling was below the mark, hence the batting was above the mark. There was no Evans or Butler, Powys or C. T. Studd, A. G. Steel or S. M. J. Woods in either eleven. Oxford had not had a turn since 1887, so nobody will grudge her this “ glorious victory.” Last year, with tho help of Woods, Cambridge only just pulled through. My recollection of this match dates back to R. A. H. Mitchell’s day. Yardley, I saw get his splendid 130 in i872. And I begin to wonder whether, from that day to this, either University has sent forth the peer of either Mitchell or Yardley.